I wish to present a petition, the prayer of which is as follows:—"We, the undersigned, being British fishermen, employed in the deep sea trawling and fishing industry"—

The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to read the petition. All he may do at the present stage is to summarise the prayer.

It is from the fishermen of Great Britain, who wish to call the attention of the House to the injustice done to them by being excluded from fishing in the Moray Firth.

Will the hon. Baronet bring the same to the Table.

In moving "That this Bill be now read a second time," I may state at the outset that the circumstances which gave rise to the measure are only too fresh in the memory of this House, and that I do not desire to take up any time in their recapitulation. Undoubtedly it was brought pretty clearly home to our minds that there was necessity for something being done with respect to the powers now possessed by the House for dealing with the misconduct of strangers who have obtained permission to enter the House on the understanding that they will conform to our rules, and that they will not proceed deliberately and grossly to disturb our proceedings. If it were at all likely that the conduct of those persons who have offended in the past would not be repeated in the future, I am quite sure that the House would not care to entertain this Bill. Nor would the Government desire to introduce it; but unfortunately it cannot be said that it is unlikely that the conduct of the disturbers will not be repeated. On the contrary, it is more than likely—indeed it is reasonably certain—that that conduct will be repeated, and it is reasonably certain that it will be repeated unless and until the House of Commons is invested with some swift, sufficient, and appropriate remedy. It cannot be said that we have got sufficient or appropriate procedure under existing circumstances. It cannot be regarded as an appropriate course that this Assembly should embark upon lengthy and perhaps acrimonious debates as to how disorderly strangers should be dealt with, or Whether they should be dealt with at all, and then summon each of those strangers to the Bar of the House for examination, thereby giving them facilities for the making of speeches which they desire to make, and which could not easily be restricted. The next step might be perhaps to refer the matter for inquiry to a Committee, which would be really equivalent to a public trial before a tribunal not the best in the world for trying such cases. That would be followed by a report to the House, and the further debate which that report would involve. I say that to take all these steps or any of them is to encourage the very mischief that we desire to prevent. So far from being a deterrent to wrong-doers, such procedure plays their game, if I may use that expression. It gives them the maximum of advertisement with the minimum of risk in the way of punishment. One can imagine individual cases where the chance of punishment after an appearance at the Bar would be infinitely small, but there would always be in all cases what, from the point of view of the wrong-doer, would be an incomparably good advertisement for the cause in which that person might be concerned.

Nowadays, for good or for bad, every section of the political public, great or small, is naturally enough indebted to advertisement. It is an essential aid of propaganda; in fact it is in many cases an effective substitute for propaganda. It would almost appear as though those who have some sort of notoriety in view most largely prefer that form of notoriety which takes the form of nuisance, because from their point of view it best serves their purpose. In the matter of political propaganda the temptation to resort to such methods is naturally very strong, and in some cases one may regard it as absolutely irresistible. As soon as it became clear that from the circumstances which had arisen that the conduct of certain strangers formed part of a systematic campaign it was necessary for us to devise some means of self-defence, unless our proceedings were to be reduced to ridicule. I think it also became apparent alike to the authorities of the House on the two Front Benches and to hon. Members in all parts of the House that our existing procedure is inadequate. I certainly do not propose to interfere with any single power which the House now possesses. Nobody has suggested in connection with the recent disturbances that the offenders should be called to the Bar of the House, and that they should be examined and cross-examined. For the very reasons which I have indicated, so far from that being a punishment or preventive that would be just exactly what the wrong-doers desire. All we were able to do in practice was to turn the offenders out, and that was neither a penalty nor a remedy. If by some means which is usually regarded as dishonourable they chose to defy the officials of the House and to betray the hon. Member who trusted them, there was no means of preventing a recurrence of this evil. Therefore, the galleries were closed, and it is really in order to enable the galleries to be opened again, and opened with some sense of security and some feeling that our proceedings will not be absolutely and deliberately disturbed, that this Bill is brought in. Hon. Members will have noticed that the Bill in no way interferes with any of the obligations, usages, or privileges of the House. Whatever they are, they ought to be jealously guarded, for I think they are of great use. Whatever they are, they will be preserved. All that the Bill does is only to a very slight extent to give increased powers to the House. All it does, in fact, is to provide the House with an alternative and efficient remedy in circumstances where it may be considered suitable to act upon the alternative. Perhaps it might be useful if I were to indicate to the House the character of the powers we now possess.

The House of Commons is a Court, and it possesses the powers which the superior Courts possess of committing for contempt of Court. The class of offence with which we have had to deal lately is really in the nature of contempt, and the punishment is very much as for ordinary contempt of Court. The House is able by its officers to arrest any person at any time, no matter where he may be, who is guilty of any such offence, and by its warrant is entitled to call on all the civil officers and magistrates, and indeed upon all subjects of the King, to effect the arrest and bring the offender before the House. When the offender is brought before the House he is entitled to explanation, and is subject to examination and cross-examination, and in cases especially where the penalty of detention may be enforced, he is entitled to all the formalities of a trial. The powers of punishment, however, are not quite as certain or as satisfactory as they might be. The House of Commons is not what is technically known as a Court of Record, like the House of Lords; and the powers of committal for contempt possessed by the House of Lords are rather more satisfactory and of wider range than those possessed by the House of Commons. This House can only commit for the Session. I dare say it is open to argument like any other question of constitutional law dependent upon usage, but I think the general opinion would be that at the end of the Session if the House has in its custody any subject by way of detention, the probability is that upon application to the King's Bench for a habeas corpus the detained person would of necessity be released; so that there is no very substantial risk of heavy punishment to anyone who disturbs the proceedings of the House in any Session.

