I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Uxbridge Division of Middlesex means to move the rejection of the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not wish to interpose between him and the House if he means to do so. I do not intend to move the rejection of the Second Reading myself, I may say, but I cannot allow the Bill to pass at this stage without calling attention to one or two points, which the House ought to be put in possession of. In the first place, this Bill is introduced, as I understand, really—

On the point of order, I might just say that, after what has taken place in the House, it is not my intention to move the rejection of the Second Reading, but I certainly propose, with your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Instruction; and, therefore, I raise the question whether the whole Debate be taken on the Instruction, or partly now and partly at that time. I put it to my hon. Friend (Mr. Stuart) whether it would not be well to take it all at that time?

I am in the hands of the House and yourself, Mr. Speaker, as to the way it would be best to deal with this matter. I wish to deal generally with the situation in question, and if I can deal with that sufficiently on the Instruction, for the convenience of the House, I should do so; otherwise, I should make the few remarks I have to make at the present moment; but I do not intend to move the rejection of the Bill.

It would be a pity to have two Debates on the same point. As far as I can gather from the Instruction, it seems to raise an objection to too much water being taken from the river. If that is the same objection that the hon. Member wishes to allude to, it seems to me that the Debate had better be taken on the Instruction. If the hon. Member has other points to bring before the House, he can, of course, raise them now on the Second Reading.

That is, Sir, the reason why I rise at the present moment, because I believe the few remarks I have to make would probably be out of order, upon the simple and definite wording of the Instruction. I am not about to move the rejection of this Bill on the Second Reading, inasmuch, as the Bill is introduced into this House in virtue of a clause in the Bill of last year, which practically obliged the company in question to introduce some Bill or other this year. Now, though I entirely disapprove of the Bill which has been introduced, yet I think that, having regard to the position of the Bill and of the clause in the previous Bill, it is more respectful to the House that I should not endeavour to deal with the Bill so as to reject it on the present occasion, but should allow it to go before a Committee, so far as I am concerned, in which Committee the whole question of the Bill will, I hope, be fully investigated. But, Sir, I must say, at this stage, that I reserve to myself the right of opposing this Bill, when it comes back from the Committee, upon certain general points, which I feel the House itself is probably as fit, if not more fit, to deal with than a Committee. But, Sir, let me just remind the House of the circumstances in which this Bill is brought in. There was a Bill brought in last year, which finally passed through this House, giving a limited period to the company to draw the extra quantity of water, which they had arranged with the Thames Conservancy to draw from the Thames for a period, I believe, of, roughly speaking, a couple of years. Now, Sir, I negotiated with the company, and offered to them this: that, seeing that the whole question of the future control and conduct of the water supply of London was in the melting-pot, the simplest and best way to deal with this difficulty in which the Southwark and Vauxhall Company find themselves would be that a Bill—which I then suggested might be for five years—should be passed, which would give the company full power to continue to do what it was at present doing, without being hindered by any injunction, and that in the meantime we should have an opportunity of knowing how the Water Question of London was to be settled, and whether general and continuous powers ought to be given to the company or not. Now, Sir, a modification of that suggestion was adopted, and a couple of years were granted to the company—not quite in the form which I suggested, certainly, to the House—and with the obligation of bringing in this Bill, which I then suggested, as being about to be brought in at too early a period. But there was in the House at that time a very confident hope that something was to be done by the Government with respect to the settlement of the London Water Question, which would have become operative by the present time, or, at any rate, the character of whose operation we would be able to form some conception of at the present time. There was also the promise of a Bill, to be introduced by the Government at that time, which should deal, to some extent, with the London Water Question—a Bill which, of course, is now turned into an Act, and which, the House will remember, dealt only with one or two outlying portions of the Water Question, not affecting the position or condition of this company, or of its future, or, indeed, of the future of any of the water companies. Sir, the Bills which I had the honour of bringing in with respect to the purchase of the water companies were thrown out largely upon the understanding, which was emphasised by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (the Hon. Lionel R. Holland) and the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Harry H. Marks), that the speedy dealing with the question on a wide basis was to be taken in hand by the Government. What I submit to the House at present is that a Bill giving permanent powers to the company, which now applies to us, would be really in contravention of the spirit, at any rate, of the circumstances under which the Bill of last year was passed, and that the time has not come for the giving them such permanent powers. I hope to have the opportunity of laying, or of there being laid, before the Committee of this House the views that I am now expressing; but I must reserve for myself the right of raising this question again at a subsequent stage of this Bill. I wanted to point out with respect to this Bill, one or two issues of importance. In the first place, we maintain that, taken in conjunction with the Staines Reservoirs Scheme, the scheme of this Bill—if it be carried out—is a scheme which gives the right, under certain restrictions, of drawing permanently about double the quantity of water which they are at present authorised to draw from the Thames to this company, and will practically denude the Thames of water—practically it will denude the River Thames of water. Then, in the second place, I want to point out that the scheme of this Bill, which we now have before us, is incompatible with the scheme laid down by the Royal Commission, which was presided over so ably by Lord Balfour of Burleigh; and I wish to lay before the House the further consideration that, in my opinion—if it be found necessary, pending the settlement of the Water Question, that this company should proceed for further powers of a permanent kind in this matter—we shall endeavour to lay before the Committee, and also before this House, that, as we maintain, if this company finds it necessary, pending that solution, which we are all expecting in some form or other, that this permanent power should be given to it, that there should be included in this Bill some form of purchase clause, whereby some local authority, or some authority, or an authority, should be empowered to purchase on behalf of the public this company. I have pointed out, on more than one occasion, in this House that the delay in dealing with the solution of the Water Question was throwing, if not the obligation, at least the opportunity, upon the water companies—upon this one and that one—of coming to the House and securing such rights and such privileges as should greatly increase their value as going concerns, and greatly increase the price that would have to be paid for them. It is impossible to believe, Sir, that we can give a permanent concession of twice the quantity of water to any company without increasing the value of that company. This very point that I am bringing before the House for a moment was insisted upon by an important hybrid Committee, presided over by the hon. Member for the County of Durham (Sir Joseph Pease), which Committee pointed out the difficulty in which the House was placed on account of this great point that I am bringing before the House just now. I do not wish to detain the House at all at this moment; I do not wish to move the rejection of this Bill at this stage, because of the reasons I have given. It is introduced under a clause of an Act of Parliament, a clause to which I objected at the time, and which I pointed out might lead us into the very difficulty in which we, I believe, stand at this day. But I felt, Sir, that it was desirable, before this Measure proceeds to leave the House and go into Committee, to raise these points before the House, as points upon which I lay great stress, as points which I am prepared to have contended before the Committee, and as points which I believe the House itself will have to be called on finally to decide before this Bill passes from its purview. Sir, the position of the Water Question, which I have just described, in respect of this company, is rendered extremely difficult, I believe, by the delays that have been interposed in respect of a policy of purchase, which I have had the honour of bringing forward in this House. With these few remarks, Sir, I shall not offer any further opposition to the Bill at this stage.

The hon. Member who last spoke and myself are in accord in not opposing this Bill, but we agree in nothing else. I certainly do not agree with his arguments. The question which he raises is a question of water supply, and whether it shall be supplied by the London County Council or by the water company. The policy of the London County Council is that the water shall not be taken from the Thames, but from other sources. The Thames Conservancy are clear upon this point: that there is enough water in the Thames for the whole population of London for the next 100 years to come, if it is only taken in the proper way. We think the rule laid down by the House is the right rule, and that the supply shall be made from reservoirs. Of course to maintain a sufficient flow of water for navigation is of the greatest importance, and so long as we get that we consider that the water company ought to be allowed to have the water if they lake it under proper terms. The House has recognised that, and has stated that large reservoirs shall be made by this company. We want that extended to other companies, as far as is necessary, so that the people of London should get their water without being under the thumb of the London County Council.

I think the hon. Baronet slightly misunderstood the speech of my hon. Friend. We are not discussing the question of the amount of water which the company should take from the Thames, or whether the company should take any at all. I understood my hon. Friend to enter a protest—with which I cordially agree—namely, that at the present moment the Government, having referred the whole Water Question to a Royal Commission for inquiry, it is not right for any water company to come to this House and ask for permanent powers to take so much water in the future from the Thames, or anywhere else. We wish to enter a protest against this Bill becoming a permanent Act. We do not oppose it as a temporary Measure, for which there may be urgent necessity; our only protest is against it being treated as a permanent Measure, because as such it would distinctly prejudice the position of the Royal Commission.

I recognise the deference shown by the two hon. Gentlemen opposite to the directions given by Parliament last year. I only wish to say that if the last statement were to pass uncontradicted at this stage it might have an undeservedly injurious effect on the Bill. We shall be prepared at the proper time to prove that the Bill, not only will not denude the Thames of necessary water, but that it will fully carry out the statutory obligations expressly laid down upon the promoters, as well as all the private undertakings given by them.

I will move my Instruction to the Committee this day week.

reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the Consideration of all Bills relating to Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure which may, by Order of the House, be submitted to such Standing Committee:—Mr. Asquith, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. J. B. Balfour, Mr. Bartley, Mr. Dunbar Barton, Mr. Beach, Mr. Bucknill, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Carew, Sir Edward Clarke, Mr. Coghill, Dr. Commins, Mr. Radcliffe Cooke, Mr. Cripps, Mr. Bromley-Davenport, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Tatton Egerton, Mr. Samuel Evans, Sir Thomas Fardell, Mr. Lewis Fry, Mr. Sydney Gedge, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Godson, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Graham, Mr. H. D. Greene, Mr. Haldane, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Helder, Mr. Hemphill, Mr. Staveley Hill, Mr. Hobhouse, Sir John Jenkins, Mr. Johnson-Ferguson, Mr. Knowles, Mr. W. F. Lawrence, Sir Joseph Leese, Mr. Loder, Mr. Luttrell, Mr. MacNeill, Sir Henry Meysey-Thompson, Mr. Molloy, Mr. Monk, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Mr. John Morley, Mr. Mount, Mr. Graham Murray, Captain Norton, Mr. Arthur Pease, Mr. Pickersgill, Sir Francis Powell, Mr. Pryce-Jones, Mr. John Redmond, Sir Robert Reid, Secretary Sir Matthew White Ridley, Mr. Bryn Roberts, Sir Andrew Scoble, Mr. Parker Smith, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Ernest Spencer, Mr. Francis Stevenson, Sir Howard Vincent, Mr. Warr, Sir James Woodhouse, and Mr. Samuel Woods.

further reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the Standing Committee for the Consideration of all Bills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufacture: Mr. Ascroft, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Baird, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Beckett, Mr. Blake, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Brown, Mr. Bryce, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Burt, Sir Charles Cayzer, Mr. Channing, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Jesse Collings, Sir John Colomb, Sir Charles Dalrymple, Mr. Daly, Mr. Davitt, Mr. Fenwick, Sir R. Penrose Fitzgerald, Sir Henry Fowler, Mr. Gilliat, Sir Edward Gourley, Sir Reginald Hanson, Mr. Harrington, Sir Alfred Hickman, Sir Edward Hill, Sir William Houldsworth, Major Jameson, Mr. Jeffreys, Sir James Joicey, Mr. Kenrick, Mr. Lambert, Sir Thomas Lea, Sir Elliot Lees, Mr. Walter Long, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Maclean, Dr. MacDonnell, Sir Samuel Montagu, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Oldroyd, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Randell, Mr. Rankin, Mr. Renshaw, Sir Thomas Richardson, Mr. Ritchie, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Round, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Seton-Karr, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Mr. T. H. Sidebottom, Mr. Samuel Smith, Mr. Strachey, Mr. Tennant, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Tully, Mr. R. G. Webster, Mr. George Whiteley, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. John Wilson (Falkirk), Mr. John Wilson (Govan), Mr. Wolff, Mr. George Wyndham, and Mr. Young.

further reported from the Committee: That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure, the following Fifteen Members, in respect of the Benefices Bill and the Benefices (No. 2) Bill:—Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Balfour, Mr. Griffith-Boscawen, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, Mr. Harry Foster, Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Humphreys-Owen, Mr. Jebb, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Lyttelton, Mr. McLaren, Mr. Perks, Colonel Sandys, Mr. Talbot, and Mr. Carvell Williams.

I beg to give notice that this day four weeks I will call attention to the state of the Patent Laws and move a Resolution.

I have to give notice to move a Resolution in reference to the Extension of Local Self-government in the United Kingdom.

I beg to give notice for this day four weeks to call attention to the necessity for establishing Evening Continuation Schools with compulsory attendance, and to move a Resolution thereon.

I have to ask leave to introduce a Bill relating to the Dog Laws. I do not think there is any need to trouble the House at any length in explaining its provisions. It is practically the same Bill as was introduced in the year 1894, with only a few very slight alterations, based upon the recommendations of a Departmental Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Chelsea. It does not confer any new powers on the central authority; but it confers on local authorities certain powers to make regulations and bye-laws regarding stray dogs. I do not suggest that the Bill will supplant the muzzling regulations. It is rather to give powers to the local authorities after muzzling has done its work to keep the districts in a satisfactory condition. I hope, therefore, the House will allow it to be read a first time.

This Bill, which I have also to ask leave to introduce, likewise carries out the recommendations of a Departmental Committee. Universities and Colleges have recently had great difficulty in maintaining their position, in consequence of the depressed condition of landed property, and they have been in a restricted position as compared with limited owners. This Bill, although in the main a consolidated Bill, makes certain alterations in the existing law, in accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk. The practical effect will be to place Universities and Colleges in the same position as is now occupied by limited owners under the Settled Lands Act, the distinction being that limited owners are protected by trustees, whereas in the case of Universities and Colleges the Board of Agriculture fills the place of trustees. I hope that if the House permits the Bill to pass into law it will remove some of those obstacles which make it difficult for Universities and Colleges to do as much as they would like for the cause of education.

moved—

"That, looking to the grievous loss of life to Scottish fishermen from periodical disasters during the last half-century; to the fact that repeated Public Commissions and Committees of Inquiry have proved that want of proper boat refuges is the grand cause of these disasters, and have emphatically declared the responsibility of Government to provide such refuges; and to the fact that a sum of £34,000, surplus of herring-brand fees, levied from the fishing industry and specially applicable to harbour construction, is now lodged in the Treasury and retained without any service rendered, this House is of opinion that it is the duty of the Government forthwith to provide proper harbour accommodation for fishermen along the Scottish coasts, and that the Government incurs a serious responsibility for the loss of life and property arising in future from the want of such provision."

He said: I am going to ask the patience of the House while I place before it a few facts with regard to fishery harbours. The question is one of life and death to a large number of very deserving people. I think that these facts will show very clearly what is the duty of the Government in regard to this question, and also how far the Government has performed that duty. Mr. Speaker, this question is really a simple one, because the facts are not disputed, and because the subject is not complicated by Party considerations. The difficulty is purely one of money—pounds, shillings, and pence; but, happily, at the present time the Treasury is full to overflowing. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton stated the other day that, in his belief, the surplus would be enormous—that it would be almost incredible. I trust, therefore, that the plea of the lack of pence will not be put forward by the Government. From the Party point of view, I think I many claim the special support of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because Unionists are bound to show that the Imperial Parliament is capable of effectively dealing with local Scottish grievances. So far as the Members of this side of the House are concerned, I can say with confidence that if we only had Home Rule for Scotland this grievance of the Scottish fishermen would not remain neglected any longer. Now, this need for fishery harbours is felt by every coast constituency in the country, and I have no doubt that hon. Members will each bring forward the case of his own locality. I will give you a few figures from my own neighbourhood, which I know best—the north-east of Scotland, along the shores of the Moray Firth. That district is a very important one, because there is in it a very large fishing population. I think it is admitted that the coast is one of the most dangerous in the country, and I think we may say that the harbour accommodation is specially defective, and that the loss of life has been greater there than anywhere else. I will begin by referring to the disaster of 1848. On that occasion a terrible gale suddenly arose from the north-east, and a number of fishing-boats were lost. On that occasion no fewer than a hundred fishermen were drowned, leaving behind them 47 widows and 161 fatherless children. That took place fifty years ago, and the reasons I go back so far are two. One of those reasons is that so long ago as that the responsibility of the Government was clearly declared with regard to this loss of life. The second reason for going back is this: that since that time the size and number of the fishing boats have enormously increased; and, therefore, what was stated to be necessary in 1848 in the way of harbour accommodation applies with far greater force now. Not less than the amount then required, but more than that amount, is necessary for 1898. Now, this terrible disaster of 1848 caused a great sensation throughout the country. The feelings of the people were very much shocked, and a Commission was appointed to inquire into this great loss of life. This Commission was presided over by Admiral Washington, Hydrographer General to the Admiralty, and they issued a Report. That Report was to the effect that the want of a good harbour accessible at all times was the grand cause of this loss of life. Fishing boats are lost at sea because they cannot get into harbours that are accessible at all states of the tide. This Commission declared that this want of good harbours, accessible at all times, was the grand cause of the loss of life, and they also declared that the pittance of £3,000 a year, which was all the Government gave towards the harbours, was quite inadequate; and they recommended that £10,000 should be granted for a few years, and they added that this amount, if—

"Steadily laid out on piers and harbours, would do much to remedy the want, and to place the fishermen of the east of Scotland on a par with those on more favoured coasts."

Nothing, however, was done, and in February, 1857, another great disaster occurred. On that occasion nine fishing boats were lost from the Buckie district alone, the total deaths being 42 men, leaving 27 widows and 79 children. Again a Special Commission was appointed, presided over by the late Mr. James Wilson; and again recommendations were made similar to those of 1848; but again nothing was done. The next great disaster was in 1864, when 35 men were drowned; and my predecessor, Mr. Duff, pressed in the House of Commons for the fulfilment of the recommendations made by the Commissions. In May, 1883, a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed, the chairman being Mr. Marjoribanks, now Lord Tweedmouth. This Committee distinguished between boat harbours necessary to preserve life and harbours needed merely for commercial purposes, and made clear the direct responsibility of Government with regard to the former class, recommending that public money should be granted—

"To provide refuge, chiefly for fishermen on certain portions of our coast, to which a large number of boats belong, and off which great fisheries are prosecuted, while the existing harbours are only accessible during a certain limited portion of each tide."

This exactly describes the condition of affairs along the south coast of the Moray Firth. The report then continued—

"Your Committee believes that it falls entirely within the province of the Government to provide the much-needed refuge in these districts, it being absolutely impossible that the fishermen themselves can raise sufficient funds for such works, or find the security upon which to borrow to carry them out. Your Committee do not believe that the sum of money required would be a very large one. Six or eight works, carried out at an average cost of from £80,000 to £100,000, would probably meet all the requirements of the case."