There is another point upon which the power of the House is not quite certain or satisfactory, and that is the power of imposing a fine as an alternative to imprisonment. That power is undoubtedly possessed by the House of Lords, because it possesses all the powers of committal for contempt incidental to a Court of Record. But the House of Commons has not exercised the power of fine for over 200 years; and where the law depends on usage the lapse of 200 or of 250 years would undoubtedly cause an element of uncertainty. The power of imposing a fine is one which in some cases would be very appropriate and proper. The House would not desire to inflict the heavier penalty where a minor penalty would suffice, and the general opinion, I think, would be that if the House desired to take power to impose a fine it would probably be wise that it should do so by legislation rather than rely on an old usage which has had such a very long period of intermission. Alt these powers are founded upon custom. These powers cannot be increased by resolution. They can only be increased as a matter of readjustment by legislation. But I merely draw attention to the powers which we already possess in order to assure hon. Members that we are not by this Bill assuming any new kind of powers. The House is already able to arrest, and that for a period which may be even longer than that which is named in the Bill. So we are not introducing any constitutional novelty in that respect. Of course I need not deal with those cases in which persons who are disorderly in this House are punishable by common law—in cases of offence for instance like that of assault. Where there is an offence of that character the courts of Jaw can take cognisance of it, upon the application or prosecution of officers of this House. So we have not got to deal with those offences. We have only got to deal with offences against the dignity and security and convenience of our proceedings.

This brings me to the Bill itself which is already in the hands of hon. Members. I do not think it is of a very technical character or abounding in complications. The first sub-section provides that any person who, not being a Member of either House of Parliament, while present during the sitting of either House, is guilty of disorderly conduct or acts in contravention of any rule or order of either House with respect to the admission and conduct of strangers, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding £100. Since the Bill was printed I believe that from all quarters of the House some representation has been made that, having regard to the fact that the offence, if a serious one, can be dealt with by the ordinary courts of law, the maximum period of imprisonment mentioned in the Bill is somewhat in excess of the necessities of the case. I am quite prepared, and the Government is quite prepared to adopt that view. I am disposed to think that in more serious cases we have still our old powers. Remember that under this Bill the House need not prosecute unless it likes, and there can be no prosecution without the leave of the Speaker, and therefore the. House will take its absolute power through the Speaker. Where you get an offence of such a character as to warrant six months' imprisonment, or even a longer term, then it seems, on the whole, notwithstanding the inconvenience of our procedure, to be permissible and perhaps advisable that the House should retain the power itself of dealing with it, and should only remit to the magistrate those cases which it thinks suitable to be dealt with by him. Of course it may well be that we want to impose a higher penalty. In that case we can do it; or if it be that this minor penalty of three months is not adequate to prevent a repetition of the mischief then it may be that we shall have to legislate further, and in some stronger degree. But I do not think that the House would be unwilling to proceed somewhat cautiously at present. I am quite sure that if the House found it necessary to go somewhat farther it would not stop at legislation of this character. But I believe that hon. Members and the country generally will appreciate the motive with which the House of Commons proceeds in not adopting the stronger measures in the beginning. That is the first sub-section. The next is very important, though somewhat technical in character. This Bill would bring these offenders, if the House so desires in any particular case, under the Summary Jurisdiction Act. Any person who arrests a person alleged to be guilty of a misdemeanour is bound to account to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction within 24 hours for the person so arrested. It is much more convenient, if an arrest is made on the floor of the House by an officer of the House, that he should be at liberty to hand the offender over to a police constable, and that the police constable should make his appearance on the following day before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, rather than that as a matter of necessity the officer of the House should attend. Although a private person cannot hand over anyone whom he arrests to another private person or a police constable without the authority of a magistrate, a police constable can. A police constable can hand over any person he arrests to another police constable, and all that sub-section (2) does is to give that power to the officers of this House, enabling them as if they were police constables themselves to arrest a person and hand him over to a constable. Sub-section (3) says: "No proceeding shall be instituted under this Act without the sanction of the Lord Chancellor or Mr. Speaker." That is a very important subsection and keeps the whole working of this Act completely within the hands of the House.

Does that apply to arrests?

I think the question of arrest is dealt with in the preceding sub-section, which says:—

"Any person who commits an offence under this Act may, unless the Lord Chancellor or Mr. Speaker otherwise order—"

So that, with regard to both the initial arrest and the subsequent proceedings the matter is kept well within the jurisdiction and competence of the House. In fact, the procedure the Bill establishes is really analogous to a delegation of the power of the House to a magistrate for a particular purpose and in regard to a particular kind of offence. Then comes sub-section (4), which provides that the privileges of the House are not to be affected by the Bill. I observe there is a Motion on the Paper that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. As I may not speak again, I can only speculate as to the grounds upon which that Motion will be supported. But it may be suggested—and I apprehend that this will probably be the reason put forward—that the House ought not under any circumstances to permit an external tribunal to deal with offences committed within our precincts. That, I confess, is a plausible and perhaps attractive contention, because it is founded upon a feeling of what is due to the dignity of the House. But those who adopt that contention I think omit to take note of the clause which I have read showing how completely the House retains its control over the proceedings. The House, acting through Mr. Speaker, may prevent arrests, and Mr. Speaker may prevent a prosecution. The House can take action, and the magistrate only acts by leave of the House.

Of course, the House could, if it chose, simplify its existing procedure. It would be within its power to say that Mr. Speaker should exercise all his powers in a somewhat easier and more expeditious form than that which now exists. But I would ask hon. Members to recollect that offences of this character in the future, as in the past, will probably be connected with some organised political movement, and it will be a novel and, the authorities of the House will probably agree, a somewhat doubtful proceeding to throw upon the Chair the sole responsibility of trying and imprisoning persons who claim that they have been actuated in their conduct by political motives. That is a step which I do not think the House would be anxious to take or the authorities of the House anxious to adopt. The duty of holding a trial—because each of these persons would be entitled to a trial—is rather an important one, and one which would be accompanied by many invidious circumstances from which we would gladly be preserved. It may also be suggested that it is not desired to put such a serious responsibility upon Mr. Speaker, and that the responsibility might be divided or shared by the House in the form of some inquiry by a Select Committee. A Select Committee is a part of our existing procedure, and it is open to the objection I have already urged. I believe that all hon. Members, notwithstanding the respect we entertain for a Select Committee of the House, would agree that it is not the best tribunal for trying offences partly of a political and partly of a criminal character. Therefore, on the whole, it has seemed to the Government that the better plan was to give the House this additional and optional power—it is that and nothing more-—in cases which it thinks suitable for the purpose of remitting to an ordinary court of law, where they would be dealt with as they deserve to be dealt with, not as matters of great State importance, but as ordinary matters of police jurisdiction. Really it is absurd for this House, with its many duties and obligations, to be obliged to sit as a tribunal of 500 or 600 judges in order to try an offence which is not worth any further notice than an ordinary police magistrate could give it. In saying that I am not belittling the character of the offence. There is no offence more serious or more inimical to good government than any attempt to interfere with the proceedings of the House. But so far as the offender is concerned, he is only worthy of that degree of public notice which this Bill proposes to give him. I venture, therefore, to commend the Bill to the House as one that will save its time and safeguard its dignity, both of which objects are vital to its usefulness and authority. I beg to move.

The House is indebted to the hon. and learned Member for the survey which he has given of the somewhat difficult points which underlie the procedure of this House in dealing with disorder. But there are one or two questions I should like to ask. Clause 1 provides that "any person, not being a Member of either House of Parliament," shall for certain offences be liable to certain penalties. Everybody knows that the origin of this Bill is to be found in certain disorderly conduct which occurred in both galleries last Session; and I understand that the Bill was introduced only in order to safeguard the House itself as a deliberative assembly from such disorder. But the Attorney-General is extending it a great deal further. It is now "any person" within the Palace of Westminster; that is to say, any artisan working in Victoria Gardens half a mile away, any cabman in New Palace Yard, or any domestic servant in any part of this huge pile of buildings comes under the Bill. The measure is not limited to the two galleries of the House of Commons; it is "during the sitting of either House"; and it is not limited to disorder during the proceedings of this House, but applies to any disorderly conduct. In the first place the Bill applies to anybody within these precincts of ten or a dozen acres. Whether that conduct be of a character to interfere with our proceedings or not, that makes the Bill a very wide Bill. Then the second point is as to what is the Palace of Westminster. The Palace of Westminster is a very big thing. It extends from St. Stephen's Club right under the road to the far end of Victoria Gardens. I see the First Commissioner of Works present, and I think he will bear me out when I say that the Palace of Westminster is not confined to these buildings, but extends to the statue outside which is within the Palace, that is, within the curtilage wall. The Palace of Westminster to-day is coterminous with the old Palace of Westminster as it existed in 1834, and consequently the Palace of Westminster extends almost half-way from St. Stephen's Hall, Henry the Seventh's Chapel, to what is now a cab-stand, and where a good deal of disorder has occurred during the last few months. So that it is not only the people who interfere here who will be affected, not even the people who are disorderly within our own building. My impression is it may extend a good deal further. As to section 2, I want to ask a question. The section reads: "Any person who commits an offence under this Act may, unless the Lord Chancellor or Mr. Speaker otherwise orders, be arrested without warrant within the Palace of Westminster, and for the purpose of such arrest any officer of either House shall have all the powers and privileges of a constable."

I remember last year or the year before, speaking of the Children Bill, I got myself into trouble by talking about the powers of a constable. I will not talk about the powers of a constable at the present moment, but I will ask who are the officers of the House of Commons and the officers of the House of Lords? It is clear that the Sergeant-at-Arms and his Deputy and the Assistant-Sergeant-at-Arms are officers of the House of Commons, but are there more? Are the doorkeepers and messengers in uniform officers of the House of Commons? I should think they are, and in all deference to those who certainly are officers of the House of Commons—the Sergeant-at-Arms and his Deputies—I confess I think the duty of summary arrest without warrant on the analogy of a policeman's powers would more suitably be vested in those messengers and doorkeepers and policemen than in the Sergeant-at-Arms and his Deputies. We want to know who those people are.

It seems there can only be three officers of the House of Commons who should be invested with the powers of those policemen, and when all is said and done, and recollecting that the geographical range of this Bill is so wide, it is no good limiting the powers of officers to the Sergeant-at-Arms and his Deputies, because the disturbance may happen so far distant from their post of duty as to make it necessary to call in the ordinary policemen, as we have done hitherto under unfortunate circumstances. The third question I want to ask is as to the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker, who are to have veto of proceedings. Sub-section 3 provides:—

"No proceedings shall be instituted under this Act without the sanction of the Lord Chancellor or Mr. Speaker."

I suppose it is an oversight, but as this sub-section 3 is drafted, if the Speaker were to veto proceedings it would be within the province of the Lord Chancellor to assent to proceedings continuing. The authority of you, Sir, is not confined to the House of Commons, nor is the authority of the Lord Chancellor confined to the House of Lords. It is, however, only necessary to get the permission of one prior to instituting proceedings. I do not think this difficulty is likely to arise, but, as the hon. and learned Member pointed out very clearly, we are dealing with a particular class of persons who engage in a sort of idea of political insubordination—I am speaking of one particular aspect—and those people would take advantage of any single loophole they would find in a measure which would be directed to limit their energies. I think we would do well if, in drafting this Bill, we avoid difficulties of this character. Sub-section 4 is, I think, the most important sub-section of all. It states:—

"Nothing in this Act shall affect the privileges of either House of Parliament, or any power of either such House to proceed in accordance with ancient usages."