Thus the facts proved at these successive inquiries establish beyond dispute that the periodical disasters to the fishing population arise from the want of proper fishery harbours, and that it is a primary duty of the Government, as protector of life and property, to provide these harbours, it being absolutely impossible for the fishermen to do this for themselves. The question is, therefore, reduced to a question of money. I have accordingly paid special attention to the financial history of the case, and have addressed the Secretary for Scotland, tracing the grants of public money in detail from the beginning of the century. I will not weary the House with these particulars, but will only state the general conclusions. I claim to have proved that whereas the figures show a vast expansion of the Scottish fishing industry, with a corresponding increased need of harbours, the grants of public money have been largely decreased instead of increased. Indeed, as compared with the beginning of the century, the Imperial Exchequer is not helping the Scottish fishing industry at all, but, on the contrary, is actually making a profit out of it to the extent of £13,000 a year. This amount is made up as follows. At the beginning of the century bounties to the extent of £11,000 per annum were granted on the export of cured and branded herrings. These bounties were paid out of the Scottish Excise and Customs Revenue, and the necessary inspection and branding were done by the Government officers without charge. When, therefore, these bounties were stopped, and a heavy charge of about £5,000 per annum was imposed by means of herring-brand fees to pay for the inspection and branding, Scotland and the Scottish fishing industry were losers to the extent of £16,000 a year. In exchange for this loss a paltry allowance of £3,000 per annum for harbours was granted, leaving the net profit to the Imperial Exchequer of £13,000 a year as already stated. I have recapitulated these figures in order to show that even if the full amounts recommended by Admiral Washington's Commission and Lord Tweedmouth's Committee were granted, they would still not put the Scottish fishing industry in as good a financial position as it held at the beginning of the century. Such is the general financial position. But in my resolution I made a special claim to a definite sum of £34,000 on account of surplus herring-brand fees. In a few words I will explain how that claim arises. When, as above stated, it was decided to make the fishing industry contribute £5,000 a year to the cost of the Government establishment, a branding fee of 4d. per barrel was imposed, and the whole amount collected was swept into the Imperial Exchequer. But after a time it was discovered that instead of producing £5,000 a year the fees produced something like £8,000. This surplus has since then been very properly handed over annually to the Scottish Fishery Board for the purpose of harbour construction, but while they admitted that they had no right to the extra £3,000, they had never refunded what they had already drawn. When I questioned the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate on the subject, he informed me that the amount of £34,000 was correct, and had been lodged in the Treasury. Sir, it is our duty to dislodge it. It belongs to the Scottish fishing industry, and the Government have no equitable claim to it. In common honesty that £34,000 should, irrespective of other claims, be immediately handed over to the Scottish Fishery Board. That, Mr. Speaker, is a statement of the facts I wish to place before the House. Disasters will undoubtedly happen unless something is done. The last time I visited my constituency a terrible gale sprang up from the north-east. Fortunately, it was a Sunday, when it is the custom of the Scottish fishermen not to put to sea, otherwise a disaster might have taken place. But if any fresh disaster had taken place, public opinion would have supported the declarations of the fishermen, that unless this £34,000 is refunded a great personal responsibility rests upon the Members of the Government for loss of life and property which may arise from the want of those boat refuges which it is their duty to provide.

I beg to second this Motion. To my mind the principles involved in the discussion before the House are of the most deep-seated and far-reaching character. The principles involved in this discussion are, on the one hand, self-help, with regard to our various trades and occupations, and, on the other hand, the need of Parliamentary interference, and of the relaxation of the Treasury purse-strings, when private effort has exhausted itself, and public help is demanded for a hardy, vigorous, and energetic population like the seafaring people of the north-east coast of Scotland. We do not come to the House as paupers or beggars, but as representatives of men who have, in their boats and tackle, a very considerable amount of capital for that class of citizen. We come to the Treasury requesting its respectful attention to our demands, because we represent communities that have, I believe, almost exhausted their financial resources in an earnest and honest effort to procure the necessary assistance for the creation and maintenance of harbours for the fishing population resident under their jurisdiction. From a borough in one of the counties I represent I have received most urgent letters pointing out that they have already spent £10,000, and for lack of £4,000 the prosperity of the fishing industry is now at stake. The local authorities have pledged all the property they can afford to pledge in their effort to secure access to the sea. In the case of another harbour, £17,000 has been spent by it local proprietor, and I find that that sum probably covers the value of his entire property there. Here then you have, on the one side, a community exhausting its financial resources to maintain the fishing population in prosperity, and, on the other side, a private proprietor showing his public spirit by practically pledging the whole value of his estate—£17,000—on behalf of the fishing population, and receiving no return. In the case of another harbour £70,000 has been spent, and the shareholders have never received any dividend. My fear in this matter is that we have come to the end of our financial resources and the public spirit of our local authorities and private proprietors, and that if the Government are not prepared to give a favourable response to our demands—not, perhaps, this year, but within the next few years—there are many districts in my own constituency where the fishing industry, now vigorous and for many years past an increasing industry, must suffer indelible damage. I am always proud to see the results of private enterprise in the country. Anyone who knows public life knows that but for private enterprise the great industries of our land would have been confined within much smaller margins than at present is the case. But there comes a time when private enterprise has no longer the power to effect its purposes, and when it becomes a serious duty on the part of those who represent the people in Parliament to advocate the use of public funds for the maintenance of one of the greatest industries in the north-east of Scotland. I do not take the rather gloomy view of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Banffshire with regard to the attitude of the Government. I have seen how the House has lately shown its readiness to vote large sums of money on behalf of foreign and Colonial objects. We are all glad to see these sums spent, so long as they are well spent. We are also glad to see Irish subjects coming before this House. The only non-political body that has examined this question of Ireland is the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, and because it is a non-political body I believe they are remarkably good judges of a question to which they seem to have devoted a very considerable amount of attention. I am, therefore, inclined to attach great weight to their opinion that the treatment of Ireland by the House of Commons is "lavish." Hon. Members must not be surprised if amongst the humbler citizens of this land there is a slight feeling of jealousy when they see money given to foreign and Colonial objects and Ireland "lavishly" treated, and Scotland not altogether put on the same platform. No Government, so far as I know in the history of the House of Commons, has shown a greater desire than the present to spread prosperity over the neglected parts of the land. At this moment the House is spending £20,000,000 from the Treasury in aid of local objects—very largely in the interests of education. A large sum of money is also being spent on roads and bridges, which does not come out of the ratepayers' pockets, but out of the Treasury. Therefore, I think we who make this demand have a right to say that as the fishing population do not use these roads and bridges to any extent, the access to the sea is a national public object which demands the attention of the Treasury. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but will only say that I trust the Government are prepared to grant sums of money in aid of this industry. The Government are now paying the penalty of a régime in which the financial condition of the country has gone up by leaps and bounds, and I hope they will not follow the old and doubtful principle which has hitherto actuated Chancellors of the Exchequer of all past Governments, when an industry like the fishing trade of Scotland, England, and Wales requires assistance at a critical time. The public are prepared to grant the Government the use of very large sums of money at a lower rate of interest than we have ever seen before, and I believe that, if the Government will find the money and use it judiciously, a daily dividend will be returned to the nation in the contentment and prosperity of the people engaged in the fishing industry.

put the Question.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name; that is, in line 1 to leave out "Scottish fishermen" and insert "fishermen of the United Kingdom," and in line 10 to leave out "Scottish coasts" and insert "coasts of the United Kingdom." In moving this Amendment I wish to assure the hon. Baronet the Member for Banffshire that I do so in no spirit of hostility to the Motion. I fully recognise the need of further accommodation in Scotland, and I can speak, not merely from second-hand knowledge, but from having spent a considerable number of months in the constituency represented by the hon. Member who seconded the resolution. But I think the House will agree with me that this ought to be a question extending to the whole of the United Kingdom. No doubt the hon. Baronet who moved the Resolution has one point which cannot be extended to the United Kingdom, and that is the question of the surplus herring dues. On that point, no doubt, the people of England and Wales have no interest, but I venture to say, if the hon. Baronet were to be met to-day by the Government with a present of £34,000, that neither he nor the other hon. Members from Scotland would be in any way satisfied that the Government had done what they ought to do as regards the hon. Member's Resolution. But putting that point aside, there are others which arise in consideration of this question. It is obvious, I think, that this question of harbour accommodation affects all parts of the kingdom; for this reason: that Scottish fishermen go to Ireland, Irish fishermen come to England, and English fishermen go to Scotland. It is, therefore, important to our fishermen that they should find harbours in all parts of the United Kingdom. There is another point to which I merely allude, though it is one that ought not to be lost sight of, and that is the way in which this question of harbour accommodation affects our Navy and Navy Reserve. Two years ago this question was discussed in the House, and those of us who were interested in the question asked the Government to carry out the unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee of 1884 to appoint a Departmental Committee. In the course of that Debate the President of the Board of Trade said that this was a matter with which the Government ought to deal without the assistance of a Departmental Committee, and to-day we are asking the House to urge upon the Government the necessity of dealing with this question and of recognising their duty to the fishing population of the kingdom. The hon. Baronet the Member for Banffshire has dealt with the state of affairs in the north-east of Scotland, and I do not think it is necessary for me to labour the point as to the need of further harbour accommodation there. But, coming to England, let me take the record of casualties and deaths on one part of the coast—the Bristol Channel. There we find that between the 1st July, 1895, and the 30th June, 1896, 765 casualties were reported, and 67 lives were lost. What do we find along the whole of that coast line—from Land's End to Bristol? On all the Cornish and Devonshire shores—the shores on which the worst gales occur—there is not a single harbour capable of being used at low water. Every one of these harbours is only available practically from half-tide. That, surely, is a very serious state of affairs. In the case of the old Barry Harbour, owing largely to the making of the large dock, it is admitted, in the Report furnished by the Inspector of the Board of Trade, that in a very few years it will be silted up and be useless for small coasting vessels. No doubt other Members can give other instances to the House of this neglect of the industry of the men who live on our coasts. As a result of such neglect we see a serious reduction is going on in the number of men employed on our fishing boats in England and Wales. In 1891 there were 12,000 employed, and in 1895 there were only 41,000. In Scotland in 1891 there were 53,000, and in 1895 only 43,000. Ireland, fortunately, shows a slight increase. Perhaps that may be accounted for by the granting of money to her for the improvement of harbours. Contrast that serious decrease with the state of the French fishing industry. The numbers are also given in the same return. In 1890 the men employed in that industry were over 78,000, and in 1894 they were 84,000, showing a very considerable increase; while at the same time our fishing industry, which is quite as important, shows a very serious decrease. A similar decrease is also seen in the case of the men in the mercantile marine, and complaints are constantly being made in this House of a serious nature regarding the way in which our ships are manned by foreigners. The truth is that France recognises more than we do the importance of the fishing and mercantile interests, and consequently provides a considerable sum of money for harbours, and a quarter of a million for pensions for fishermen and sailors. From the national point of view we are entitled to ask the Government to recognise their duty, and deal with this question in all seriousness; and that quite apart from the question of the loss of life and property. I trust we shall not be met with the usual non possumus, and that we shall not be put off with a few kindly words of sympathy. We ask the Government to devise some scheme, and recognise the interests of those who are living all round our coasts. If they are in earnest, the Government can find a very useful analogy in a Measure passed by this House—namely, the Light Railways Act. There are several points that are very analogous. That Act deals with exceptional districts controlled by exceptional considerations. I think the House might ask the Government to see whether they could not, as regards the Provisional Orders, introduce some cheaper method than there is at the present time. There are many instances of considerable sums of money having been expended in order to get loans and Provisional Orders for harbours. On the point that these are exceptional cases and justify a grant being made from the State, I suppose we shall be met, as we have always been met, by the argument that it is contrary to the policy of all Governments to give grants for this purpose, and we shall be told, as we were told two years ago, that the Treasury Minute of 1887 stands in the way, however anxious the Government might be to carry this into effect. Now, I should like to challenge the Government, if that answer is made, on this point—of money having been voted for small harbours and refuges for fishing boats—they have not acted on this policy either in Ireland or in Scotland, though they have consistently acted on it in regard to England and Wales. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear." If that is so, I hope we shall have some reason—if the conditions are similar in England and Wales—why we do not enjoy the same privileges as those which are given to Scotland and Ireland. In the return which was issued in 1896 we find that the sum of £741,000 has been granted to Scotland and £413,000 to Ireland. Of course, a much larger sum has been granted to England; but, if hon. Members will consider that carefully, they will find that the money granted to England has been granted absolutely and entirely for the purpose of large harbours for national defence. The question that is now before the House is as to the money that has been expended—and rightly expended—for the improvement of small harbours and piers. I do not wish to say for one moment that the Government has given too much to Scotland and Ireland; and I should like to see much more given. But those of us who represent English and Welsh constituencies are entitled to ask why, if the conditions are similar, we are not treated similarly to the other parts of the United Kingdom. We have been told before that the Treasury Minute of 1887 stands in our way. I suppose that that Treasury Minute is not as unalterable as the laws of the Medes and Persians; I suppose there are some constitutional means by which even a Treasury Minute can be altered. The reasons given for this policy may have been very good some years ago, but almost every one of them have been cut away from the present Government by their action in the matter of the Light Railways Act. The old familiar argument is that it is a complete departure from our national practice, and that there is no reason why the fishing industry, which is a trading industry, and an important one, comprising not only poor men, but capitalists, should become the recipient of a State bounty at the expense of the general public. But if agriculture needed help, then there is a good case as regards the industry on our coasts. It is said that if a grant were given everybody would be rushing and making a demand upon the State. The same thing might be said about the case of light railways. If the Government saw their way to get over that argument in the case of the light railways, if they are in earnest they could now see their way to get out of the Treasury Minute of 1887. But supposing that policy was the best one some years ago, I think we may fairly impress upon the House that this policy has been tried, with the exception of Scotland and Ireland, for the last 37 years, and that without some such grant there cannot be an adequate supply of harbour accommodation round our coasts. Therefore we have good grounds for coming to the House and asking this from the Government, for it is perfectly obvious that if an adequate supply cannot be given by other means, the Government should step in and help an industry that has so great an interest to the country both as regards our food supply and as regards our Naval service. But I doubt very much if we shall get the reforms we want until we get some central body—either a Central Fishery Board or a Government Department—whose whole duty is to look after all the industries connected with the sea, with our mercantile marine, our harbours, or our fishing. Whether it should be a Central Fishery Board on a Government Department is for the Government to determine. It is not satisfactory to have the supervision of these large interests only a part of the duty of the Board of Trade, which surely must be overworked, considering that they have to do with the railways of this country, the bankruptcies, matters connected with public companies, shipping, mercantile marine, harbours, and fisheries; and in addition to that, we have thrown upon them during the last few years the settlement of labour disputes. Agriculture, as we know, was neglected until it was taken from the Board of Trade; and until we get the Government to give us some central body to look after these questions of fisheries and harbours their interests will be seriously neglected. I hope the Government are prepared to take some action on the lines I have indicated, and which have been alluded to by the hon. Baronet opposite; and that they will recognise that it is their duty to seriously consider what steps they will take to prevent this loss of life and property that occurs all round our coast, and that at the same time they will endeavour to increase the prosperity of the fishing industry. I beg to move the Amendment.

seconded the Amendment. He said: There is nothing to complain of in the points raised by the hon. Member except that the Resolution is somewhat too restricted in its area; and while I shall only be too glad to give a grant of public money to Scotland, I do not see why the rest of the United Kingdom should not share in these benefits. I consider that an increase in the harbour accommodation of the United Kingdom is most essential in the interests of the fishermen and all engaged in this most important industry. It is essential especially with a view to the saving of life. As to loans being given for the construction of these harbours, I think that loans are extremely useful; but there are a great many cases in which the poverty of the inhabitants prevents them being able to pay the necessary interest on these loans, and grants of public money from the Government are more useful. In the Select Committee of this House appointed in 1884 loans were especially advocated, but it was also stated that in exceptional cases grants were desirable, and that they should be made. The report of that Select Committee showed that enormous sums of money had been granted by the Governments of foreign countries to construct and maintain harbours in those countries. It is not necessary for me to weary the House with figures, for these sums were not for the kind of harbours alluded to in this Resolution—harbours for fishermen—but for harbours on a more extensive scale. That shows the public spirit of those countries, and their desire to increase their harbour accommodation. The report of the Select Committee stated that fishing harbours should be favourably considered. I trust, therefore, that the Government will accept this Resolution in the interests of the fishermen of the United Kingdom. Those fishermen are engaged in an industry which is most precarious, most important, and most dangerous; they display indomitable courage and perseverance in their labours, and it is the duty of the Government to reward those labours by affording the means of protecting the lives of the men.

I accept the Amendment.

If there is no opposition I had better put the question at once. The SPEAKER then put severally the Amendments—line 1, to leave out "Scottish fishermen" and insert "fishermen of the United Kingdom;" and line 10, to leave out "Scottish coasts" and insert "coasts of the United Kingdom"—and they were agreed to without a Division.