I am obliged to the Attorney-General for having gone clearly into that question, and in pointing out the rights and privileges in dealing with disorder which this House already possesses, but I confess he did not quite convince, he did not convince me that in passing the sub-sections of this clause we shall not be in effect materially reducing the efficacy and even the existence of those ancient privileges which are vested in the Speaker of the House of Commons and necessarily in the House itself. The Attorney-General laid down clearly, unanswerably, that the House of Commons is a court. The Speaker, under those conditions—the analogy is not farfetched—would be a judge of the court, and the Members of this House would be an extended jury of that court.

We are giving to our officials in this House and the other the right of summary arrest. We already possess the right of summary arrest, but we are only extending it in order that the House of Commons which now possesses this privilege may be absolved from the unpleasant duty of enforcing this ancient privilege. I do not believe for a minute that if we divest ourselves of this responsibility and share it with the police magistrate sitting in Westminster, that we do so without diminishing the prerogative and privilege which belongs to each Member collectively and individually. We are modifying our rights, although expressly in terms we are preserving them to ourselves. We state in the last lines of the Bill that we reserve all the privileges and powers of ancient usages, but in the first fifteen lines we are materially reducing them. Whatever we say at the end we do not diminish the effect of what we do at the beginning. We are asking the magistrate to take upon his shoulders the responsibility of inflicting punishment. Now what does that involve? If somebody makes a row in the Gallery of a most objectionable character that person is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms under the powers with which he is invested under this Bill; that person is handed over to a policeman and taken to Westminster Court, and there charged by the policeman, I understand, and not by the officials of the House. I think that point must be made clear. I gathered from the Attorney-General that it would be inadvisable that the charge should be made by officers of the House, and that the person to be charged would be handed over to the inspector of police.

I said that it was thought better not to make it necessary that the charge should be made by officers of the House, but that it would be open to them to do so.

Yes. If events took place on the Thursday evening it might not be very convenient for officers of the House to be in attendance at the court at twelve o'clock on the Friday morning. I understand that to be the point. But we have to consider what line the magistrate would take. Here is a person brought before him charged with an offence the penalty for which is three months' imprisonment or a £100 fine. That is a very big thing and there is no magistrate on the London Bench who would sentence a person to three months' imprisonment or a fine of £100 if the delinquent says that he is being deprived of his elementary right in a court of law to cross-examine the witnesses. What does that mean? It means that Mr. Speaker, when one of these rows takes place in the Gallery, may be called upon. It may be that the five, ten, or twenty people involved may, acting in their corporate capacity, be entitled to say that they want the evidence of Mr. Speaker. Ever since the middle of the seventeenth century it has been not our claim, not our boast, but our absolutely respected and inalienable right to withdraw our proceedings in this Chamber from the cross-examination of any outside person or outside body. Mr. Speaker, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Clerks at the Table, or anybody who happened to be in the Chamber at the time will be liable to be called by these persons as witnesses and cross-examined and "bullyragged" in the manner which we have known up to now, because unless the magistrate himself is satisfied that an adequate number of witnesses has been called he will refuse to convict. There was the case only the other day, a most monstrous case, in which two or three members of the Cabinet holding offices which call for their daily and hourly work, were called as witnesses simply because they happened to be walking in Palace Yard at the time when there was a vow. I thought it was time that it should be the duty of the magistrate or the Judge of the High Court—I forget which it was—to say that they were witnesses who could not properly be called in view of the fact that there were forty or fifty other witnesses equally available. As the Attorney-General said, their being called was clearly for the purposes of advertisement. But under this Bill we are acting in a different state of things. It will have to be confined to a limited number of persons who may be called. I was here the other day when there was an unhappy scene upstairs. There were not more than four or five Members in the House besides two on the Treasury Bench. In conditions of that kind it would be inevitable that the officers would be summoned, or it might be that they would call Members of the House to be cross-examined about our views and votes and all the rest of it. Perhaps we could stand the racket, but I think that it would be a most deplorable thing if a body of organised politicians could call upon the Speaker of the House of Commons, also the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Clerks at the Table, not to mention any Members who might have been here at the time of the disturbance, or members of the Press Gallery, to give evidence next morning for no other reason except for the purpose of calling attention to the police-court proceedings, or for no other reason except to make sensational paragraphs in the evening papers. It may sound a small thing in one way, but it cuts at the root of the dignity of the proceedings of the House of Commons, and would do more to interfere with that dignity than any mere wrangling in the Gallery, where the people concerned would be simply removed by the police. That is a point to which I would most earnestly call the attention of the Solicitor-General. I cannot see how it is possible to say that the Speaker would not be cross-examined. The Speaker is the quintessence of the collective wisdom of the House of Commons, and he it is who, after due deliberation, is to order proceedings to be instituted, and I think that he should be protected from the very obvious disadvantages which would inevitably arise, where, for purposes of advertisement or political propaganda, or in order to draw attention to a cause from which this novelty of violence has been withdrawn, it is solely sought to revive a controversy which is now in a moribund situation, I commend that point of view to the learned Attorney-General. I cannot see that Mr. Speaker and the officers of the House may not be cross-examined, and I think that at any rate before the Committee stage comes round we might have some process by which would be removed from the Bill a danger which I for my part believe to be of a most fundamental character.