With regard to this Motion I should like to say a few words. The Motion which was proposed related exclusively to Scotland, but I am sure that Scotsmen would be extremely glad if, through the discussion in this House to-night, it should be extended to the fishermen in other parts of the kingdom. I congratulate the hon. Member for Banffshire in at length having an opportunity of bringing this important matter before the House under circumstances which we may reasonably anticipate will give an opportunity for a declaration of the policy of the Government with regard to it. The Motion of my hon. Friend has nothing whatever to do with large national harbours provided at public expense for the purpose of military or naval defence. It relates exclusively to those small harbours round the coast of Scotland which are used in connection with the prosecution of the fishing industry, and which are required, as a measure of great necessity, as additional means of shelter in times of storm and tempest. The history of this question is of a somewhat melancholy character. It has been before the country and this House. I think, for half a century, and the course of events has been something of this nature: A storm occurs, there is a great disaster and loss of life, and immediately following on that there is an inquiry, either by Commission or Committee, for the purpose of discovering what measures may be adopted to prevent the repetition of such disaster. On every occasion the Report is always to the same effect—that the disaster and loss of life has been caused by the inability of the fishermen to have access to these harbours of refuge in consequence of the want of a sufficient quantity of water at different periods of the tide. Unfortunately, by the time the Report is made the excitement caused by the disaster and loss of life has abated, and nothing is done. Another disaster occurs; another inquiry takes place; another Report is issued to the same effect, and again nothing is done. There are illustrations of the procedure to which I have referred in the Washington Commission of 1847, succeeded by the Wilson Commission of 1858, following a disaster which occurred the year before. Then there was a Commission following on a disaster in 1864, when this House was called upon to give effect to the recommendations made by the previous Commissions; and then there was a Committee in 1883, presided over by Lord Tweedmouth, who again reported to the same effect. But nothing has been done up to the present time, and these harbours are still in the same condition, and the fishermen are unable to take advantage of them except at certain stages of the tide. And if a storm takes place they are shut out from all means of refuge altogether. I think it must be conceded that it is necessary that something should be done to improve this most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The great question is what ought to be done. Now in Scotland we are a practical people, and we know exactly what we want. At the present time we want additional money placed at the disposal of the Fisheries Board. That body is subject to the control of Parliament, and it is a body which never grants a demand except in those cases where it is urgently needed, and then their proceeding are subjected to the control of this House. And I need scarcely say that a locality is not likely to put before the Board a scheme of a very large character when they are expected to make a very large addition to it themselves. At the present time the only possible means of providing a remedy for the state of matters to which I have referred is through the medium of loans granted by the Public Works Loan Commission. Undoubtedly in 1861 an effort was made to do something by means of legislation which would admit of these grievances being rectified. The principle of the Act that was passed in 1861 was that loans should be granted by the Public Works Loan Commission to the harbour authorities upon reasonable security. Well, the history of the proceedings under the Act was that it was most ineffective. The applications for loans under the Act had to be made to the Board of Trade, and, having been approved by them, they were passed on to the Public Works Loan Commission. For the purpose of judging of the necessity of these loans the Board of Trade were brought into close contact with the various localities making application. Having to consider the various schemes submitted to them, they very soon began to see it was absolutely necessary, if any impression was to be made on this longstanding grievance, that loans must be made by the Public Works Loan Commission with no unsparing hand. That body was extremely stringent in the matter of security, and conflicts immediately arose between the Board of Trade and the Treasury as to whether the Loan Commissioners were to have any voice in the control of the harbours. Those conflicts ultimately resulted in the Treasury Minute referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, of May, 1897. That followed certain representations made by the Board of Trade to the Treasury. I think the Board of Trade put the matter in a nut-shell when they said that if the Treasury would not make the loans with a very much freer hand than they were doing, it was absolutely necessary that they should give money. I have nothing to say against the policy of the Treasury in detail, or of the Minute of 1887, but if the loans are only to be granted on the strongest security, then there is only the other alternative pointed out by the Board of Trade, that they would require to treat the money as a subsidy for remedying these matters. The result of the situation is that since the Treasury Minute of 1887 no loan has been granted except, when it has been required, on very ample security. I am sorry to say it would be quite impossible in connection with many of these harbours to place before the Commissioners such materials as would enable them to come to the conclusion that they would be able to secure a loan; and the alternative has been that the work could not be done at all, or a subsidy should be given. Now I hope that those who represent the Treasury will not be alarmed, so far as Scotland is concerned, by any idea that this Motion would imply a very large draft on the resources of the Treasury. It is perfectly true that, if the whole coast of the country were to be equipped with harbours of the kind which I have indicated, a large outlay of money would be necessary. But without doing that the Treasury might give more subsidies towards, to a large extent, removing this grievance, if they would take advantage of existing harbours, and if they would, under circumstances to be judged by themselves, where there is not sufficient margin to give a loan, supplement the amount got upon loan by a small subsidy or grant in particular cases. I am quite averse to putting forward individual instances—what I say applies to the whole coast of Scotland, but I should like to put, by way of illustration, a particular case of a harbour on the coast of Banffshire. It is well situated, and is used by boats which use those waters and which crowd towards it in times of storm, in the hope of getting shelter from the elements. In consequence of insufficiency of water there at various stages of the tide, when a storm arises pilots have to be stationed at certain periods of the tide when there is not sufficient water, to warn the boats which are flying for shelter that in consequence of the insufficiency of water it is actually safer to buffet the storm outside than to attempt to make the harbour. What are the circumstances of the case? The harbour was about to be acquired by the Town Council, and they contemplated making large improvements, and, of course, contemplated a loan from the Public Works Loan Commission; but if they fail to get a few supplementary thousands of pounds they cannot complete their improvements. There is no doubt whatever that the existing harbour, if the outlay could be made, could be put in a position of having deep water at every stage of the tide, and could be made an excellent shelter for the various boats frequenting the coast in times of tempest. Taking the case, so far as Scotland is concerned, as one for an additional grant for the Fisheries Board, what is the position of the Board? They have £3,000 and some grants under the Acts of George III., which abolished the Brand fees, and they get in addition the surplus Brand fees which accrue year by year. I need scarcely say that, with a pittance of that kind, the Fisheries Board is quite unable to cope with the demands which are made upon it. I must say, while they have very often been obliged to refuse applications which have been made, they have inspired a great deal of confidence in the fishermen on the coasts by their desire to do what they could. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will deal with this matter from a general point of view, as applicable to the whole coast, and he may apply it on exactly the same basis to other parts of the coast. But I submit, in order to get rid of this difficulty, it is not possible to doubt that Scotland is in a position to make a claim for the lump sum of £34,000 mentioned in the Motion. This Motion says this money is now lodged in the Treasury, but I dare say we shall be told that money which found its way into the Treasury so long ago can hardly be earmarked at the present time; but I do protest against such an answer being given as a sufficient answer to the grant of this £34,000. How did this £34,000 find its way into the Treasury? In 1858 the system was adopted of making the branding of herrings profitable by charging a fee per barrel sufficient to meet the expenses incident to the branding, salaries, and so forth. I have nothing to say against that, but it is quite impossible to make an exact computation as to the precise fee necessary for this purpose. The result was that the fee that was made was very considerably in excess of the amount required. I think the revenue exceeded the expenditure by about £3,000 a year. Well, from 1858 to 1881 the national resources of the country were augmented by this special levy. Now, that sum was not intended to be contributed to the general taxation, but was simply an over-estimate of the amount required to be levied. Well, I should think there could have been no harm, as the amount collected year after year was more than was required, if it had been applied to the reduction of the amount levied from fishermen to meet the expenses of branding. Well, this went on year after year until the end of 1881, with the result that the general resources of the country benefited at the expense of this particular industry to no less a sum than £34,000; not, it should be remembered, levied as a tax for the purposes of augmenting the general taxation of the country, but simply for the purpose of meeting the expenses of branding. Looked at from a reasonable point of view, surely it gives a very special ground of claim to the fishing industry of Scotland to have that large sum handed over to them now. Surely, Sir, it is a very reasonable thing to say that to that extent the finances of the Fishery Board should be augmented. Sir, there is one other direction in which I appeal to the Treasury to do something in relief of this industry. I quite fully recognise that the system of loans is to be continued, and should be largely taken advantage of by the country, for the purpose of going as far as we can in the direction of the extension of harbours. Now, what I wish the Government to consider is whether the time has not come when they must again look into the matter of interest which is charged upon these loans. Up to 1887 it was 3½ per cent. In that year it was made 3¼, to be repaid over a period of 50 years. Well, Sir, looking at the cheapness of money, the low rates of interest at the present time, and the facilities which the Government have of obtaining money at cheap rates, it is only a reasonable suggestion that the Government should again consider whether they might not abate some portion of the interest which is at present levied. Then, Sir, there is one other matter. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that there is at present being constructed at Peterhead, on the east coast of Scotland, a large national harbour, partly for military and naval defence. Of course, Sir, a harbour of that kind will not only serve a national purpose, it will be a great source of refuge to those who are fishing in the vicinity. But the construction of a harbour of that kind must necessarily extend over a long period of time, and, therefore, it must be many years before we have reached the stage of affording the requisite shelter to fishermen in the neighbourhood. I am mentioning the matter for the purpose of asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the advisability, in constructing that harbour, of commencing the construction of the north pier simultaneously with the construction of the south pier. At the present moment the south pier alone is being constructed. If the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter, I think it will be found that a very large measure of refuge to those fishing in the neighbourhood can be provided by a comparative short extension if the pier is begun upon the north side. Each side of the bay will then be partly enclosed, and the protection of the fishermen, to some degree, secured. That, of course, will not involve any larger draft on the Treasury; it is simply a matter of discrimination as regards the course of procedure for the completion of the harbour. Sir, in bringing this matter before the attention of the House, I need scarcely express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not on this occasion give one of those official excuses which, I am afraid, we are all too familiar with in matters of this kind. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in many fishermen's homes they are looking forward anxiously to the answer which is to be given on the part of the Government to the Motion which is now before the House, and I sincerely trust that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that this Motion is not merely dealing with a subsidy, but a commercial interest; that it is making a call upon the State to do what I apprehend is a primary duty, to supply means to the native people who are engaged in a legitimate occupation to carry out the ordinary means of safety for their lives.

Before replying on the general question raised by the hon. Member, perhaps it would be convenient if I referred to the grounds upon which he bases his case. The hon. Member may differ from me as to the need for the Resolution which has been placed upon the Paper, but I am bound to say that the premises on which he bases his conclusions are hopelessly and entirely wrong. In the first place, reference is made to reports of repeated Commissions and Committees in favour of grants for harbours. I have gone to the Commissioners' Reports, and I do not find that the Commissioners have made any such suggestions as those which the hon. Member has put forth. The hon. Baronet has based the special claim of Scotland in this matter upon an alleged surplus of £34,000 from the herring brand fees. Well, I think I shall be able to show that the hon. Baronet is wrong in his figures; that this amount was not lodged with the Treasury; that it could not have been devoted, as the hon. Member suggests, to harbours all along the coast of Scotland; and that, even if it had been limited, as the herring brand fees were to fishing boats connected with the east coast, the Orkneys and Shetlands, it would not have been applicable to the particular harbour which the hon. Baronet has especially in view, which, I am told, is one of those harbours on the East Coast which have very little connection with white herring fishing. But the main question, so far as this Motion is concerned at any rate, rests on how far there is a legitimate Scotch claim to this alleged surplus of £34,000. That raises the whole question of the herring brand fees. I have looked into the matter, and though, as an Englishman, I cannot claim to have any special knowledge of the subject, the history of the case, so far as I understand it, is this: By an Act of George III., in the year 1808, certain bounties were paid to the white herring fishery to encourage the industry, and to enable those who were engaged in it to compete with the Dutch fishermen. I think the bounty, in the first instance, was 2s., and a few years afterwards 4s., a barrel for all herrings cured in a particular manner. That was a bounty only applicable I gather to the east coast. Well, by the year 1829, or 1830, the trade had grown so considerably that the bounty was considered no longer necessary. It was done away with—or rather was commuted into a payment of £3,000 a year in perpetuity. From about the year 1850, the whole of this sum was devoted to harbours on the east coast of Scotland, and the result has been, therefore, that ever since the year 1808 we have practically carried on a system of bounties in favour of the Scotch fishermen—a thing we have done in no other portion of the United Kingdom. The payment of £3,000 a year towards the harbours in Scotland connected with the white herring fisheries has gone on until the present year, so that during 90 years we have paid no less than £270,000 in the interest of these fisheries. But we have done more than that. From 1808 to 1829—no doubt in our own interest, because we had to guard the public purse against these barrels being presented more than once for the bounty—we appointed our own officers to carry out the work. But in 1829 the system of bounties ceased altogether. [An HON. MEMBER: 1824.] Well—1824! It does not materially alter the case. The system of bounties ceased altogether, but it was proved to be so useful to the Scotch fishermen, and especially to the poorer fishermen, that we consented to continue the work, and did so until 1858 without any charge whatever to the Scotch fishermen. It was calculated that the cost during all those years could not have been less than £2,500 a year, and that should be added to the sum of £270,000 I have already mentioned. In 1858 the Government of the day objected to go on spending this £2,500 a year for a work in which they had no longer any special interest. The result was that they were going to drop the system of branding altogether, but the Scotch fishermen, by their representatives, pointed out to the Government that the system of branding was of great value to the fishermen, and that if they would continue the duty they would be willing to pay certain fees for having it done. A Commission was appointed to inquire into the cost of administering the brand, and it was arranged, under an Act of Parliament, that a fee of 4d. per barrel should be charged on these herrings to meet the cost. It was perfectly understood at the time that the 4d. was only a rough estimate, and that if the Government found that the cost of administering the brand was not met by the fees a Parliamentary Vote should be proposed to meet the deficiency, and that if the fees yielded a surplus that surplus would go to the Exchequer. That was a fair arrangement, because in several years, even quite recently, there has been a considerable deficiency. It is calculated that during the years from 1858 to 1882 there was a surplus. It is a question, however, what the amount of that surplus actually was. The hon. Member quotes the sum of £34,000. That, of course, is not an inaccurate figure. The calculations of the Herring Brand Committee of 1881 showed the amount as £31,571. Whether there was any surplus or not depends entirely upon the assumption of the cost of administration having only been about £2,000 a year, whereas during the last 20 years it has averaged over £4,500. Probably during those years there was no surplus at all. Now, so much for the facts upon which the hon. Gentleman based his conclusions. I do not quite gather from the wording of the Motion, though I gather more from the hon. Baronet's speech, exactly what he means by the words, "It is the duty of the Government forthwith to provide proper harbour accommodation." That may mean either by loan or by free grants. Of course, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government are quite willing to grant loans on very fair terms for harbours, not only in Scotland, but in the United Kingdom generally. But if he means loans, then I do not think he has any reasonable ground of complaint that Scotland, at any rate, has not been treated at least as well as the other portions of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Barnstaple is responsible for a very useful Return, which, I think, was issued in 1896. I find from this that the loans for piers and harbours in England and Wales from 1860 to 1896 amounted to £1,638,000; in Scotland, with its much smaller population, to over £1,010,000, and in Ireland to £727,000. Scotland, at any rate, has had its full proportion of the public loans. Then, again, you have to compare not only the money advanced on loans, but also the amount of those loans remitted. In this respect Scotland compares most favourably, because while the Harbour loans remitted in English amount to £22,000, or a little over 1 per cent. of the whole amount, advanced, the loans remitted in Scotland amount to £62,000, or considerably over 6 per cent. of the whole. So that, compared with England and Wales, Scotland is in a very good position. Then, again, take the question of free grants to the three countries. When you mention Ireland, I think it is only fair to recollect that a large proportion of the amount which Ireland has received comes out of her own funds. I, therefore, do not think it is fair to make any allusion to what has happened in Ireland, because Ireland has paid such a large proportion of it out of her own funds. Although in England and Wales there has been no doubt a larger amount spent, amounting to nearly a million-and-a-half, practically the whole of that has gone on great national works such as Dover and Holyhead, but in Scotland three-quarters of a million has been devoted to purposes, not of that character, but to smaller harbours. But I am not so sure that my hon. Friend means either loans or free grants by this Motion of his, because I find that last year he had a Motion of a totally different character, and he has laid great stress on that in his speech. He certainly last year did put down on the Paper a Motion which, as I read it, applied to the old system of bounties, and which urged that we should actually do as we did in 1824—contribute bounties for the encouragement of Scotch fisheries. [An HON. MEMBER: No, no.] The hon. Member dissents and shakes his head, but, at any rate, he was going to move a Resolution to deal with the Scotch fishing industry on a basis not less favourable to that which existed at the beginning of the century. But the hon. Member ought to recollect that it was in no sense Scotch money, for it was paid out of the Imperial funds. No portion of the United Kingdom has been treated like Scotand in these matters.

But it was Scotch money.

I do not quite see how a system of bounties, paid out of the Imperial taxes, could be called Scotch money. Well, now, having dealt with the case of Scotland, I have now to deal with the recommendations of the Commissioners and Committees with, regard to these harbours generally. There is no doubt that previous to the year 1861, when the Government passed the Harbours and Passing Tolls Bill, a very large amount of money had been spent on harbours; but they were harbours of national importance. It is also true that harbours, not of the character indicated by the hon. Gentleman, but great harbours of refuge, were recommended by the Select Committee of 1857 and by the Royal Commissioner of 1858, and it was suggested that a large amount of public funds should be devoted to that purpose. On the other hand, the Select Committee recommended a levy upon the shipping interest sufficient to pay three-fourths of the charge in respect of the capital outlay which they proposed, and the Royal Commission also recommended that considerable provision should be made out of shipping dues and local funds. Whatever may have been the policy of the Commissioners and Committees up to that date, at any rate, the Government in 1861, when Mr. Gladstone was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Milner Gibson presided at the Board of Trade, pushed on one side all the recommendations that had been made with regard to the provision, even of harbour refuges, out of the Imperial purse, and they passed the Harbours and Passing Tolls Act, which has ever since then governed the principles upon which these Imperial funds are provided. That Act embodied the policy that these funds were to be provided by loans, and in no other way. No doubt, as an hon. Member has fairly said, for a considerable time, there was some difficulty in carrying out this policy, and no doubt loans were not granted as freely as it was the intention of the Act that they should be. But since then not only has it been the policy of successive Governments, but when ever a Motion has been brought forward in this House suggesting a system of free grants, instead of loans, it has invariably been rejected by the House of Commons. I think, certainly, on ten or a dozen occasions this has happened. That is still the policy of the Government. It was the policy of the last Government, and was even the policy of the Government which was in office when Lord Tweedmouth's Committee reported in 1884, and that is the only Committee which has made any recommendation in favour of free grants of this kind now in question. That Committee made two very striking recommendations, for, like all those who had gone before it, it reported that undoubtedly the proper system in all but exceptional cases was that the funds should be provided by loans instead of grants. But they did, no doubt, go back upon the recommendation of the Commission in 1859, and actually looked approvingly upon the large expenditure of four millions upon harbours and refuges. That recommendation was made in spite of the evidence produced before them by the statistics of the Board of Trade, and which were not contradicted before the Committee, that these harbours and refuges would not be of any use to prevent the loss of life and property round the coast, and that it was a chimerical idea altogether. The evidence before the Committee was based upon the statistics of the Board of Trade, and they undoubtedly pointed to the fact that the greatest loss of life and property did not occur on the parts where harbours had been recommended, and that even if the harbours had been made at a cost of four millions very little life and property would have been saved in consequence. No doubt they did make these further recommendations in regard to certain smaller harbours of refuge round the coast of the United Kingdom; but what they had in view was something very much more than the harbours or boat refuges which the hon. Member for Banffshire has recommended. They were large harbours, costing something like £100,000 apiece. That may have been a wise recommendation, or a bad one, but I believe the same objections which have been raised against the larger harbours of refuge applied equally to those smaller harbours. Ours is the settled policy that we are not going to provide free grants of public money; but any money to be found must be found by way of loans. There is no doubt that Scotland has been exceptionally well treated in the way of grants, and Banffshire especially has been fortunate in the matter of grants received during the last ten or twelve years. I ought to mention that Scotland is hardly a very good illustration of the advantage of giving grants for the establishment of these smaller harbours, because, up to 1882, the predecessors of the present Fishery Board laid down the rule that charges would be levied upon fishermen for harbour dues for the purpose of paying for the maintenance of those harbours. There are also in Scotland a considerable number of piers where relief grants have been given, and where no provision was made for maintenance, so that we have not only to deal with the question of free grants for the building of harbours, but we have also to consider the more important question of the maintenance of the harbours.

Those are paid out of the funds of the locality.

Whether the locality subscribes the expense or not, the result is that a good many of these harbours are practically useless. Now, the hon. Member took up the position that fishermen were a class entitled to special treatment, but I do not know why that should be, for there are rich men amongst them just as there are poor men. The sole argument before Lord Tweedmouth's Committee was that these fishermen were not able to find their harbour dues; but I do not see why the fishing trade should be picked out to have these special grants of public money, unless other trades are similarly subsidised, for I do not see any difference between the fishing trade and other industries. Although the Government must adhere to their decision to abide by what has been the invariable rule of their predecessors by not extending grants to harbours in Scotland, we are perfectly willing to carry on the present system, but we are not prepared to extend that system, except, of course, that there is a further extension to a limited extent in regard to harbours under the Congested Districts Board. We do believe that the proper way to deal with this difficulty is to find loans for the purpose. If a locality is sufficiently anxious to provide these harbours, the Government is willing to supply the funds at reasonable rates of interest. Only last year the rates of interest on these harbour loans were reduced. It is quite possible with collateral security to borrow money for fifty years at 3¼ per cent. and that is a very fair way of meeting the difficulty. There is no special reason whatever for drawing distinctions between this and every other trade, and we have already gone as far as we ought to go in the way of grants for small harbours. With regard to larger harbours, the whole idea of spending large amounts of money on harbours of refuge has been entirely abandoned, because the figures we have produced have shown that if large grants were made to these harbours the money would be practically thrown away. Therefore the proper thing to do is undoubtedly to lend the money, and the Government is perfectly willing to lend it at a low rate of interest, not only to Scotland, but throughout the whole of the United Kingdom; and so the Imperial funds and the local assistance will work hand in hand. I do not think it is a proper system to charge the Imperial ratepayer for objects which are essentially of a local character.

The right hon. Gentleman has practically said that under no circumstances whatever is he prepared to make any free grants in England or Wales with regard to the same matters in which grants have been made to Scotland, and he seemed to imply that this had been the policy of the Government all through. Well, I would only remind him, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple has pointed out, that the Government has distinctly departed from that policy with regard to light railways; and when he speaks of not giving any grants in aid of the fishing industry or any other industry the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten the enormous grants made by the present Government to the agricultural interest. The right hon. Gentleman has minimised the terrible loss of life that has taken place from time to time, and he has told the House that if the large harbours and refuges had been erected the same loss of life would have taken place. Speaking from experience, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that some of the harbours of refuge which have been provided are absolutely indispensable, and I do not know what they would be able to do without them. With regard to the request put forward by the Member for Banffshire and the Member for Barnstaple, we are only asking that special treatment should be accorded to smaller fishing harbours for the development of the fishing industry, and for the safety of the lives of the people engaged in it. The Member for Banffshire has spoken of the great loss of life on the Scotch coast, and I can give similar instances on the Welsh coast. It is not so very long since a great catastrophe took place just outside the estuary of the river Dee. I would also call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that between Holyhead and Fishguard there is not a single harbour of refuge in which even a small boat can enter at low water. If a small harbour of refuge were made near Rhyl a very large portion of the cost would be repaid by that refuge. Looking at the west coast, from Holyhead all the way down to Fishguard, there is probably no more neglected portion of the whole coast. There is not a single harbour round that coast into which a boat drawing eight feet of water can enter at low water. The Member for Barnstaple gave a striking instance, somewhat similar to that in regard to another portion of the coast. We consider that it is a disgrace that the Government of this country should leave such large stretches of the coast in that condition. As a matter of fact, not only are the Government doing absolutely nothing whatever to develop the fishing industry, which is one of the most important industries in this country, but they are doing nothing to reduce the enormous loss of life which takes place every year. A few years ago there was a considerable amount of interest taken in the question of the fisheries of this country. That interest, I think, has now died away. The public can only attend to one thing at a time, but the facts remain now as they were then. The fact is that the fishing industry is very largely neglected, and owing to that neglect it is to a great degree withering before our very eyes. There are a great many places on the coast of Wales, and I speak more particularly of the west coast, where Nature has herself done the greater part of the work, and where the construction of a small pier or breakwater would be of immense service to the fishing industry. Take the harbour of Aberdovey. There is an estuary two miles broad. The inner harbour affords capital facilities for shipping, but, unfortunately, owing to the width of the estuary the water becomes very rough when the wind is high, and the erection of a small pier there would enable a good fishing industry to be developed. There are other places on the coast of Cardiganshire which are well worthy of the attention of the Government. I think the Government has treated the whole question in a manner which will give the greatest dissatisfaction not only on the Scotch coast but also on other portions of the coast of this country. I may say that since the matter was brought forward, about two years ago, since I moved a Motion of a somewhat similar character to that which has been moved to-night, a very great amount of interest has been taken in the question, and it was hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to give a rather more sympathetic reply than he had given on behalf of the Government. There was no sympathy whatever in the right hon. Gentleman's reply, no hope whatever in it, and I can only say that this matter will be kept before the attention of the House as it was before the attention of many sections of the country. It is a question upon which a very deep and widespread feeling exists. Those who are acquainted with the lives of our sea-faring population on the coast know what terrible dangers they have to run—dangers chiefly arising from the fact that while they are out in stormy weather they are unable to run into port at low water owing to the shallow depth of the water—and sympathise with them, knowing the need there is of some help from the Government in this direction. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will remember, and that the Government will remember, that the policy which they have themselves adopted with regard to the Light Railways Bill is a policy practically on all fours with the one which we are suggesting. [Mr. HANBURY: No.] The right hon. Gentleman says "No," but I would ask him in what respect can he draw a distinction? What was the object of the Light Railways Bill? It had reference to special purposes, in order that special industries might be developed in certain districts, the fishing industry more particularly. If you get the terminus of a light railway at a port it detracts from the value of the light railway unless there is a harbour at that port into which the fishing boats can run; if you have a pier in connection with the light railway, or a breakwater, then you develop the fishing industry, and make the light railway of greater value. But, I say, the light railway policy of the Government is precisely on all fours with the claim we now put forward. I cannot see any distinction, and I fail to see that the right hon. Gentleman has made any defence whatever of the policy of the Government. I think it is a disgrace that in a great country like this so little attention should be paid to the fishing industry, and I sincerely hope that as a result of this discussion, and notwithstanding the attitude the Government have taken upon this question, there are many hon. Members who will not allow the matter to rest. We all regret the cause of the absence of the President of the Board of Trade from his place. If he had been here I should have made a special appeal to him to do what is in the power of the Government—namely, to make it possible to obtain, by means of a very much cheaper and simpler procedure, those Provisional Orders which, in some cases, are necessary before these piers and harbours are constructed. The right hon. Gentleman did his best some years ago to initiate a policy of that kind, but he was defeated at the time, and I hope the Government will take it up again. They have not given us a negative reply upon this question. This is a direction in which they can do some practical good towards helping the people upon our sea coasts, and if they would only make up their minds to enlarge the powers of the Board of Trade in the direction I have indicated, I am sure they will earn the gratitude of the country.

When the hon. and learned Member for the Elgin Burghs was addressing the House he had the advantage not only of the presence of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As far as I can judge, he made out a very powerful case which fell upon sympathetic ears. I for one expected that when the right hon. Gentleman rose the doors of the Treasury would open a little wider, and that, at least, some redress would be given in the future to what is admittedly a great grievance. But what did the right hon. Gentleman do? He came forward and shut the Treasury doors with a clash. Our position to-day is worse than it has ever been before, because the right hon. Gentleman has laid down, in the very clearest sense, what the financial policy of the Treasury is in the future to be, and, therefore, there is practically no hope. He has said—

"We will carry out the policy, which is a right policy; we will carry out the policy of lending money at 3¼ per cent., and on first-rate security."

That, of course, sounds very plausible. I myself am one who strongly commends the attitude of the Treasury as guardian of the public purse. As such, it is right that they should be very careful. But, if it is right that public money should not be squandered, and should not be given away unnecessarily, surely the Treasury exists for some purpose. It is not an answer in every case to reply, "You can have money at 3¼ per cent." If you turn to the case with which we are dealing, what is the use of the position which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down as the policy of the Treasury? What is the case with regard to harbours that have been alluded to to-night? It is simply that of places of refuge of very small communities. It may be a town where the population require a harbour of refuge as a very necessity in order to live, and where they are not in a position to get it without assistance. I venture to say that 3¼ per cent. is a very high rate to ask, and it is perfectly useless to meet the case of the people engaged in the fishing industries. In the case of these people no good can be done unless the Treasury is prepared to come forward in a very different fashion. I sympathise with the feelings of those who represent the Treasury, as against those who represent local demands, and if it was a question of asking for a dole or for some local assistance, then I should commend the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. But the case is very different. The fishermen are an integral part of our community, and are a deserving and useful portion of the population, and, if they cannot help themselves, surely they are as much entitled to consideration as the agriculturists are, and as are other sections of the community to whose rescue the Government have come with a free and open hand. Now, the right hon. Gentleman has asked, "Why should one trade be assisted more than another?" But if the Government can come to the assistance of agriculture and voluntary schools they ought also to recognise the duty of coming to the assistance of people who cannot help themselves. Surely, then, when we are dealing with an industry which is a very important one, and which contributes most valuable recruits to our Army and Navy, it ought to be shown special consideration. The right hon. Gentleman has laid down a policy which is simply useless to meet the kind of case with which we are dealing. I am not going to enter into details concerning my own constituency. I notice that my hon. Friends who have spoken have disclaimed, When dealing with these questions, any desire to dwell upon the special grievances of their own constituents. They have said, "We are not going to put the case of our special locality." But then they went on, just by way of illustration, to say, "We should like to mention the case of so-and-so." Well, I could unfold a tale which would not be inferior to any of those which have been unfolded by my hon. Friends, and if I refrain from doing so I trust the fishermen I represent will not lament my bashfulness and backwardness. But I wish to deal with the question on proper grounds. What is the case of a harbour such as we are asking for? It is not the case of a harbour which exists in a populous town where rich men dwell, of whom my right hon. Friend has spoken; it is the case of a small local enterprise which has been kept up, in the first instance, by the money of men themselves very poor—by money which they could ill afford, by money which they might have spent very profitably upon their boats, for which they can hardly pay. What is the use of saying that money can be lent at 3¼ per cent.? In nearly every case that I know of—and I have had a great deal of experience in this matter—these harbours have been for the benefit of the public interest and advantage, and not for the benefit of any particular interest. Then the Secretary to the Treasury went on to deal with the case of Scotland, and he replied to what had been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Elgin as to the bounty money which used to go to Scotland, and which was afterwards commuted for an annual payment of £3,000, for the arrears of which we are now asking. The right hon. Gentleman replied that that was money which came out of Imperial taxation. Now, I think the researches of the Secretary to the Treasury have not been so thorough or profound as they usually are. He will find that this bounty system existed before the union of the two Parliaments—it was undertaken to be paid for the future as part of the bargain and terms by which the two Parliaments were united in 1707, and it seems a far from conclusive answer to represent that this money is a modern grant out of Imperial taxation. Nobody knows better man the Lord Advocate that the Scottish Fishery Board, although its mouth may be shut, are behind us in its wishes and aspirations in this matter. Nobody knows better than the painstaking officials of that Board that you cannot do anything for the coasts unless you spend money, not in making lavish grants, but in giving real relief to necessitous populations who have spent their last shilling upon their local harbours, and who are not in a position to spend more, even if it were to save them, from ruin. Yet we are asked to borrow money at 3¼ per cent. That is the issue. I am not blaming the present Government very much. All Governments show, in the presence of their Chancellors of the Exchequer and their Secretaries to the Treasury, a certain amount of faintheartedness in this matter. I suppose it is because we do not present our appeals with a special amount of begging; but I venture to say, not only from my own knowledge, but from the knowledge of the people of my constituency—and I have seen it on various parts of the coast not only of Scotland, but of England also—that the time is near at hand when public opinion will imperatively demand that the Government should come to the rescue of an industrious and enterprising class who have not been remiss in the advantages they have conferred upon the State, and who find it impossible to carry on their means of earning a livelihood with safety unless the Government is prepared to come forward and put them in the position that they have every reason and right to expect.

I am quite sure that everyone in this House will have listened to this Debate with a great deal of interest, because there is no doubt that this is a matter which strongly appeals to all classes of people, and those of us who live upon stormy, rocky, and dangerous coasts feel great sympathy with the desire of the hon. Member who proposed this Motion to make the lives of fishermen more secure than they are at present. At the same time, there are difficulties in the way which I for one perceive, because, having had some experience of the way in which grants have been very lavishly given for this very purpose in the past, I am bound to say that there has been an enormous expenditure and waste of public money in that direction. I happen to live during a considerable part of the year in one of the stormiest parts of Scotland (the Mull of Galloway). I can speak, also, with regard to another county—that which I represent. That county has a sea-board of very many miles, and, knowing something of both these counties, I must say that while I would like to see harbours of refuge dotted here and there along the coast—since they would undoubtedly be the means of saving life—I cannot but think that public money could be much better spent in other directions. What we really want on our coasts, and especially on the coasts of these two counties, is more lighthouses. I am always met with the argument that the Government have nothing to do with lighthouses—that they come within the domain of Trinity House or the Northern Lights Commissioners—but I may say that I have been instrumental in procuring on different parts of the coast several lighthouses which have been entirely got up by private subscription. We have not asked the Government to help us; and, though that could not exactly be done with regard to a harbour, still I think that, if a loan were granted, some help in the same direction might be forthcoming. But what I specially want to ask my right hon. Friend is, whether he cannot see his way to grant loans at less than 3¼ per cent., which is almost prohibitive in all cases, and absolutely prohibitive in some. If the Government could see their way to advance this money at a lower rate of interest I am satisfied that we should not only have harbours of refuge along our coast in much larger numbers than is the case at present, but should also have a great increase in the number of ordinary harbours, which would be of great value in the development of our industries. There is one harbour in our part of the county, on which £250,000 has been expended, and that harbour is desolate and deserted, and no one enters it at all. I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows the harbour to which I refer. Of course there is a possibility of jobbery in these matters, but that the Government must endeavour to provide against. If these loans are granted large and small landowners alike will be only too glad to do all they can to advance the value of their property. We know very well that enormous largesses have been bestowed on harbours which are absolutely useless—and even worse than useless. Take the harbour at Portpatrick, to which I have alluded, £250,000 has been spent from time to time on that harbour, but, owing to the tremendous seas which lash that coast, the outworks have fallen in and the harbour is absolutely useless, even for fishing purposes, for, though a few very small fishing boats can enter, no vessel of ordinary size can get in at all except in very calm weather. Therefore, as a harbour of refuge on one of the most dangerous coasts of Scotland, it is useless. No doubt there is a great desire that more money should be given for the resuscitation of Portpatrick, and, indeed, applications have from time to time been made to the Government in this direction, but the Government—not unwisely, I am bound to say—have turned a deaf ear to those applications because they say that they do not see their way to fritter away, upon an object which they believed would answer no good end, money raised on public taxes. Thus, sorry as I am to oppose hon. Gentlemen who are acting for the benefit of the fishermen of our coasts—for whom no man in the country has greater respect than I have, since they risk their lives continually, and are the very nucleus of our Navy—and in spite of what may be thought of my position with regard to the Motion, I believe I am doing my duty to my constituents, and also to the fishermen themselves, when I say that I feel I must vote against it, though I have so much sympathy with it.

Unlike the hon. Baronet who spoke last, I have been, and am even now, a suppliant at the feet of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. One or two remarks fell from the right hon. Gentleman which deserve, I think, some notice. In the first place he told the hon. Member for Banffshire that he was in disagreement with him as to the reports of Committees and Commissions on this subject, but that he excluded the Report of the Select Committee, over which Lord Tweedmouth presided. I hold in my hand the Report of the Royal Commission on Herring Fisheries, which sat in 1877, and I find it contains the following passage—

"One point was so constantly pressed upon our attention at all the places which we visited on the east coast of Scotland, from Eyemouth to Wick, that we feel our report would be but an imperfect record of the evidence we received, and of the conclusions at which we have arrived, without adverting to it at some length. The point to which we refer is the deficiency of harbour accommodation along the shores of the North Sea, and the urgent necessity for supplying that deficiency, in order to save life and property, and develop and increase the national wealth. There were many matters about which the witnesses we examined on the east coast were at variance… but on this one point—the general deficiency of harbour accommodation and the necessity for suppyling that deficiency—there was perfect unanimity of opinion."

Then they go on to say—

"At Eyemouth, where the fishing-boats are perhaps the largest and finest in Scotland, the harbour is inconveniently small."

And they conclude with the words—

"We desire to add that the best results have ensued in the past from the loans which Government has advanced, through the Public Works Loan Commissioners, for works of this description. The continuance, and, if possible, the extension of this system is very desirable."

I also hope that the Government will see their way to extend the system, but not upon the terms of 3¼ per cent., which the right hon. Gentleman has this afternoon told us he thinks necessary. I have here also the Report of Lord Tweed-mouth's Committee, but I will not quote from it, because we know that the Committee did recommend that grants from the Treasury should be made in aid of harbours of refuge. Allusion has been made by the hon. Member for the Elgin Boroughs to the action of the Public Works Loan Commissioners in reference to this matter, and I would like to point out that in the Report of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee there is a paragraph which states that these Commissioners took a wrong view of the Statute, because they refused to lend money except in the case of harbours which seemed likely to prove actual harbours of refuge. But a harbour of refuge is bound to be useful also as a harbour of traffic. We ask the Government to-night to help to stimulate private enterprise in this matter; but you cannot, I think, accept a large amount of capital to be embarked by private individuals in undertakings of this kind, because there are few, or no, rich people in these villages; and, even if there were rich people to sink their money in these undertakings, I doubt very much whether they would be inclined to do it when they know that they have not only to come to the Board of Trade and the Public Works Loan Commissioners before they can pass any scheme, but have also to come to both Houses of Parliament. I am not surprised that, when they learn that, the enterprise is often abandoned in dismay. In the Resolution before the House the words "periodical disaster" occur, and I would like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the terrible disaster which occurred in 1881 in the constituency I have the honour to represent. In one single gale 129 men were drowned, leaving 351 children under 15 years of age. I do think it is of the utmost importance that this House should realise how serious a question this is—how more than probable it is that such a disaster may again occur, unless harbours of refuge are constructed along our coasts. At the present moment there is not a single such harbour between the Firth of Forth and the Tyne, a distance of about 132 miles; and I would specially support the claims of Eyemouth, because many experts have reported that it would make a most useful and suitable harbour of refuge. The right hon. Gentleman says that boats do not come to these places where the construction of harbours has been recommended; but, of course, boats do not run when there is a gale to places where they know there is no harbour of refuge for them—they rather put out to sea, I do not apologise for making this appeal for the men who supply what is practically a necessity of life, and I maintain that the fisher classes are deserving, not only of the sympathy, but the consideration of this House.