I join most heartily in the objection taken by the Noble Lord to that part of the Bill which proposes to give powers now possessed by the House to the ordinary police court magistrate of the metropolis. It is conceivable that Mr. Speaker, or responsible officers of the House, might be summoned in connection with police court proceedings. I am speaking for myself on this matter, but I hope that the House will not pass this piece of panic legislation in the form in which it is now drafted. I listened, as I always do, with the greatest attention and respect to the Attorney-General, but even with his great ability he failed to make the meaning of the Bill clear. The person charged, "not being a Member of either House of Parliament," is to be liable to the penalties provided. The words are "he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour." I do not pose at all as a lawyer, but I ask the Attorney-General whether a court of law in construing the clause would not first of all read into it that it is only to apply to persons eligible to become Members of Parliament, and that the use of the pronoun "he" confirms that view. And then let it be observed that not only are people guilty of disorderly conduct liable to be arrested, but also any person who acts in contravention of any rule or order of either House with respect to the admission or conduct of strangers. This is a phrase so wide, so vague, and so far-reaching that it may easily cover any kind of offence of the most innocent kind, and as such it requires modification. Then observe the sub-sections, which provide in effect that any person guilty either of disorder or a contravention of any rule is to be arrested either by a constable, or officer of the House, unless the Lord Chancellor or Mr. Speaker otherwise orders. That is to say, that every case occurring within the precincts of this House is to be brought to Mr. Speaker for his decision as to whether or not the person is to be arrested. On the face of it, the drafting of the Bill is ludicrous, and is not the kind which the House of Commons, with any sense of respect to itself, or of any sense of the dignity of the office of Speaker, can afford to pass in the form in which it now is. I am not supposed to have any great respect for the formalities or dignities of the House of Commons, but I must say that from my first reading of the Bill I have felt that its authors are tending to reduce the proceedings of Parliament, in connection with disturbances, to the level of a pothouse. Surely some form of procedure can be devised for safeguarding the proceedings of Parliament without the necessity of dragging the House itself, or its Members, or officers and affairs, before the police court from time to time during each Session! If it was thought that the punishments specified in this Bill—if it becomes law—are going to deter the persons who use the Galleries of the House for the purposes of political advertisement—then I am afraid the knowledge possessed by the Attorney-General of these persons is not so full as their recent proceedings should justify. It is proposed to imprison offenders for three or six months. This, instead of being a deterrent, would be an incitement for these people to continue the disturbances which have led to this Bill, and to its proposals. I respectfully submit, therefore, that not only in the interests and the dignity of the House itself, but also in the interests of the maintenance of order in the Galleries, the Government would be well advised either to drop the Bill or to so amend its provisions as to set up some tribunal within the House itself for dealing with these offences, and thus save us from what the Bill proposes to inflict upon us in connection with the law courts. I do not feel at this stage that a lengthy discussion of this Bill, so far as I am concerned, is at all necessary, but I wanted to make one or two complaints to show that from the first I object to the provisions of this Bill for reasons stated. The more I have considered it, the more I have come to the conclusion that it was drafted without due consideration as to what it means or as to the consequences likely to follow; and that unless there be some drastic amendments in the Committee stage, the House of Commons will be well advised to reject the measure when it comes before it again for its third reading.

May I just, as a final word, say that the Bill is only necessary because of the failure of the Members of the Government, and of Members of the House, to redeem their election pledges in regard to women's suffrage. [Cries of "Oh, Oh!"] Hon. Members may say "Oh, Oh," but the Attorney-General's speech is a justification for the statement I am now making. Disturbances in the Gallery are politically the means of protesting against the shelving of the question upon which nearly every Member on the opposite side is pledged—[Cries of "No, no"]—nearly every Member. Four hundred and twenty Members of the House of Commons declared before the. election that they were favourableto—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the question of women's suffrage in order?

The hon. Member has used it as an illustration out of many to show the causes of the disturbances.

It is because the women mainly responsible for these disturbances feel and believe that they can no longer appeal to the honour of the House of Commons in regard to this particular question that they are taking these extreme measures. That apart, my objection to the Bill is more deep-seated than that, and because I believe that it will not merely not stop disorder in the Gallery, but tend to lower the dignity and standing of the House of Commons in the minds of the people of the country, that I shall oppose the Bill in its subsequent stages.