If I may trouble the House for a few moments, I would join in the expression of regret which has fallen from more than one previous speaker as to the attitude which the Government have taken on this question, and I would also express regret with regard to the limited lines on which this Debate has gone, and especially the limited ground on which the right hon. Gentleman based his opposition to the Motion. I will not trouble the House with any ancient history as to these grants, nor is it necessary to repeat what has been so well said by the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs, and other hon. Members, as to the way in which this money has been used and applied in past years, but I am surprised to hear that we in Scotland have been treated with special liberality in regard to this question. The fishing industry in Scotland has been compared with that of England; but, while I rejoice that this Debate has been so widened as to express the wants of other parts of the country, still, the Government must remember that the fishing industry in Scotland is, relatively to the population, far more important than that of other parts of the United Kingdom, and also that the export trade for Scotland is a most important one. From that point of view I would direct the attention of hon. Members to the fact that the tendency nowadays seems to be to developing our home resources. We are searching all quarters of the globe to obtain markets, and in a notable instance—that of the West Indies, where capital has been sunk—we are to be asked to do what we can to maintain and resuscitate what has been done there. Surely we may, without committing ourselves to the policy of doles, look nearer home, and consider whether in this industry we have not got a very important part of our national commercial undertakings that is in need of some help, and especially at the present time. We have now new conditions in the fishing industry. In the first place, we have practically the depletion of the North Sea. We have got, as a second condition, increased activity on the part of other nations, whose fishermen also fish in the North Sea. Germany, Sweden, Holland, and other countries, whose fishermen use the North Sea, are increasing their exertions to gain for their populations a part of the work which has hitherto been carried on to a very large extent by British, and particularly by Scottish, fishermen. Germany is spending large sums in completing three or four large harbours for German fishermen, Sweden is making efforts to rival us in connection with the trade in herrings, which have so large an export to Russia, and in every direction we are having increased competition in this respect. Then, again, there is a change in the fishing industry. We have larger boats and larger gear, and as a matter of fact it is practically true that a large part of the money that has been spent on our coasts during the last 50 years is now useless. Let me say a word as to the argument that has been used by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to free grants. It is perfectly true that we have had from 1824 to 1882 grants given for the purpose of harbours in Scotland, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman took sufficiently into consideration the fact that those grants were based always on a proportionate local expenditure. For instance, while £149,000 was spent in grants for the Fishery Board, and £22,000 for special Parliamentary grants, the localities subscribed nearly £72,000, which is nearly one-third of the total sum spent. Then, again, coming to a later period, it is not just to describe money given for the purpose of harbours as free grants. While the Fishery Board gave £48,000, the localities subscribed £27,000 for the same purpose. It is perfectly true that many of these harbours are not practicable at certain states of the tide. I submit it is perfectly true that this particular element of population is put under great strain at the present time to meet the varying conditions of its industry. I emphasise the appeal, that it should be considered whether it is not possible to enlarge the discretion of the Fishery Board for Scotland, that they should have enlarged discretion and increased funds to carry on what I believe is essentially for the benefit of the population of the country.

With the single exception of the hon. member for Kirkcudbrightshire, every Scots representative who has spoken has supported the Motion before the House. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbrightshire opposes the Motion upon the ground that a sum of £250,000 has been uselessly expended upon Portpatrick. But, Sir, if my recollection serves me, that sum of money was given to subsidise a service of mail steamers, and the case of Portpatrick has, therefore, no real bearing upon the matter at issue in this Debate. I must say that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman for the Government is one full of disappointment, and one which, I am perfectly sure will carry more than a feeling of disappointment to the people who inhabit those wild and rocky shores of the north-east of Scotland. I would also say that, as far as I am capable of judging, the right hon. Gentleman's argument was not only disappointing, but it was, I might almost say, far-fetched. How does he meet the Motion for aid to our harbours in the interests of the fishermen? He tells us that, in the beginning of this century, the British Government gave a bounty to the herring trade, and because at the beginning of this century such a bounty was given there is nothing due from the Government now to the great fishing industry. And how does he meet the reasoned statement of the hon. Member for Banffshire, that there is lodged in the Treasury the sum of £34,000, which has accrued from an excessive charge upon the branding of herrings? The right hon. Gentleman's answer is, that it is perfectly true that there is an excess arising from the branding of herrings; but he goes on to say that, if there is a surplus, the Treasury, in virtue of a bargain made, is entitled to retain it. That being the whole of his argument upon this point, it seems to me that he has failed, at all events, to disprove the contention of the hon. Member for Banffshire, that there is, at all events, a sum of money accruing from the source mentioned in the Treasury which ought to be disgorged. When we come to the climax of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, what does it amount to? It comes to this: the Treasury, he tells us, is perfectly willing to advance money by way of loan at 3½ per cent. upon good security. What security does the right hon. Gentleman expect to get? Does he expect the people of the north-east of Scotland to pledge their barren rocks and mountains? Would he accept such a security for a loan from the Government? The right hon. Gentleman speaks of this coast as if it were dotted all over with Portsmouths and Southamptons. If the right hon. Gentleman is not acquainted with the north-east of Scotland, I wish he would take an early opportunity of becoming familiar with its aspect. He then might have some idea of the only kind of security which the inhabitants of that district have to offer. The right hon. Gentleman has said that a sum of money has already been wasted in this district upon small harbours. I agree. Why has it been wasted? Because the fishing boats on the coast of Scotland are now much larger than they formerly were, and these small harbours neither afford them shelter nor safety. In point of fact, they have been productive of very little benefit to the fishermen, and in that respect they have certainly failed. Large harbours at intervals along the coast are what is wanted. When I say large harbours, I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to suppose for a moment that we wish new harbours on a large scale to be made. There are harbours there now which, with some improvement and extension, are capable of being made satisfactory refuges for the fishermen along that coast. I could mention several such harbours, but I refrain from doing so, lest the right hon. Gentleman should retort that I have a particular interest to serve. Sir, surely the fisher folk of these remote and storm-vexed coasts, who wage an unceasing war with the primitive forces of Nature, are entitled to some consideration from the State. In the prosecution of a national industry full of perils and hardships, do they not merit as much sympathy and assistance as their happier fellow labourers who till the soil in comparative safety and peace? To these you have given two millions of money, and you propose to continue this enormous dole; yet to the former, who wring a scanty subsistence from the dangers of the deep, you have nothing to offer and no hope to hold out.

In 1774 the old Scotch Parliament gave a bounty, and gave all it could, to encourage this industry, and for 104 years that bounty was made; then, again, a change was made by which, in 1824, in lieu of the then bounty, the sum of £3,000 was to be given. Now the value of £3,000 three-quarters of a century ago and the value of that money now is entirely different. Still, up to 1858 the old Scotch Law was in force. From 1858 to 1881 a surplus was created, then from 1881 until now the present system is in operation, and the result is that we have £3,000 plus the surplus of branding fees, which ranges from £1,500 to £3,000 a year. The result is that now, under the present system, our fishing industries are being destroyed, and the only thing to help them is for the State, at the present time, to come to their help. The small fishing boats have given place to large boats, and the Fishery Board harbours are not large enough to take in the new boats; hence the whole of the fishery harbours are, and will be, useless, unless some method is devised of deepening them, and I regret very much that the present Government are going to do nothing at all in this respect.

I should like to express my very great regret that Her Majesty's Government have not been able to take a more favourable view both of the special Motion which is before the House and also the large question of the provision of harbours of refuge. The Secretary to the Treasury in his speech practically stated that be objected altogether to grants in aid for this purpose, on the ground that it was giving a grant in aid to a special industry, but £11,000,000 a year is already given in grants in aid. Large portions not only went for the maintenance of roads—and harbours are part of the roads at sea—but were also given for technical education, which is supposed to be an advantage to the industries to which it refers, and I think it is somewhat unreasonable that Her Majesty's Government should absolutely decline to consider the question of giving special grants for saving the lives of fishermen. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will in a future year, when the prosperity of the country increases as it has done, consider whether they cannot do something to save the very serious loss of life which now occurs on the coasts of these Islands, more particularly when they consider those lives which are lost are the lives of men who, if this country should ever be in a serious condition, would be the most important men of the whole population of this country. I therefore regret very much the answer given by the Secretary to the Treasury.

moved—

"That, inasmuch as the present condition of the Law relating to Habitual Inebriates, both criminal and non-criminal, is unsatisfactory, it is desirable that the Government should introduce legislation dealing with the subject and amend and extend in particular the Habitual Drunkards Acts 1879 and the Inebriates Act 1888."

He said: I wish to draw the attention of the House to a subject of considerable importance—namely, the treatment of habitual inebriates. I have tried to bring this Motion forward on several occasions in different Sessions and different Parliaments, but I have never had luck in the lottery of the ballot. It is a subject that ought to appeal to teetotallers and non-teetotallers alike, and if the Government deals effectively with this subject they will take a practical step in the direction of temperance reform. The main object of my Motion is to induce discussion, and so to assist Her Majesty's Government. A Bill dealing with this subject was mentioned in the Queen's Speech of last year, but no mention was made of it this year in the Queen's Speech. I hope the interest of Her Majesty's Government in it is not less this year than it was last year. Habitual drunkenness may be regarded from several standpoints—ecclesiastical—sin; worldly—vice; national—crime; medical—disease. It is from the medical standpoint of a disease that I wish the House to consider it, because it is considered now by those who study inebriety that it is a mental and a physical disease. Dr. Norman Kerr, Chairman of the Inebriates Legislation Committee of the British Medical Association, has said that in half of his cases, in an experience of over 25 years, he has been able to trace family history. Probably, he would have been able to trace a family history in three-fourths of the cases had it not been for the reticence of friends. The statement of Dr. Norman Kerr is amply borne out by the Inspector of Retreats, who confirms the hereditary theory. The subject is not new to the House of Commons. It was brought forward by Dr. Dalrymple in 1872; it was re-introduced by Sir Charles Cameron in 1877, and that resulted in the Habitual Drunkards Act of 1879. The history of legislation on this subject is very well set out on page 92 in the Notes of evidence taken by the Departmental Committee appointed in 1892, to which I shall presently allude. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon was Chairman of that Committee. The Report, issued in 1893, shows the widespread interest, especially on the part of the medical profession; and in that Report will be found a memorial drawn up by that profession—by the British Medical Association—consisting of something like 15,000 registered medical practitioners. And then, Sir, there are resolutions of Boards of Guardians; and, in connection with that, I may say that in my own constituency of Salford the Gaurdians have memorialised on the subject. We have also expressions of opinion from chief constables, governors of prisons, prison chaplains, and licensees of retreats; and there are innumerable petitions to the House of Commons. As regards deputations, I may say that I myself have attended deputations to Home Secretaries in various Governments. I was a member of the deputation to Lord Llandaff and of the deputation to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife when he was Home Secretary. On the latter occasion Mr. Asquith made a statement that he considered that habitual drunkenness is to be regarded rather as an effect than as a cause of bad social conditions. With regard to the present Home Secretary, I have his sympathy. In answer to a question, he said he hoped to be able to introduce before long a Measure dealing with the treatment of habitual drunkards. His use of those two words "before long" has induced me to press forward my Motion tonight. I want that Bill to be brought in as soon as possible, and, among others, for the following reasons. When the Departmental Committee to which I have alluded made their Report, they found that a considerable percentage of cures had been effected by the treatment and the discipline of retreats. They found also that the number of retreats is too small, and that a considerable enlargement and improvement of the present system must be made to effect a real and genuine benefit from these institutions. The reasons given by the witnesses for comparative failure were these. First of all, there is the want of notoriety. People know little or nothing of the institutions which at present exist for habitual drunkards. Then there is the want of proper facilities for admission, the want of power of compulsion, to which I shall more particularly allude; the insufficiency of the maximum period of detention—namely, 12 months; the difficulties of re-admission, and the difficulty of recovering escaped patients, and of dealing with refractory ones. With regard to the want of proper facilities of admission, the witnesses proposed that instead of appearing before two magistrates in the country, or before a stipendiary, with two witnesses, appearance before one magistrate or a county court judge should be sufficient, and that the appearance need not be in open court. With regard to compulsion, the witnesses proposed that the system of compulsion and detention should be legalised, and that habitual drunkards (according to Section 3 of the Act of 1879) should, under proper safeguards and after careful investigation held in each case, be treated in a manner somewhat similar to that now adopted with regard to lunatics, and detained in retreats in reformatory homes for a considerable period. The suggestion is to supplement and not replace, by compulsion, the present voluntary system. The Departmental Committee, appointed in 1892, reported in 1893, and they divided the inquiry under two heads. First of all there were criminal inebriates, and secondly there were non-criminal inebriates. As regards criminal inebriates there seems to be very little difference of opinion. The main points on which legislation with regard to criminal inebriates is required are, that the magistrates at the present time have no power to commit to retreats, and that there are no retreats for poor persons, except one or two private ones for women. The figures with regard to habitual inebriety are very startling. Dr. Norman Kerr stated recently that there were about a quarter of a million commitments every year in the United Kingdom, believed by the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies to represent 112,000 men and 33,000 women; that of these convictions 50 to 60 per cent. in the case of males, and 80 to 85 per cent. in the case of females, were for offences complicated by drunkenness. In cities 2 to 7 per cent. of habitual drunkards have had from 100 to 500 and 600 convictions. There are numbers of drunkards who have been sentenced in one year from 6 to 52 times—that is once a week. But the most serious feature, in view of the physical and moral health of their offspring, according to Dr. Kerr, is the predominance of female inebriates. The percentage of 10 convictions and upwards was, in several English prisons, of males, 14.5, of females, 3.6; in Scotch prisons, of males 26, and of females 60. Throughout the United Kingdom commitments of 10 up to hundreds of times was 60 per cent. more common among women than among men. There has been a complete failure of what has been called the short sentence system. These unfortunate individuals, who are constantly being committed and re-committed, are known by the names of "ins and outs," and the result of their commitments is that they go into prison to recruit their health and strength, and come out again to take part in another drunken bout. One could give numerous illustrations. For instance, there is the case of a woman who had upwards of 400 convictions, whose husband, a small landlord, had paid £200 in fines for her. She must have been 600 times before the police court. There are other cases of people who have spent nearly the whole of their lives in prison: for instance, one person had never been out of prison between 15 and 63 years of age. And one cannot help recalling the case of the poor woman, whose name is so familiar in our newspapers, Jane Cakebread, who was convicted something like 280 times, and afterwards taken first to a private home by Lady Henry Somerset and then to a lunatic asylum. She ought to have been sent at the very first to an inebriates' retreat. I could also give you particulars which appeared in the Blue Book of 129 appearances before a police court of one woman; and it stated that probably these figures of constant commitments and re-commitments do not represent half the number of times the persons are taken before the magistrates. There are the cases of persons who change their names, who go to other prisons, who get discharged at the police court, and who have their fines paid by their friends. Well, Sir, the Committee made various recommendations. The Committee recommended that authority, as in Section 25 of the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Act, 1874, should be given to the police to apprehend, without warrant, persons drunk and incapable in public highways, places, and buildings. They recommended that reformatory institutions should be provided, aided by contributions from the Imperial and local funds, as in the case of existing reformatories and industrial institutions for juvenile offenders. They recommended also that magistrates should have power to commit to such reformatory institutions, among others, drunkards who come within the criminal law, drunkards who ill-treat or neglect their wives and families, and drunkards who are convicted of drunkenness three or more times in the previous year. As regards the second portion of the inquiry of the Departmental Committee—namely, with regard to non-criminal inebriates—it is there that the chief difficulty lies. There is one strong argument, however, for dealing, not merely with criminal inebriates, but also with non-criminal inebriates, and it is this: if you recognise criminal inebriates, then there will be an inducement for friends and relatives of habitual inebriates, who have not committed any crime, to allow them to commit some act of folly in order to bring them within the class of criminal inebriates, in order that they may be dealt with by the law. A Bill was introduced in 1895 by Lord Herschell in another place, which dealt with these two classes of inebriates, and, so far as one could gather from the Debate, there seemed to be general assent that there should be legislation for criminal inebriates, but there was not that general assent with regard to non-criminal inebriates, and it is on that phase of the Motion that an expression of opinion from hon. Members would be most valuable. Lord Salisbury and Lord Halsbury and other Peers raised the cry of interference with the liberty of the subject. We have heard that cry before. But these habitual inebriates are not free men; they are absolute slaves to this disease of inebriety, and I could give you many illustrations in support of this from letters which have been written to me by people who have to deal with these sad cases. I take up one at random, and it is as follows—

"In my own family I have a most painful example of the misery inflicted by one of these helpless inebriates upon his parents, his wife, and his children. In his sober moments he is moved to tears at the wretchedness he has caused; but, when he is again enticed to drink, he will pawn the shirt off his back in order to buy whisky. It is horrible. There are hundreds of such cases, I am told."

That is only one of the many letters which I have received. After all, is not Parliament constantly interfering with the liberty of the subject? Look at our factory legislation for women and children. Then, again, in regard to the hours of labour of railway servants, and in sending people who contract infectious diseases to hospitals, we interfere with the liberty of the subject. One strong argument against compulsion, and in favour of this cry of liberty of the subject, is that there will be a temptation, as regards property, for the relations and friends of habitual inebriates; but such an argument might be used against compulsion in the case of the Lunacy Acts. A case of inebriety should be regarded in effect as a case of insanity or idiocy. Apparently Lord Salisbury and Lord Halsbury are in favour of legislation in the direction of compulsory restraint, if such can be accomplished without detriment to individual liberty. If, therefore, the doctors, the clergy, and the judges are fallible, surely we might appoint Commissioners of Inebriety, after the manner that we appoint Commissioners of Lunacy. If you can trust Commissioners of Lunacy, then I think you might trust, such individuals as Commissioners of Inebriety. Another difficult part of the subject is with regard to expense. When industrial homes were first proposed, the argument of expense was used against them, but experience has proved that what they cost in one way they save in another. Again, Sir, there would be a saving of police court and other expenses, and another way in which funds might be provided, apart from the question of Imperial and local funds, would be by the payment by those with means for those without means. These cases of habitual inebriety are extremely difficult to deal with. Take the case of a youth who has something like £300 a year left him by relatives or friends. He is possessed of his bread and butter for life, as he thinks. He becomes idle, and takes to drink. What can his friends do with him? He becomes an habitual inebriate. They hand him over to the doctor, but the doctor fails. Then they try, perhaps, hypnotism, the gold cure, and other cures. Then perhaps they induce him to enter a retreat. Probably he does not like the retreat, becomes refractory, and breaks away. He spends his money, becomes bankrupt, and then falls on the rates, or is sent to prison. It is extremely difficult to deal with the young who drink. Inebriates have the most fickle of wills, and in their case particularly compulsion is necessary. While I am alluding to the question of property I would like to point out that it is extremely difficult to deal with the property of an habitual inebriate. You cannot restrain him against anticipation, and if he is to receive money you must give it to some third person or persons, absolutely or, in certain events, with a gift over, and if you do that there is the risk, among others, of the money merging. I think I have pointed out the necessity of dealing with cases of non-criminal inebriates, and I hope the Government will provide a reformatory and make it a Test Retreat. The Committee recommended that the establishment of retreats should be encouraged for those who cannot provide the whole of the funds necessary for their maintenance, the residue being supplied by voluntary contributions, and, if thought desirable, by aid from the public rates; and that, with regard to such retreats, the Secretary of State should be empowered to make regulations by which a certain amount of work, suited to each particular case, should be enforced. They recommended, further, that power should be given for the compulsory committal to a retreat of persons coming within the definition of an habitual drunkard, as laid down in the Act of 1879—

"A person who, not being amenable to any jurisdiction, is, notwithstanding, by reason of habitual intemperate drinking of intoxicating liquor, at times dangerous to himself or herself, or to others, or is incapable of managing himself or herself, or his or her affairs"—

on the application of their relations or friends, or other persons interested in their welfare, such application to be made to any judge of the High Court, any County Court judge, stipendiary magistrate, or justices sitting in Quarter or Petty Sessions, who shall decide on the propriety of the application. The Committee also recommended that the property of the person committed should be liable for his maintenance, and that the order for committal should provide, when necessary, for the appointment of a trustee of the patient's estate during the period of committal, with power to apply the same towards the support of his wife or family. I do not think that it is worth my while now to labour this subject any further. I could continue to a considerable length. I should wish, for instance, to point out that when I refer to intoxicants I should like that definition extended so as to include opium, morphine, chloral, chloroform, ether, cocaine, and other narcotics. As to foreign and colonial law, I moved recently for several Returns on the subject of habitual inebriety and hon. Members can find much that is instructive and interesting from those Returns. I would refer particularly to Switzerland and the law in force in the Canton of St. Gall with regard to treatment of inebriates to the "family council" of France and the "curator system" of Germany. If an illustration were wanted of an institution for habitual inebriates carried on by a State Government, I would refer to the Massachusetts Hospital for Dipsomaniacs and Inebriates at Foxborough, which is the only inebriate institution, I believe, opened and carried, on by a State Government. I do not wish now to speak at greater length. I have dealt with both branches of the subject: the treatment of criminal and non-criminal habitual inebriates. I wish to urge Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill dealing with both branches; but, if they think time will not permit of their passing this Session a Bill dealing with both, I would ask them to bring a Bill, at all events, to deal with one, viz., the criminal habitual inebriate branch. It will be one step onward, but the voice of pity will cry for a further advance. I feel confident that, in dealing with the subject of my Motion, most useful legislation would be effected by Her Majesty's Government. I have the honour to move the Motion which stands in my name.

I do not wish to make a speech, but I rise to second the Motion. I hope the Government will stiffen their backs, and bring in a good, drastic, practical Bill, which will do something to settle this long-standing Question, and to rescue from destruction a helpless, hopeless, and mischievous class of people who have entirely lost the faculty of helping themselves.

I congratulate my hon. Friend behind me on having at last succeeded in calling the attention of the House to a subject the importance of which I am sure none of us will deny. I am aware he has made several efforts to bring this matter forward, and I am happy to be able to assure him that the Government entertains no objection to accepting the Motion he has moved. My hon. Friend has referred to a promise made in the Queen's Most Gracious Speech last year that the Government would introduce a Bill on this subject. We have made no such promise this year, but I trust that I shall be able to bring in before long a Bill dealing with this subject. I can corroborate what my hon. Friend has said about the increasing desire of the country for some legislation. I have received at the Home Office during the past few months a largely increased number of resolutions, from Boards of Guardians especially, and from other local bodies, earnestly desiring that this House should endeavour in some way to deal with flagrant cases of habitual drunkenness, to which allusion has been made by my hon. Friend. And I may say also, with reference to non-criminal habitual drunkards, as they are commonly called, that I have received letters, such as the one partly read by my hon. Friend, which are exceedingly sad. We have no figures upon that particular branch of the question, but everyone who has given any attention to it will be aware, probably from their own personal knowledge, that there are many such very sad cases with which it would be very desirable to deal if possible. With reference to the magnitude of the question, if one looks at the number of persons who are convicted from time to time in the police courts, the figures are positively alarming. I do not think it is necessary to prove that to an obviously convinced House, but I will quote figures given by Lord Herschell when he introduced his Bill in 1895. According to the figures he gave, of 33,000 women sent to prison every year for drunkenness, no less than 11,000 had been convicted ten times previously, and Lord Herschell spoke of one woman who had only had one week's liberty in the 12 months. It is perfectly true, as has been said, that short sentences are of no use for the purpose of reformation. They are of no use in protecting society. Even if they do protect society it is a very expensive way of securing that protection, and the effect of giving short sentences is, that these unfortunate people come out only better prepared to lake another turn at alcohol, and their last state is worse than their first. Again, taking our local prisons, I find that in 478 cases of lunacy detected during 1895, no less than 86 were distinctly traceable to alcohol, and out of 118 deaths, 10 were traceable to the same cause. Therefore it is perfectly plain that with regard to these unfortunate people there is a strong case for endeavouring to do something by law to deal with this difficulty, and I am convinced that public feeling will support the Government in what they propose to do. Well, my hon. Friend has alluded to the special difficulties attaching to dealing with non-criminal cases. I confess that I feel this to be a very difficult portion of the subject. Notwithstanding the sadness of the cases, and notwithstanding the desire of those who are concerned with them, there is a great indisposition to undergo the necessary publicity. I do not agree with the Report of the Committee which says that persons might be committed and sentenced by one magistrate in his private room, and sent off to an inebriates' reformatory. I do not think this House would be disposed to do otherwise than safeguard in a more rigid manner the liberty of the subject. If such a suggestion were adopted there would be a danger of fraudulent accusations of inebriety being made. In the first instance, then, I think I can tell my hon. Friend that, in trying to deal with this subject, the Bill I hope to introduce before very long does not deal with the case of non-criminal inebriates, except in so far that in some respects, it makes what I hope will be certain improvements in the existing Acts, and gives certain powers which have been recommended by the Home Office Committee and other committees which have considered the subject. Well, Sir, when we come to deal with the cases of those who are convicted from time to time in our courts of drunkenness, or who are convicted of other serious offences of which drunkenness forms a very important part, then I think we are on ground which is comparatively more easy to deal with, and by a step in that direction I think the Legislature would be doing very good work. Now, Sir, I am not going to venture to trouble the House long, but it seems to me that there are two or three principles that we must bear in mind, and two or three objects we must aim at. In the first place I think that, in dealing with these unfortunate persons our efforts should be remedial and not punitive. That is to say, you do not want long sentences of imprisonment, as much as you want long enough sentences of reformatory treatment, and the legislation that I shall propose will be—following the lines laid down by the late Government of 1895—a Bill which would provide for the establishment of certified reformatories for inebriates. Then, Sir, I think it is plain from the experience of existing retreats that it requires a considerable period of detention to do an habitual inebriate man or woman much good; and I am afraid it takes longer to cure a woman than a man. I think, therefore, that the courts which are to sentence the persons to those reformatories, must be enabled to inflict a sufficiently long period of detention, and in order to secure the effective working of this system you must provide considerable safeguards to secure that the person is rightly committed; that ample power and ample security for publicity must be given, and, possibly, even the verdict of a jury must be taken. Then, Sir, I think it is desirable to provide for the separate treatment of these habitual drunkards. I observe that among the suggestions made by one of the Committees I have mentioned there is a suggestion that parts of the Poor Law establishments and other public institutions might be used for the treatment of these cases of drunkenness. From the evidence I can gather from those retreats which exist in other parts of the world, it appears to me better to face the difficulty of providing separate and proper reformatory establishments, where, under proper supervision, you can deal with those cases; and it is in that way, and I believe in that way only, you can hope to reform these unfortunate creatures. I hope, in bringing in a Bill on this subject, the Government will be prepared on their part to do something themselves in this direction, and they propose that there should be some expenditure of public money as in the case of reformatory schools some years ago, but they also rely upon the co-operation of private efforts and philanthropy. I hope that it may be possible to make some of the existing retreats still more useful—probably by the proposals in this Bill. I do not see why some of those existing retreats might not, with the assistance of legislation, become still more useful. The retreats which have been created under the legislation referred to of 1879, have done good work so far as they go. I am afraid that when one reads reports of these retreats, and the number of cases dealt with, it is rather disappointing, but, at the same time, we must remember that these institutions were rather novel in this country. They have been undertaken by men and women who were very anxious to do what they could in the matter, and, so far as their powers went, they have done a great deal of good. But the obvious difficulties of these retreats were the want of compulsion and the difficulty of detaining inebriates and so on. Now I do not think that that could be dealt with all at once, but, I do hope we shall be able to introduce legislation this Session which will deal, at all events, with criminal inebriates, and which will do something to improve legislation with regard to other cases. The Government are prepared to accept the Motion.

said he could congratulate the House upon that distinct advance which had taken place in the treatment of inebriates since the question had first been brought before the House. When a similar Measure to the present was brought before it on a former occasion, he assured hon. Gentlemen that the promoters could not persuade the House to deal with it. That Measure drew attention to the fact that many of these unfortunate people and their friends were willing to submit to any treatment in the hope of being cured. It was proposed to deal compulsorily with any person, provided they were proved to be habitual drunkards, and who refused to be treated. It was also proposed to deal with the quasi-criminal habitual drunkards who are a pest to Society. As to the latter portion of the Bill, the sentiment in the House was so strongly opposed to increasing the burden on the rates for such a purpose that it had to be dropped. Experience showed that a very considerable percentage of habitual drunkards were willing to go into retreats, and for that purpose a Bill was brought in afterwards. But the House was very chary of doing anything permanently in the matter, and in the House of Lords the term of that Bill was cut down to ten years, and passed in a most mutilated form—so mutilated that it was proposed to withdraw the Measure altogether, and it was only allowed to pass on the advice given by the late Lord Shaftesbury, who had said that one never ought to lose an opportunity of imprinting a principle on the Statute Book, and gave as an illustration the Factories Act, which now overshadowed all the industries of the country, but which, upon its first introduction, was little more than a principle. The House had no idea of the intense Longing which many of these poor victims had for reformation. He (Sir Charles) happened to be the Chairman which investigated this matter in Scotland, and they visited some of these retreats, where they saw many who had drooped into a life of vice through drink. The Committee saw women there who had voluntarily immured themselves in these retreats, working for a bare subsistence for two years in the hope that they might recover and be able to take their proper places again in Society. It was with regret that he heard the Home Secretary say that he did not propose to deal with the case of the non-criminal habitual drunkards, whom many in that House would like to see placed in such a position that they might be committed to a retreat at the instance of their friends. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary spoke of their friends or relatives being able to bring them before a Magistrate, and, upon his order, getting them committed to a retreat for a year or more. But that was not the case; the Committee over which he presided considered the question of committals, and came to the conclusion that a man must be brought before the Sheriff or a County Court Judge, and not be committed by a Magistrate, and that his case might be gone into in camerâ, if he wanted privacy, or in open Court. He was perfectly certain that those who advocated the extension of powers dealing with that class of habitual drunkards would be most willing to engraft on their proposal every possible safeguard which might be considered necessary to preserve the liberty of the subject. At the present moment the liberty of the subject was not guaranteed. He could take a representative of the Home Department in nine hours to two institutions in Edinburgh, not certified under the Act, where habitual drunkards were put in, voluntarily, and involuntarily very often, and where they were kept under more stringent regulations than those which the Committee proposed. At the present moment the right hon. Gentleman had to consider the fact that one had only to set up a retreat to be able to carry on his business with the utmost disregard to the liberty of the subject. At Edinburgh there were two institutions, one of which his Committee went over, and one of the men there bitterly complained of the way in which he was kept in. The gentleman in charge told them that if a man sent in his wife as an incurable drunkard, and she was unwilling to remain there, they took her in when she was drunk and kept her until she recovered her senses, which it sometimes took her a couple of months to do. The diet was somewhat poor, and largely consisted of butter milk. That gentleman kept them in confinement for two months, and then let them out on Sunday, when there were no public-houses open and no temptation to be thrown in their way. He then gave them greater liberty, sending them out with attendants of the establishment on week-days. They were searched when they came home by the attendants, and if any of them had taken advantage of the opportunity to get liquor or money it was taken from them on their return, and the attendants of the place were given a reward for any money or liquor which they found upon the inmates, whose liberty was not guaranteed by the possibility of any inspector visiting the establishment, and who had no power to appeal to the Home Office for liberation. That institution was carried on on the same lines now as it had been for many years, without any action on the part of the authorities to safeguard the liberty of its inmates. It struck him as being absurd, when that was the state of things all over the country, in many parts of England, as well as in Scotland and Ireland, not to deal with the matter for fear of curtailing the liberty of the subject. Under the present law the temptation was for a man not to license a retreat, because, although he might acquire certain legal powers to keep his patients there by so doing, he would have to observe certain formalities, and under present conditions, whether he had legal powers or not, he did keep them in such retreats as had been referred to. With regard to the voluntary patients, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind that a large number of them went before the magistrates and asked to be committed. They were compelled to do so. A father or a husband said: "If you will not go to a retreat I will let you starve," and that threat sent many of them to these institutions and kept them there. In one of the retreats which the Committee visited they investigated the case of a patient who desired to get out, but who stated that her husband would not keep her if she left the institution; so she had no option but to remain. He (Sir Charles) was of opinion that if the Home Secretary would take the matter up and put all these retreats under regulations it would afford a better guarantee for the liberty of the subject than the rough-and-ready system which at present existed, under which a large number of people, nominally at their own request, were immured in these retreats under the compulsion of threatened starvation. For one or two drunkards confined under the present Act, the right hon. Gentleman would find dozens or scores in unlicensed retreats, and all without that protection which would be afforded them if a licence were required for every retreat, and if he made a regulation that the licences should only be granted for persons coming within the definition of habitual drunkards. The Home Secretary had told them that he was prepared to deal with the quasi criminal habitual drunkard, and if he dealt with that portion of that subject in a bold and comprehensive fashion it would be of great benefit to the public, for these pests of society would be segregated and kept from being a source of annoyance, while they would also have a chance of permanent reformation. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had gone so far as he had promised to do, but he trusted that on reconsideration the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to take note of the very important branch of the question to which he (Sir Charles) had referred.

I should not like this opportunity to pass without saying one word upon the subject of this Resolution. In the first place, I would congratulate my hon. Friend on the reward of his patient continuance in well-doing, and, in the next place, I would thank the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for having so readily agreed to accept this Resolution, and for having promised to bring in a Bill dealing with the subject. There is one suggestion I should like to make to the right hon. Gentleman, and that is, that he should bring within the scope of his Bill a clause dealing with non-criminal inebriates, a class from which probably one-half of the criminal inebriates come. Criminal inebriates can almost be dealt with by prison discipline. I do not intend to occupy the time of the House to-night upon this subject, but I hope I may be pardoned for saying a word or two for Ireland in approbation of the Resolution which has been proposed by my hon. Friend, and to request that the Home Secretary will take into his favourable consideration the suggestion which I have ventured to make.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the following Resolution—

"That, in the opinion of this House, it is unjust that Wales should receive no share of the Museum Grants of the United Kingdom; and that it is expedient to make provision, similar to that made for Scotland and Ireland, for the expenditure of a due share of the Museum Grant in Wales."

The Motion itself is in precisely the same terms as the Motion which has appeared in my name from time to time during the last five years. The effect of the Motion is that a due share of the Museum Grant should be voted to Wales. I may inform, the right hon. Gentleman, who is in charge of this matter, that both political parties are absolutely united in regard to this question, and not only the Members from Wales, but all the educational authorities in Wales as well. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me on this occasion to argue the principle which underlies my Motion. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor has admitted, in his time, the validity of that principle, but, of course, the right hon. Gentleman is not bound by his predecessor's promise. When this question was brought forward two years ago the only objection the right hon. Gentleman himself made was that Wales had no educational capital, as he described it, and he told us that we must, first of all, have an educational capital, and then the Government would take into its very serious consideration the question of a Museum Grant. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that he hoped the assurance would be satisfactory to the hon. Members who had raised the Debate, and that, of course, shows what the character of that assurance was intended to be. Moreover, he said that it would be impossible to adopt the Resolution, because it would necessitate a revision of the Estimates. Well, of course, that is an argument which we, on this side are bound to accept on that occasion and at any other time. Still, at the same time, what we do ask the Government to consider is that some promise should be given that in the Estimates of some future year they will be good enough to grant us what we have asked for so often and with so much unanimity. The right hon. Gentleman urged the argument that we ought to find our capital first and ask for the Grant afterwards. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of what has been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that, if the interest is guaranteed in commercial matters, as a general rule you have very little difficulty in finding the capital. Well, Sir, if the right hon. Gentleman will guarantee us the interest, we will find him the capital. I would refer him, as another Member referred him, to the case of the Welsh University Colleges in 1882. When it was a question, at that time, where the colleges should be established, the Government very wisely made the Grant for their maintenance, and then left the site to be determined by arbitration. The arbitrators gave their decision, and that decision has been accepted loyally throughout the Principality of Wales. That is what we ask the Government to do upon this Bill. We ask the Government to definitely give us an assurance that a Museum Grant shall be given to Wales, and we will undertake, on our part, to solve the difficulty, if there is a difficulty, arising out of the want of capital. Whether, by locating the Museum in one town, or by adopting the suggestions which were thrown out in the course of the Debate—that the Museum, for instance, should be in one centre, the National Library in another, and the Art Gallery in a third—that is, of course, a question which will be left practically to the ultimate decision of the Government, in their wisdom, to decide. We would not presume to decide a question of that kind. Sir, we find—though we do not grudge it, for a single moment—that £17,000 a year is paid to Scotland, by way of Museum Grants, and that £31,000 a year is paid to Ireland for Museum Grants, including, of course, the Grant to the Royal Hibernian Academy. It is in face of these facts that we make this request. The right hon. Gentleman will correct me if my figures are wrong, but, at all events, the Grants given to Scotland and to Ireland are very large. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, our educational system has lately in Wales been approaching completion. In fact it is almost complete with the exception of this one grant. We have our intermediate schools and University colleges, but we have not that necessary adjunct to complete the system of education—a National Museum. We have no national storehouse of any kind whatever. Our treasures of art and antiquity are scattered up and down the United Kingdom, while, wherever there are sales of objects of interest to Wales, there is no authority to purchase them for the sake of a Welsh Museum. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the sacrifices which have been made in Wales of recent years in the cause of education. I know, myself, in the case of thousands of working-men, that they have contributed out of their slender means towards the completion of the Welsh educational system—thousands of men who have absolutely no direct interest of any kind whatever in University colleges, and in intermediate schools—they have, I say, contributed liberally out of their necessities towards those schools. Sir, we cannot expect very much from the Government on those great questions on which we in Wales differ from them; but we have appealed to them time after time to do something for us in regard to this question, on which we are united with hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. I hope that the Government are not this year again going to turn a deaf ear to the voice of Wales, and we appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give a favourable reply to the appeal that we make on behalf of our fellow-countrymen.