I think the whole House will agree in regretting the disorders of last season, but I have very grave doubts as to whether this Bill will afford a satisfactory remedy. It seems tome that the remedy might be worse than the disease. It has always been the rule of this House, I believe, that this House has the exclusive right of jurisdiction within its own walls over all matters relating to the conduct of persons. For the first time this Bill proposes to make a change in that. The Attorney-General has told us that all the rights and privileges of this House are preserved, but I venture to think that this, which is to be regarded as an alternative course, is a very important new departure, because it breaks away from well-established principle, and brings in an external tribunal to deal with matters which have taken place within the walls of this House. I quite agree that this does not bring in that tribunal of necessity. In order that it may come in it is necessary that you, Mr. Speaker, or the Lord Chancellor, should give authority, but even with those conditions it seems a very serious matter that this House should in any way delegate its power of procedure, of punishment, and of remitting punishment. To take the very simplest case, a case of procedure. Suppose, for instance, there was a disturbance in the Strangers' Gallery of a marked kind, and that the offenders were to be arrested by an officer of the House, and that Mr. Speaker were to direct that a prosecution should take place. I would like to ask the Attorney-General whether in these circumstances when a prosecution is instituted the offender would be entitled to subpoena persons here. If so, Mr. Speaker would be at once subpoenaed. Most of the Members present would be subpoenaed; many of the officers of the House would be subpoenaed, and then there would certainly be a scene in the metropolitan police-courts which I am inclined to think would not add to the dignity of this House, however it would add to the gaiety of nations. It seems to me after we had once had Mr. Speaker and many Members over in the metropolitan police-courts to stand cross-examination as to what took place within the walls of this House—once that occurred I venture to think no other prosecution would be ordered. There is another matter to which some attention might be directed, and that is the question of sentence. The magistrate might not look on the affair as an affair of State. I wonder would he be inclined to regard this House as a "public" or a "private" place, and if it were to be regarded as a "private" place I think it very likely, and the Attorney-General will admit it, that nothing like what he described would be the maximum, and the magistrate would be likely in the first instance to dismiss the action or to inflict a small fine. I venture to think the House should very seriously consider whether punishments in a matter of this kind ought not to be in its own hands. It is not merely a question of sentence or punishment. There is also the question of the remission of the sentence. It is always the privilege of this House that when any steps were taken in the House the House should have the right to remit any penalty it imposes. If the imposition of the penalty is in the hands of the magistrates, then the House, for all practical purposes, has no right to remit that penalty, and that, it seems to me, is a most serious matter. I have dealt with matters occurring within the walls of the Chamber. I will take another instance. Suppose in the lobby or in the corridors there was a fracas of some sort, and that you, Sir, were to order some step to be taken. Suppose some Member of this House, in the interests of order and in the endeavour to try and restore order, had to interfere. I suppose in that case the person prosecuted would be entitled to take out a cross-summons against him, and the result would be that a Member of this House might be called upon to answer for something done in the Palace of Westminster. It may be argued that a cross-summons might not be allowed. It seems to me that a cross-summons would stand in the same category as a subpoena, and I think that it would not appeal to the British sense of fair play if a visitor could be summoned and dealt with, and a Member could not. If we once take this departure of bringing in the police-courts to deal with disorder which takes place within this House we will bring the whole legal fabric into play with far-reaching results. I do not think any of us would contend that the present state of things is satisfactory. I would like to see some extension of the present powers of the House. Take the case of a disturbance in the High Courts of Justice. A judge can deal with it in a summary manner, and I fail to see why it is if disturbance is created here it could not be dealt with in the same summary manner. I quite agree we have great precedents, and we may want to develop our practice, but it seems to me that matters which take place within the House ought to be dealt with by the House itself instead of adopting this entirely novel procedure. It would probably be far better if we were to bring our jurisdiction into line with modern requirements. I put these matters before the House, and in doing so I speak with great diffidence, and after very careful study of the Bill I have come to the conclusion that it would be a most dangerous departure, and it might very likely create a good many more abuses than it would settle. I venture to hope we may have some further information from the Attorney-General on the question of subpoena and cross-summonses and other matters which might arise before very long. In dealing with these things we are dealing with nothing new, because of course it will be in the recollection of the House that only recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary were subpoenaed to give evidence in the court, and that the Prime Minister would have been also subpoenaed, and would have to go a very long distance for the same purpose were it not that an application was made to the High Courts. Those people who created those disturbances are prepared to do anything to serve their purpose, and I think it would be a very great pity for this House to pass a measure which I believe would enable them to act with even more effect in the future than they have in the past.

I have listened with great attention to the speech of the Attorney-General, in which he moved this Bill, and as far as I can gather his speech was to the effect that something ought to be done, but I think that speech which he made was the strongest condemnation of the Bill which he brought in, because, if the hon. and learned Gentleman proved anything, he proved conclusively that this House has at the present time in itself full power to deal with any disorder that may arise within the House. As far as I could understand, the only thing in which the power of the House was weak was that if disturbance was started at the end of the Session the disturber might get off with temporary punishment of a few hours, owing to the fact that the House would not keep a person in confinement after it had adjourned. He seemed to think that the House still had the power of inflicting a fine, but he said that that power was not exercised for over 200 years. It is rather a new thing for us, at any rate on the Irish Benches, to hear a Law officer of the Liberal Government saying that he does not wish to exercise powers because they have been in abeyance for 200 years. We in Ireland know a good deal about Edward III. But you have power to imprison and to fine, and the reason you bring in this Bill is because a person if imprisoned at the end of the Session might get off very lightly. The Attorney-General said one of the reasons for the Bill was to do away with the advertisement that is given to certain propaganda. I must say when I read this Bill I wondered where it was drafted, and I came to the conclusion that it must have been drafted about Clements Inn, because, instead of taking away advertisements, I think it is likely to give the very best advertisement. Mr. Speaker is to become a public prosecutor. Then, if a person is arrested, he comes before a Court of summary jurisdiction. Quite true, in recent prosecutions an effort was made to subpoena several members of the Cabinet. Quite true the Prime Minister escaped, because the judges held he was an unwilling witness. But take the case here. If a disturbance takes place in this Chamber surely the best witness is the person presiding over the proceedings. He would be likely to see more of the disturbance than anyone else, and I think no Metropolitan, police magistrate would hold the theory that a subpoena should not be granted, and the result would be that he would provide a most attractive scare for the London evening papers. I am not supposed to be concerned much with the dignity of this House; but will the dignity of the House be added to by the fact that Mr. Speaker may have to attend the police-courts on subpoena and be subject to cross-examination on various irrelevant subjects as to what took place? I am of the opinion that that would not be a method of procedure calculated to enhance the dignity of the chair or of this House. I cannot understand why the House should give up the power it has at present to deal with these matters for what is in this Bill. The Bill is a Bill to punish strangers who have abused the privileges of this House. The Palace of Westminster is a very wide definition. What is the Palace of Westminster? If disorder takes place outside the House it would still be within the precincts. It may take place upstairs or in a Committee Room, and it would be laid upon Mr. Speaker to decide whether a warrant should be issued for the arrest of the offender or not. I always understood it that the position of the occupant of the chair is a very arduous one, and if there is to be added to that the duty of deciding whether or not a warrant shall be issued, whether or not a certain disturbance comes within the meaning of this Act, then a great deal of additional duty will be thrown upon the Speaker. The drafting of this Act is rather curious. If you take the strict interpretation some very curious things might occur. If any person in the company of a Member is guilty of disorderly conduct or acts in contravention of any of the rules of order he shall, according to the Bill, be guilty of a misdemeanour. That is so if any person breaks any rule with regard to the admission of strangers. He is then guilty of an offence and liable to conviction. The average visitor coming to this House may even with the very best intentions commit a breach of the rules. Are you going to order his arrest? Within the last few months I saw a distinguished visitor in this House break one of its most fundamental rules, and I am quite sure that every Member of this House would be very sorry to see him prosecuted. I refer to the occasion when one who was a late occupant of the chair came into the Strangers' Gallery and put on his hat. That is breaking the rules and committing an offence, and it would be for Mr. Speaker to decide whether or not the offender should be arrested. That, of course, may not be what you want to do, but it is what you do by this Bill. The House can, within its own limits and under its own powers, at the present moment provide a court which will administer its own jurisdiction while keeping in its own hands the powers necessary to deal with persons who have offended in any way.