I beg to second the Motion.

I am rather disappointed that the hon. Member has couched his Resolution in exactly the same terms in which he has frequently brought it before the House, for I was in hopes that the speech I made two years ago would have convinced the hon. Gentleman and his friends who represent Welsh constituencies that it is rather an exaggeration to say that no share of the Museum Grants for the United Kingdom is spent in Wales. I told you then that Wales, in common with other parts of the Kingdom, had a considerable share of the Museum Grants. I have on this occasion fortified myself with some details as to the manner in which Wales does share in the Museum Exchequer. I find there is a very excellent museum in Cardiff, which, I suppose, I must not quite call the metropolis of Wales, but which, of all Welsh towns, is most likely to become the centre of Welsh education and Welsh industry. Well, Sir, that museum has every year large loans and objects granted to it. In the year which has just expired there were 142 different objects lent to that museum, and eight paintings. Not only are the loans more every year, but last year there was held in Cardiff an exhibition of Welsh interest generally, and to that exhibition an independent and separate loan was made from the South Kensington Museum. I also find that, out of the very small sum which is annually voted by the Science and Art Department for giving financial aid to provincial museums, Cardiff has twice within the last few years received a small amount. It received a grant in 1891, and it received a grant in 1896.

How much?

£26 a year. I quite agree that the amount is small, and I would laugh, too, if Ministerial etiquette permitted me. But the House must remember that the whole of the grant to all the museums in England and Wales, is only £500, and, therefore, £26 is not the very small sum it would otherwise appear. The grant was also made to Cardiff again in 1897, but, unfortunately, the amount was spent in what I think a wrongful way, and that is in giving to the different museums a reproduction of casts. It is far better, in the case of good sculpture, to have a good copy than some rubbishy original. Well, then, besides this I find that museum objects were loaned to schools of art in Wales, and to Aberystwyth, to Cardiff, Carmarthen, Denbigh, Swansea, and Wrexham—that was during 1897—and there are scientific apparatus and scientific objects lent to Cardiff, Llanrwst, Wrexham, and other places. Therefore it is not quite fair to us to say that Wales receives no share whatever of the museum expenditure. It receives pretty much the same sort of share as the towns of Lancashire, Yorkshire, the Midlands, and other places. I am perfectly ready to admit that that share is less than I should like it to be, but the Department were doing everything that was possible at South Kensington to increase not only the objects circulating among the country museums of art, but also to improve their quality and their class, and I think that if the hon. Member will go down to South Kensington and speak to the officers there, he will find that much progress has been made in what I consider to be the real function of a museum like that at South Kensington, and that is to infuse a knowledge of art by using artistic objects as much as possible amongst various classes in various parts of the country. South Kensington is the Central museum at which objects are collected for the whole country, and these objects are, as far as possible, disseminated and circulated amongst the various museums and schools of art throughout the country. With regard to the future, I am quite certain that the Members for Wales thoroughly understand what is the object of maintaining a museum by the Department with which I am connected. It is not like the British Museum. It is not a collection like the National Gallery, consisting of magnificent pictures, but it is a collection which is very much humbler, but, perhaps, even more useful—namely, to furnish the schools and places of education in the country with those objects which are necessary to complete education in either art or science. That is the object, and it is part of the function of that Museum to provide Welsh schools of art, Welsh colleges of science, and Welsh centres of higher education with that kind of assistance in their education which a properly constituted system of exhibition of works of art will give. Well, I can assure the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs that every effort shall be made to meet the growing education of Wales by an increased distribution of objects of this kind. I do not quite understand what the hon. Member wishes. Does he wish to establish in Cardiff a sort of rival museum to the Cardiff Museum?

I might explain that the right hon. Gentleman said two years ago that he would consider the possibility of having a distributing centre in Wales. I believe that he said that last year. I say we are entitled to such a centre, in face of the fact that a grant like £31,000 is made to Scotland, £17,000 to Ireland, and about a quarter of it million to England.

The figures are not correct. The Scotch grant is £12,000, and is for the maintenance of the Edinburgh Museum, which is a branch of the Science and Art Department established in Edinburgh, and which is kept up at the public expense, like they are at South Kensington and Bethnal Green. Then there is another museum in Dublin which has a grant of £22,000. It might be a question whether it might not be desirable hereafter to establish some branch of the South Kensington Museum in Wales, but, as I said before, when speaking on this subject, there is no centre of Welsh education in any particular place. But I do not know whether, if I were to establish a museum to-morrow, I should go to Cardiff. In the first place, it is not the head of Welsh education; and, secondly, there is already a most excellent museum there, and it would be far better that any fund available should be spent in improving the existing museum than in setting up a museum which would overlap the existing one.

What about antiquities?

I cannot say anything on that point. We keep up our educational museums for other objects. With regard to the other grants, the right hon. Member spoke of about a quarter of a million, but that is not for museums, but for grants for schools of art and science; and of that quarter of a million Wales gets exactly the same share that England, Scotland, and Ireland get. It is distributed exactly the same in and art, and every science class, and every art class which is established. It is distributed to exactly the same in Wales, and the amount of the grant depends entirely upon the amount of local effort made by the Welsh classes; and if the Welsh people wish to have a larger share of that grant they can easily get it by extending science and art teaching in Wales. I am quite sure in a very few years the Welsh people will get a very much larger share, proportionally, of that grant than the people of England do, because they are now making great efforts in secondary education, and spending a great deal of their own money in establishing schools of science and art and various other schools for higher education, and if they have not a greater grant to-day they will certainly have it in a few years. I think every effort should be made by those in charge of the education of the country to encourage the people of Wales in developing the faculties which they possess, by providing museums, and every means for encouraging secondary education ought to be given to Wales.

The supporters of this Motion do not want to have in Wales what the right hon. Gentleman has offered them—a perambulating museum of scientific instruments and curiosities. They are asking for something very much different, and the right hon. Gentleman professes not to understand the Motion, but it is plain enough. It states that it is—

"expedient to make provision similar to that made for Scotland and Ireland, for the expenditure of a due share of the Museum Grant in Wales."

These are the words of the Motion, and, I venture to say, nobody can misunderstand them, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not misunderstand them. He has told us that he is willing to send round plenty of casts from good objects, and that good casts from good objects are better than bad originals. I am sure he may be right, but we do not want to have an increased number of plaster casts like Italian boys carry about the streets. That is not the object of my hon. Friend's Motion. What we want in Wales is a national museum for Wales; a museum that will comprise every department of Welsh life, Welsh history, and Welsh antiquity. We want to have a museum in Wales that will do for Wales what the British Museum does for England. That is what we want for Wales, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint Boroughs is asking for in language which nobody can misunderstand, and it is met by the right hon. Gentleman coming forward here and saying that five years ago £26 was given to Cardiff. That is the way this Motion is answered. You give £31,000 to Ireland and £17,000 to Scotland.

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, I corrected these figures. It is £22,000 for Ireland.

All right then. It is £22,000 for Ireland, £12,000 to Edinburgh, and for Wales—you gave £26 five years ago to Cardiff. Well, I think £26 five years ago to Cardiff is not enough, and that is why my hon. Friend has brought forward this Motion, and that is why I hope it will be accepted by this House.

I rise to call the attention of the House to the constant infraction of the law with regard to trawling in the waters round the Scottish coasts, and to move—

"That, it is the imperative duty of the Government to see that the law is properly enforced."

I will not attempt at this time of the evening to go into this subject fully. I could, if time permitted, say a good deal. This Question is attracting much attention at the present moment, and there is a widespread belief that the great diminution in the fishery at the present moment is largely due to the trawlers from foreign countries. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate, in speaking on this subject, admitted that it was solely due to that cause. I agree with him that it is solely due to that, and, if I wanted to adduce any witness in favour of my contention, I would quote the words of the Scotch Secretary himself who had stated that he had no doubt whatever that it was owing to this cause that the fishery had been absolutely destroyed. I think that is as strong a statement as could possibly be made for my purpose to-night, and, therefore, I shall not say anything further upon that point. What I want to lay before the House is this: That the law as laid down to regulate trawling has not been properly carried out, and a good deal of the difficulty has arisen because the law has not been applied quickly and efficiently, and where it required a legislative remedy that has not been applied. This trawling has had a most disastrous effect on all forms of deep-sea fishing. There are three points which I wish to lay before the House. I refer to what is known as the three-mile limit and to the thirteen-mile limit. The House is well aware that the Act of 1889 gave the Fisheries Board of Scotland the power to close the area for twelve months, and it was so closed in 1892, and since then there have been constant complaints with regard to the trawlers. I believe, from what the Lord Advocate has told us during the Session, and from the assurances given by the Fisheries Board, that during the past week steps have been taken to keep the English trawlers out of this area. But it is well known, and it is allowed by the Lord Advocate himself and the Scotch authorities, that foreign trawlers are there fishing day after day and week after week. Well, the Scotch law empowered the Fisheries Board to close this area, and it was legally closed. When the law was disputed the right hon. Gentleman himself took action on behalf of the Government, and the legality of closing the Moray Firth was confirmed by the High Court. There is no doubt that it is legally closed, and when these foreign trawlers brought their fish to Aberdeen the Lord Advocate stepped in and prevented them landing their fish in Aberdeen. The result was, however, that they steamed away down to Hull and Grimsby, and there they landed these illegally caught fish. I say that that was rendering absolutely vague and meaningless the statutes passed by this House upon the first day of the Session. I asked the Lord Advocate a question upon this subject as to what action he proposed to take. I put it to him that the law was being broken, that the illegally caught fish were being landed in English ports, and I asked him what steps were going to be taken, and he told me then that he hoped within a short time to be able to make a statement on that subject. Well, no statement, as far as I am aware, has been made by him since that time, and we have had the Scotch legal authorities and the Government, as a whole, winking at the breaking of the law, or, at any rate, taking no steps whatever to render the law of good effect. They may say that it is legislation that is necessary to remedy it. I do not think, however, that the Lord Advocate himself has absolutely committed himself to the statement that legislation is necessary, but, if it is necessary, then let the Government introduce such legislation. It is well known—and it must be known to the Lord Advocate—that such action has been taken by foreign countries with regard to this matter. Other countries have extended their powers forbidding trawling, and they will not allow them to land their fish in their ports; and they will not allow them to get their victuals in their ports either. I say that we ought to do the same, and not allow our English ports to be open to these foreigners. The second point is with regard to the three-mile limit. It is well known that the Act of 1889 gave power to the Fishery Board to close the three-mile limit to trawlers all round the coast of Scotland, but week after week, month after month, and year after year, we have made complaint that the law has never been properly or efficiently put into operation. I think I express the feeling of every Member who knows anything about the fishing communities when I say that the sea police is lamentably ineffective. I am perfectly certain that there is no part of the coast of Scotland that suffers more than the coast of Aberdeen. It is well known that most of the trawlers come upon that coast. If they have had bad fishing they just take a turn round Aberdeen way. There have been constant cases brought before the Courts of encroachments on that coast within the three-mile limit. It has been constantly promised that we are to have adequate fishery cruisers, and questions are constantly being asked with reference to these, but we are put off from day to day, and month to month, and still the cruisers do not appear. It is a great fraud upon the fishing population of this country that they should be deceived by the House of Commons passing laws of this sort and then not providing sufficient money to put them into operation. Then, with regard to the 13-mile limit, it is well known that in the Bill of 1895 a proposal was brought forward by the late Government that the territorial limit should be extended to 13 miles for fishery purposes. The Bill passed this House originally with this clause in it, and it was in a late stage of the Bill, on the motion of Lord Salisbury himself, that a proviso was introduced that this clause should not come into operation until the Powers of the North Sea, who joined in the Convention of 1892, had agreed to make similar regulations. It was pointed out to Lord Salisbury at the time that this would render part of the statute ineffective. Immediately after Lord Salisbury became Prime Minister. Now, surely he should have insisted on arrangements being made whereby the proviso he had himself introduced should have been rendered capable of taking effect. He has done nothing of the sort, and we have been deluded from year to year with false hopes on this subject. Only a few months after the present Government came into office Lord Balfour of Burleigh said he was about to take action in this matter, and was going to get the Foreign Office to obtain the consent of the North Sea Powers to join in a convention, but nothing came of it. We have put Questions on the Paper month after month on the subject. It was stated that there were disagreements between various Departments of the State. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would publish the correspondence which took place between the various Departments. He declined to do that, and so things went on, until towards the end of last Session, by good luck, we had a chance of obtaining some information. On the 12th August, on the discussion of the Foreign Office Vote, the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs told us something we did not know. Not only had the Government done nothing then, but when they were specially invited by the Powers bordering on the North Sea to enter into a conference on the subject they declined to do so. I say that is a gross dereliction of duty. What has happened? The case with regard to the east coast of Scotland is bad enough, as regards the west coast it is even worse. With regard to foreign trawlers we have been prevented from getting the benefit of the clause in this statute, because nothing is done in order to bring the North Sea Powers into a convention. The west coast has therefore had to do without the extension of the limit, and we have had to do without any steps whatever being taken by the present Government to make that statute effective. I say, therefore, that the terms of my Motion are ample to justify what I say, that we have upon these three specific branches of this subject a good ground for calling upon the Government to make the law effective by better administration for the purposes for which it was intended, and that, at any rate, the regulations laid down with regard to it, being regulations under the law, shall be obeyed as the rest of the law is obeyed.

I have very much pleasure in seconding the Motion. It is time that our coasts were protected from the encroachments of these trawlers, as some of our most valuable fisheries are being destroyed. We brought the case before the Fishery Board, and also before Parliament, and at last we got legislation for the purpose of trying whether we could prevent the trawlers from coming back. I take the Bill introduced by the present Solicitor-General, who was then a private Member, by which power was given to the Fishery Board to prevent the fisheries from being destroyed. The result of the first experimental restrictive measures carried out by the Fishery Board in the Moray Firth was in a very short time to prove that the old white fishing had been destroyed by the steam trawlers. There was evidence before the Fishery Board to prove that the reason why our fisheries were being destroyed was because of the constant trawling of the steam trawlers. Our first complaint is that, so far as this law is concerned, the Government have not attempted, as it ought to have done, to see that the law is respected. They have had a couple of slow patrol boats, totally unfit for the work, and they have hung about instead of patrolling, which they ought to have done, and they are practically useless. The result is that the poor fishermen out there have had, at their own cost, to hire a steamer to do the work which the Government should have done. Not only do you refuse to carry out your own law, but you will not even aid those who are trying to do it by hiring steamers for that purpose. As far as our own trawlers are concerned, we are able, when we see their numbers, to have them punished, and they are being punished continually, but it pays them to pay the fine. There is a second class of trawlers, which we are at present unable to influence, but we might be able to do so if we had proper cruisers there. Only yesterday there were seven of these trawlers, either Dutch, German, or Danish, trawling in the Moray Firth and around that coast, and they came within the three-mile limit. If English trawlers were to go trawling off the coast of Biscay they would be liable to have their boats confiscated, but here there are no gunboats to enforce the law, hence these foreign trawlers treat our law with contempt, and I think this reveals a very bad condition of things. My hon. Friend points out that when those German or Danish trawlers come into our Scotch ports they are not permitted to land. But what do they do? As my hon. Friend says, they make for the nearest English port and land their fish there. It seems, therefore, that the Scotch law is of no effect in England, but I hope it will be bye and by, as the English fisheries require protection. When I sat upon a Select Committee, almost every witness who came before that Committee was in favour of the limit being extended. I want to see Scotch law run in England, so that if trawlers bring fish to English ports they cannot land it. Another point about which I am anxious to obtain information is with regard to the curious action of the Foreign Office. The old three-mile limit was a gunshot. It was increased to 13 miles, because the new guns carry 13 miles. The change in the law was made in the House of Lords, and we expected that Lord Salisbury would do something to carry the intention of the clause into effect. We have put question after question to the Under Secretary, and the only answer we can get is that the Foreign Office will not put themselves into communication with the Governments of the North Sea Powers. For what reason the Foreign Office refuse to carry out this proviso I am at a loss to understand.

The remarks of the hon. Member who proposed the Motion now before the House do not seem to me to have much application to the terms of his Motion. I do not see that the hon. Member need have mentioned the moot question, for I think it is a moot question, as to whether trawlers, as a matter of fact, do cause harm to the line fishermen or not, in order to found the Motion which he asks the House to accept. So far as I am personally concerned, I am practically in accord with the hon. Member. I know it is a matter of opinion that has to be decided upon evidence which, like much other evidence that is given, is very conflicting. But, so far as my humble opinion is concerned, it goes without saying that, if you allow trawlers to pursue their avocation in certain waters, then looking to the advantages that they have of disregarding wind and weather, and also their likelihood of taking immature fish, it is common sense to suppose that the result will be that the preserve which is overrun by trawlers will, undoubtedly, in the course of years, deteriorate. But I do not think, Sir, there is any necessity for us to debate that question, because I cannot see that it has any foundation for the hon. Member's Motion. I think, myself, that Parliament really took a side on that matter several years ago, when it initiated what I will call anti-trawling legislation, because, unless there was some idea prevalent among the majority in Parliament at the time, I do not see how Measures could be supported which not only make it possible for the Scotch Fishery Board to close certain areas to trawlers, but make it imperative that trawlers shall not pursue their occupation within the three-mile limit. Accordingly, I think we started to-night with the fact that there is such legislation in existence, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen has correctly detailed that legislation. Then he says there are three points to bring before the House as to trawling in Moray Firth, the three-mile limit, and the 13-mile limit. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member rather forgets the terms of his own Motion. He begins—

"to call attention to the constant infraction of the law with regard to trawling in the waters round the Scotch coasts, and to move that it is the imperative duty of the Government to see that the law is properly enforced."

Mr. Speaker, unless undue weight is placed upon the word "imperative," unless imperative means that the Government is to forego every other duty in favour of its duty to trawlers, there is nothing in the Motion, I think, which we cannot heartily accept. But, then I say that I am not at one with the case which the hon. Member attempted to make out. Accordingly, I shall venture to make a few remarks upon what has been done by the Government with regard to all these three points. First, he spoke about the Moray Firth. The history of the Moray Firth has been this: It was put by the statute within the power of the Fishery Board to prescribe an area, or areas, within the Moray Firth, which should be closed against trawling, and, after investigation by the Fishery Board, they came to the conclusion that it was best so to proscribe trawling, and, accordingly, since 1889, I think it is, the Moray Firth has been closed to trawlers, with the exception of a brief period during which it was open for several weeks. Then there was a decision which did not commend itself to the minds of Her Majesty's advisers, but in respect of which decision the Moray Firth was opened for a period of several weeks. The hon. Member will recollect, and, I do not doubt he will not grudge me an acknowledgment of the fact, that I advised the Government at once that that decision was wrong, and I had the honour to be sent down specially to argue this case in Scotland, and my opinion has proved to be correct. The Moray Firth was accordingly closed. I think there is a curious discrepancy between the contention of the hon. Member who moved the Motion, and the hon. Member who seconded it, because the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, I think, accused the Government of winking at breaches of the law, or, at least, taking no steps to enforce it; whereas the seconder said, with regard to the home trawlers, that the action of the Government resulted in their being constantly caught and punished. These two statements are not consonant, because if the consequence of the action of the Government is that persons are constantly caught, it is difficult to reconcile that statement with the other, that the Government have been winking at breaches of the law, or, at least, doing nothing to give effect to the provisions of the statute. Sir, I think we have a better defence than that. I think I can show the hon. Gentlemen what we really have been doing. As hon. Members know, there are two vessels which are at the disposal of the Fishery Board—the Jackal and the Vigilant.

What is the rate of speed of those vessels?

I believe the rate of speed is superior to that of the trawlers. How does this matter stand? During the Christmas holidays the Jackal was laid up for an inspection of her boilers. The Fishery Board thereupon applied to the Admiralty, which also does its best to assist them, and they at once supplied us with the Cockchafer, which was allowed to remain even after the Jackal's boilers had been repaired, so that the two of them were in the area at the same time. Not only that, but the Vigilant, whose general patrolling ground was the west coast, was allowed to make an unexpected raid, which was carefully concealed, into the Moray Firth. At the same time the Admiralty detached the Gossamer for the purpose of exploring the seas in the neighbourhood of the Shetlands, the Starling, which was stationed at Stornoway, and the Onyx, which made various excursions into the Firth of Forth and St. Andrews. Notwithstanding all this, the idea has been so universally propagated that the Government were not doing their best, although, I think, very unfortunately, that the fishermen chartered a vessel of their own called the Tyne, which went to the Moray Firth at the same time. I remember question after question was put, and complaint after complaint was made at this time, yet with all these vessels what was the result? The Tyne not only never caught anybody, but it never saw anybody, and had to admit that the whole time she was out she could not find a single British trawler infringing the regulations in the Moray Firth. Not only that, but we got the usual alarmist telegrams. One from a fishery officer—

"Five trawlers sighted six o'clock this morning, trawling about 12 miles off."

What was the result of all this afterwards? Here is what the Cockchafer says—

"On the morning of the 6th, boarded the Tyne, looking for trawlers in the Firth. At noon boarded Diana, trawling 21 miles southwest by south from Fifeness. Master of this vessel complained to me of the Tyne calling them Dutch bastards. The Tyne crew totally denied the charge."

Hon. Members must not accept as gospel any alarmist telegrams from the different parts of the coast saying that trawlers are working up and down, and they must not draw the deduction that Her Majesty's ships are not doing their duty. Look at the hon. Gentleman's Motion. It is to call attention to the constant infraction of the law. That it must be an infraction of the law by a British trawler goes without saying. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that it is not an infraction of the law on the part of foreign trawlers. There is not a fraction of evidence to show that any one of these foreign trawlers has ever trawled within the three-mile limit. If I could make a law that would bind the foreign trawler not to trawl within the Moray Firth I should only be too happy to do it.

Are the foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth doing a legal act?

Certainly. The only law that binds a foreign trawler is international law. At this present moment observe what the hon. Member is calling attention to as an infraction of the law. I would point out that as a matter of fact this infraction of the law is not true to the extent which is alleged. He has made no case against the Government as having permitted an infraction of the law. His complaint is not justified when he said that the Government had been winking at breaches of the law and had taken no steps to enforce it. The sum-total of the whole matter is this—that as regards British trawling within prohibited waters there has, as a matter of fact, been very great exaggeration. Wherever trawling has been going on we have done very well in the matter of catching trawlers. What other infraction of the law has there been? My hon. Friend knows perfectly well how the law stands. I rather think he had the honour to be a Member of this House when the Act was passed; and if he wanted it to be an infraction of the law to land fish caught within the prohibited area he ought to have moved an Amendment to put in "United Kingdom" for "Scotland." His Motion is that it was the imperative duty of the Government to see that the law is properly enforced. Accordingly, in speaking of this Motion, I am bound to take the law as I find it. The law is that fish that are caught within the prohibited area may not be landed in Scotland. The hon. Member is aware of what the action of the Government was. If it was not rhetoric it was unpardonable exaggeration on the part of the hon. Member for Caithness when he said that all ships should be confiscated. There is absolutely no power to do that.

I was only referring to the foreign trawlers trawling within the three-mile limit.

No foreign trawler has ever been caught within the three-mile limit or has ever been seen within the limit. What the hon. Member for Caithness has said has no application to the subject in hand, for the reason that no foreign trawler has ever been caught or seen.

Time after time I have seen them in my own district.

There is no recorded case, no case that is based on report, not only from our own vessels, but from the vessels of the Admiralty, of foreign vessels trawling within the three-mile limit. I think that finishes what it is necessary to say upon this question of the Moray Firth. To sum up I say that as a matter of fact we have accepted the law as it stands, and we have striven honestly to carry it out. We have done that by means of the forces at our disposal, and we have been ably seconded in the matter by the Admiralty. The area to which we have to direct our attention is a very large one, because it is the area of the whole coast of Scotland. The coast-line of Scotland is a long one, and it is not altogether practicable, in the matter of police, to keep your eye on every part of it. Here, again, are the exaggerations and denunciations which particularly obtain in the Moray Firth. We have doubled the ships in use for police purposes. I would remind the House that we obtained from the Treasury more money last year, and at the present moment the ships are building and will be delivered in August—one, a new cruiser, at the cost of £7,000, and one a picket boat, at a cost of £2,500. The hon. Member spoke of the 13-mile limit. Now, probably I could get rid of that by calling attention to the terms of his Motion. Under the existing state of the law there is no de facto prohibition of trawling within the 13-mile limit. That really ends the matter. The hon. Member made certain remarks, probably not within the terms of his Motion, and perhaps I ought to take very little notice of them. I am quite at one with him in my sympathy with the fishing classes, and in his desire to put down trawling, if it interferes with fishing. Still, at the same time there are other things in the world besides trawling; and I ask the hon. Member, with a knowledge of the state of Foreign affairs during the last two years, whether he considers this a favourable time to stir up this question of the North Sea Convention? I do not think he would like to stir it up. Considering the state of things in Europe, in the East, and in every part of the globe, and having regard to other and wider interests, we thought it was better to leave this question of the fisheries over for the present.

I do not think any of us will deny that, whatever the right hon. Gentleman's belief about the facts may be, the law ought to be obeyed, and that it is a duty, seeing that the law keeps the Moray Firth closed, to enforce that law. The Admiralty and the Scottish Office can enforce it. I want to call attention to a very peculiar feature of the present question. It is this: we have passed an Act by which the Moray Firth is closed to trawlers belonging to our own country. No Scottish and no English trawler can ply its industry within those waters; but there is, I think, little or no prospect that we shall have any power to exclude foreign trawlers from those waters. The consequence is that every night there is a considerable number of those foreign trawlers at work up and down the Moray Firth, while our trawlers are debarred from entering the Firth, and our fishermen complain that a law passed for their benefit has turned out to be no benefit at all. That is a preposterous state of things. We are able to keep out our own trawlers and we are not able to keep out foreign trawlers. We are suffering at the hands of the foreigner, and Englishmen and Scotsmen are able to get no benefit out of the water. The result will be that the foreigner, having been allowed to come to our coasts by this admirable opening in the Moray Firth, will be likely to ply his trade more than he has hitherto done. Once they come to the Moray Firth they are likely to trawl a great deal more along the edge of the three-mile limit, or perhaps inside it. But foreign trawlers are able to come into the Moray Firth, and we have no power to keep them out, whilst British trawlers are not allowed to come in. We are able to keep out our own trawlers, but we have no power to keep out foreign trawlers. Under those circumstances I put it to the Lord Advocate whether it is worth while to keep up this prohibition against landing fish in Scotch ports? If it had the effect of keeping foreign trawlers out of the Moray Firth I could understand it, but if it is shown by experience that it has not that effect, then I do not see what use is gained by it. I put it to the Attorney General that if in his opinion the prohibition does not effect the purpose for which it was intended, there is no use in it whatever. The argument on which the closing of the Moray Firth was based was to ascertain by experiment whether or no the prohibition of trawlers would be for the benefit of line fishermen, and to see if the spawning grounds would be better and the supply of fish larger. There might be some justification for trying that experiment, but in order to try it carefully and thoroughly, you must keep out all trawlers, and I believe there are at this time no less than five foreign trawlers working up and down day and night. The facts connected with trawling are clothed in so much mystery that I will not commit myself to numbers. I have heard there were 11 trawlers working the Moray Firth, but I know there are five. At any rate, there are sufficient to prevent the experiment being carried out, and, if it cannot be carried out, the reason for which the Moray Firth was closed falls to the ground, and the Government ought to reconsider their position with regard to the suggestion of my hon. Friend, that negotiations should be entered into with foreign Governments. I think the considerations to which the Lord Advocate has referred render it extremely unlikely that they would be successful, and I think my hon. Friend had better confine himself to insisting on the maintenance of the law, and also to calling the attention of the Government of the day to the absurdities of the present position.

This is a matter of considerable importance, not only affecting the Moray Firth, but the Southern and Western coasts of Scotland as well. We could hardly expect this Committee to come to a decision in this matter without considering the importance of it with regard to the Western and Southern portions of the country. I think the case of the hon. Gentleman opposite was answered by the speech of the Lord Advocate, which showed very clearly that the Government could not be accused of being dilatory in the matter, but that they have looked very carefully into the matter with some measure of success. We cannot ignore the great truth that the North Sea Convention has done some good, and that if it had not been for that Convention we should have had scenes relating to the drink traffic as black and dismal as were ever portrayed in Zola's novels. The point I wish to address myself to is what is going on in the South and West of Scotland, especially the Solway Firth. There are places there where Foreign trawlers come night and day, and what has been the result? We had, a few years ago, some of the best sea fishing in Scotland, but the foreign and southern trawlers have come up and have simply devastated the spawning beds, and, instead of their producing large numbers of fish annually, there are very few now caught there. The result of that is that inhabited places have gone down, and you will not find now one man fishing where in times gone by you found ten. Now, that is a very bad thing for that part of the country, and if the law can do anything at all it ought to stop illegal acts. We had for a long time a ship stationed there, called the Jackall, but it was so miserably slow that the trawlers could always get out of its way. For years and years we made representations to this House, to both Governments, and little has been done. Both Governments are to blame. What we want is to improve our sea fishing, and to employ more men on it. That is the great object we have, so that by following an industrial occupation they can keep their wives and families in a respectable manner. I hope the Government will see their way to putting faster boats upon this duty. I am perfectly certain that if they do the animosity which exists between English and Scottish fishermen would disappear in a great measure. English trawlers come up from the South and break up our spawning beds and destroy our oyster fisheries, very valuable a few years ago, and I think it is time to put our foot down and see what can be done. We have had a very fair speech from the Lord Advocate, and I thank him for what he has done, and I hope he will continue his good work. So long as they do not confine their energies to the Moray Firth I shall be satisfied. You must remember that we have not only got good spawning beds, but also cod fisheries, and I want to see something done to benefit them. If I can make my voice heard in this House, it shall be heard to-night, because we have laboured these grievances year after year, and as I consider we want this Measure on the southern coasts, I am determined it shall be considered, as well as the Moray Firth. We know we have plenty of fish there, and these beds might be regenerated if they are only protected. One cod-fish will produce 60,000,000 in one year, and therefore it is not impossible to recover the ground we have lost. I do hope and trust that not only shall we have these improvements, but that the law will be carried out in its integrity.

I was extremely glad to hear the hon. Baronet opposite take part in this Debate, because everything he said has supported the contention of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire. I have a vivid recollection of the fact that within six months of the present Government taking office nearly all the Members, and defeated candidates, representing Scottish constituencies laid before the present Secretary the three points urged by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire to-night. I am sorry more of those Gentlemen are not here to support in the House the attitude they took up with regard to this question. No one can complain of the way it has been put before the House. I cannot but feel, upon the question as between trawlers and line fishermen, that the three mile limit was enacted, not in the interests of a particular class of fishermen, but in the interests of the fisheries, and upon that ground I regret exceedingly that the Government has not been able to meet my hon. Friend more than they have to-night. The whole blame of not negotiating with foreign powers lies on the present Government, and it is their fault that negotiations have not been entered into and offers made in this matter.

I do not profess to be versed in the mysteries of the Scottish Fisheries question, though I have been to Scotland, and was very glad to get away from it. But there is a Naval view to be taken of this question, which I do not think has been taken by any hon. Member who has yet spoken. I listened with attention and respect to the observations which fell from the hon. Gentleman opposite, and he expressed a wish that the law might be enforced by the Admiralty, and then he went on to demonstrate how impossible it was for the Admiralty to enforce the law if the trawlers come into the Moray Firth. Now, this service is a most unpopular one in the Navy altogether. You may say that that does not affect the question, but we want Naval officers and men for better work than this. I want to see them withdrawn altogether from this service. I should like to see this duty withdrawn from the Admiralty altogether, and a body of water police enrolled, such as you have on the Thames. You would then relieve the Admiralty from a very unpleasant duty, and you would satisfy the Scotchmen, because they would do their own work in their own way. I have heard a good deal to-night about slow vessels, but, as I have already said, I object to spending public money in this way. We want the money for more officers and more men, and I think it is most injurious to spend it in trying to do what is impossible. We cannot keep off foreign trawlers from within the three-mile limit. Why does not the hon. Member for Caithness propose an international congress, to get the limit altered to five miles? He will be a long time before he does get it altered, and when he does the limit will be broken at once. It can only be done by international agreement. I should be very pleased to see something more profitable engaging our attention, but hon. Gentlemen opposite must remember that we are not responsible for this Resolution. It is put down before the House. We do not want it, we dislike it very much. It calls up memories of the past, and we remember that we never have satisfied the Scotch Members, and never shall, unless we send the whole Navy to look after this matter. Now, the hon. Member for Caithness is a Scotchman, and has broad common sense, and if he would only turn his attention to bringing in a Bill which would leave the means at their own disposal, the Admiralty might be relieved of this unprofitable work, and everybody would be satisfied. My sympathy with the Scotch fishermen is very great, and I am sorry to hear that the fishing is falling off, and that wages are not so high as formerly was the case, but we are not responsible for that, you must blame the foreigners for that, and I do protest, as a Naval man, against Naval officers and men being used for this duty. We have had ships wrecked, and lives lost upon it, and yet the hon. Members for Scotland are not satisfied. As I said before, my sympathies are with the Scotch fishermen, they are a splendid race of men, and I should like to see thousands of them enrolled in the Naval Reserve, but I do protest against the waste of time and the badgering of the Admiralty in this matter.

The question has been put before the House by the hon. and gallant Admiral who has just sat down from a Naval point of view, and now I desire to speak upon it from a consumer's point of view. I desire to ask the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House whether their speeches are to be taken as the initiation of an agitation against trawling outside the three-mile limit on the part of foreign trawlers? If it is the intention of those gentlemen to put forward that view, it is an unwise proceeding in this House to discuss it. Let me remind the House of what it may have forgotten. Trawling is the modern and cheap way of fishing, obtaining much fish at a nominal cost. From information and facts put before me, I find, and I think it stands to reason, that the cost at which fish can be obtained by trawling is infinitely less than that by which it can be caught by a line, which is the old-fashioned and precarious way, and attended with enormous danger. I might remind the House that there are not many Members connected with fishing constituencies who do not want the votes of the fishermen, and I desire to remind those gentlemen that the trawling industry is not one to be put down. So far as I can see, no case has been made against the Government for any change to be made, and I shall certainly give them my support.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down rather hints that those who are interested in this question are interested by reason of the fishermen's votes. Now, I feel constrained to repudiate that entirely so far as I am concerned. My hon. and gallant Friend sitting below the Gangway spoke about wasting our Naval forces upon this unpleasant duty. I maintain that it is the duty of the Government to see that the law is enforced, and if, in the exercise of that duty, they have to call in our Naval power, there is no "wasting" about that. Speaking for the constituency I represent, I certainly think it is the duty of the Government to enforce the law in this matter, in the interests not only of the fishermen, but also of the general community and the fish.

The exception I take to this Motion is of an altogether different kind from that which the Lord Advocate has advanced, and I think on the grounds I have to urge I ought to have the sympathy of, at any rate, the hon. Member for Caithness. I have not the honour of representing a Scotch constituency, but I would remind the House that this is not by any means exclusively a Scotch question. There are parts of England, including those on the West coast, where steam trawling is felt as a grievance, and as to which I have heard complaints of the spawning beds being denuded of their proper allowance of fish by reason of irregular trawling; and I think it only right that an English Member should rise and join in the protest made by hon. Members from Scotland—

Order, order! The Resolution has relation to "trawling in the waters round the Scotch coast," and the hon. Member will not be in order in travelling outside the question of trawling in Scottish waters.

I was about to put myself in order by moving an Amendment. I would ask you, Sir, whether I shall be in order in moving to leave out the word "Scottish" and substitute the word "British"?

I beg to move that the Question be now put.

I think the hon. Gentleman should, strictly speaking, have offered his Amendment before the Debate had gone its present length, and for this reason I feel bound, in the circumstances, to accept this Motion.