It is quite true that if you bring a defendant to the Bar of this House and he is reprimanded by Mr. Speaker, it is an advertisement. That will take up the time of the House, and I do not know whether it is not a bigger advertisement than that which a defendant would get who is able to subpoena Mr. Speaker, the Clerks at the Table, the Sergeant-at-Arms, or anybody on the Front Benches when the disturbance takes place. I think an array of talent of that sort in the Westminster Police Court would be a far greater advertisement than bringing the defendant to the Bar of this House. I agree that the bringing of the defendant to the Bar of this House is not a desirable proceeding, and I would point out that the House has over and over again delegated to Committees power to deal with certain offences. Every day while this House sits Committees are given very large powers to deal with all sorts of matters, and we are now told that although this House can delegate powers to Committees dealing with large financial interests or political interests, it is not to be allowed to delegate to a Committee the power of punishing offences. I cannot seethe force of that argument, and if you were to bring in a Bill providing that a defendant committing an offence, although the House was going to rise, could be kept in detention during such period as the House might order, I think you would get over the difficulty. The question as to whether an individual should be brought to the Bar is not a difficult one, but it is a matter of arrangement, and it would be far better for the Government, instead of bringing in panic legislation of this sort, to provide that this House should quietly and soberly consider the necessity for rearranging or readjusting the powers which at present exist.

I desire to move "That this Bill be read a second time upon this day six months." I will not make any lengthy observations, but I think we are entitled to ask what is the occasion of this Bill and what is the necessity for it. I think we all know the occasion. We all know that at one time when you, Mr. Speaker, were in the chair and a debate was proceeding, we had an unseemly incursion by an excited lady, who rushed up the floor of the House and interrupted our proceedings. On another occasion certain ladies chained themselves in the Ladies' Gallery and proceeded to make various observations. Upon a third occasion a man shouted from the Strangers' Gallery over the clock, and distributed a number of handbills. Those were the three principal occasions which have undoubtedly given rise to this Bill.

Now what is the necessity for this Bill? It appears to me, notwithstanding the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of this measure, that when this Bill was prepared, the great powers this House possesses already must have been entirely overlooked. Whether we agree or disagree with the aims and objects of those who have so unfortunately disturbed the proceedings of this House, I think we all agree that this kind of thing should be put an end to, and if it cannot be prevented in another way, it should be adequately punished. The Government have brought in this Bill in order to secure that such offenders shall be adequately punished. It is because I consider the method proposed to be adopted, and the nature and general form of the punishment proposed by the Bill are mistaken and illusory, that I propose that the Bill be rejected. If this Bill became law, it would prejudice and interfere with the privileges of Parliament, which, at the present time, are perfectly clear, and it would substitute for those privileges a procedure which would be cumbersome, undignified, and ineffectual. I cannot help thinking that the Bill itself in regard to its objects, and the way it is proposed to carry them out, has been framed very hurriedly without taking into account the powers which this House undoubtedly already possesses.

In the first clause there are two or three salient points which ought to be taken into serious consideration. In the first place the Bill is to apply to strangers only, and it is not to be applicable to Members of this House or the other House, whereas the powers this House possesses at present enable us to deal not merely with strangers but with hon. Members of this House, and even with Members of the other House if they commit anything in the nature of disorder. This Bill proposes to make the offence committed punishable only if it takes place during the sitting of the House. It is not applicable just before or just after or at any intermediate period, but the operation of the Bill is restricted to the actual sitting of the House. I shall be able to show that the remedies which the House at present possesses apply to any period of time, whether the House is sitting or not. There is another very important point, and it is that the offence proposed to be created and punished by this Bill can only occur when the House is sitting in the Palace of Westminster. Perhaps I may be allowed to state that this House can sit where it likes. Supposing a plague, a riot, a fire, or anything of that kind occurred—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or an invasion"]—this House could decide to sit at Oxford. I have no desire to treat this subject with any levity, but I think I am entitled to call attention to the fact that if the proceedings of Parliament are to be protected they ought to be protected wherever the House should happen to sit. Another important point is that the offence is described as "disorderly conduct." That is a question of fact. If an individual is charged with disorderly conduct it is a question of fact as to whether that individual has or has not been guilty of that disorderly conduct. If that person is prosecuted before a magistrate he is entitled to have any witnesses of the offence called before the court. Another point to which attention has not yet been called is that in addition to all the difficulties and annoyances that have been suggested in regard to Mr. Speaker, the clerks of the House and the Sergeant-at-Arms being liable to be subpoenaed before the magistrate, this Bill, by reason of inflicting a penalty of six months' imprisonment, or a fine of £100, gives the person charged an absolute right to be tried by jury, and there is not the slightest doubt that upon a prosecution of this kind taking place, and after all the various officials of this House have been summoned, and have given their evidence, if the idea of the individual committing the offence is to obtain publicity he would demand to be tried by a jury, and the whole thing would then have to be done over again, and all the witnesses would have to come forward a second time into court.

It is also proposed to give the attendants of the House the powers of constables. May I point out that they have those powers already, and they have the right to arrest whenever Mr. Speaker makes an order. The fourth sub-section of clause 1 provides that "Nothing in this Act shall affect the privileges of either House of Parliament." That is inconsistent, because there is no doubt if anybody was charged with disorder to-morrow under this Bill they might demand that they should be dealt with in accordance with the statute, and that would interfere most seriously with the privileges of Parliament. I hope I shall not be unduly taxing the patience of the House if I mention in two or three sentences what those privileges and powers are with regard to these matters. They are laid down in several important works by Coke, Blackstone, and Sir Erskine May. Sir Erskine May laid down that:—

"Both Houses of Parliament enjoy various privileges as constituent parts of the High Court, of Parliament."

This is the highest court in the realm, and it can punish for contempt of court quite as effectually, in fact more effectually, than any other court. The Bill we have before us applies to both Houses of Parliament. The House of Lords, as we all know, is a court of appeal, and is the highest court in the kingdom, and the House of Commons is laid down in the Constitution of this country as being equal and entitled to the same respect and privileges as any High Court of Justice. In the eighth volume of Grey's Debates it is laid down by one of the highest authorities that:—

"Both House act upon precisely the same grounds in matters of privilege. They declare what cases by the law and custom of Parliament are breaches of privilege and punish the offenders by censure or commitment in the same manner as Courts of Justice punish for contempt."

That is the power which this House has got to-day without any such Bill as this. Sir Erskine May, on page 62, says:—

"Each House, as a constituent part of Parliament, exercises its own privileges independent of the other. They are enjoyed by virtue of the law and custom of Parliament."

I will quote just one sentence from Blackstone, and it is a quotation from Sir Edward Coke:—

"Whatever matters arise concerning either House of Parliament ought to be discussed and adjudged in that. House itself to which it relates, and not elsewhere."

This Bill proposes to adjudge elsewhere, and, therefore, I think I am entitled to quote very eminent authority on the subject. The power of commitment by the Commons is established upon the ground and evidence of immemorial usage. I find that there are over 900 cases in the 300 years between 1550 and 1850. They will be found in Wynn's Treatise, page 7, and the right of Parliament both to fine and imprison is admitted by statute of James I., cap. 13, sec. 3. This has been over and over again confirmed by the courts of law. The leading cases are those of Aylesbury, Murray, Crosby, Oliver, Hobhouse and that of the Sheriff of Middlesex. "Parliament is a High Court of Justice as well as a legislative body. It can redress its own wrongs, avenge all insults to its dignity, and vindicate its privileges. Like all courts, high or low, it has the power to summarily punish disobedience of its orders and mandates, including indignities offered to its proceedings, reflections upon the characters of its Members or interference with its officers in the discharge of their duties." I will give other quotations from a very great and learned authority. "The Sergeant-at-Arms can arrest, under the warrant of the Speaker, issued by order of the House, any person within the limits of the kingdom." "In the execution of the warrant he can call on the aid of civil power. He can, if he thinks necessary, requisition the assistance of the military, and break into a private residence between sunrise and sunset, if he has reason to suspect that the person he is in search of is inside." Therefore, he has the most ample powers that could possibly be vested in any court whatever, and it wants no such Bill as this to supplement those powers. May I give one illustration of the exercise of these powers. In February, 1751, a Scottish gentleman, named Alexander Murray—brother of the then Lord Elibank—possibly a progenitor of a respected member of this Government—who, in the course of a contested election at Westminster, but, of course, outside this House, spoke disrespectfully of this Assembly. He was brought to the Bar to receive the sentence which his audacity warranted. It is a matter of history that the Speaker called upon him to kneel, and that he refused to kneel, though the Speaker commanded him to do so. He was adjudged guilty of having aggravated his original offence by "high and dangerous contempt," and he was committed to New- gate. It has been pointed out by the Attorney-General that a commital to prison by either House lapses at the termination of the Session. In that case when Parliament is prorogued the doors of the prison of the offender, as in the case of Mr. Murray, have to be opened. The House of Commons, however, did not think that three or four months' incarceration adequately purged the Scotsman of his audacious offence. Next session, therefore, the Sergeant-at-Arms was sent to his residence with a warrant for his arrest. But he had fled, and though a reward of £500 was offered for his apprehension he was never again captured. That is what the House did in that particular case. Persons of all sorts and descriptions, as the Journals of the House show, have been brought to the Bar of the Commons by the Sergeant-at-Arms for disobedience of the Orders and Rules of the House; for indignities offered to its character or proceedings, for assaults or insults upon Members, reflections upon their character and conduce in Parliament or for interference with the officers of the House in the discharge of their duties, and have been committed to prison or in many cases censured by the Speaker. Then there is the Hyde case, which is very instructive. A gentleman named Hyde, who tried to obtain admission to Westminster Hall to witness the impeachment of Warren Hastings, was rudely jostled out into Palace Yard by a police constable. Hyde had the constable served with a summons for assault. But the constable complained to the House, and Hyde was arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms, brought to the Bar, and committed to prison for a breach of privilege in endeavouring to bring an officer of the House to answer a charge before the ordinary legal tribunals of the land. That is exactly what this Bill proposes to do. I do not know whether I may be allowed to give an amusing instance. It is one in which a newspaper reporter figured. A man named Dick Martin, a well-known and Irish Member of Parliament, about the year 1824 was greatly annoyed one morning to find that a newspaper published a speech of his in italics. He complained to this House of having been misrepresented. The offending reporter, who happened to be a countryman of Mr. Martin, was brought to the Bar for a breach of privilege. The journalist pleaded that the report was absolutely correct. "It may be," replied Mr. Martin, "but I defy the gentleman to prove that I spoke in italics."

But it is not alone against strangers who have offended against the dignity and majesty of the House of Commons that the House has its powers. It has equal powers with respect to its own Members. There is a specially constructed suite of rooms for the convenience of Members who may be adjudged guilty by the House of some serious breach of its privileges or some outrage on its decorum which merits imprisonment. A Member of Parliament arrested at the order of the Speaker was formally sent, like "strangers" guilty of breaches of privilege, to Newgate or to the Tower. In the present Palace of Westminster six rooms are specially provided in the Clock Tower for the accommodation of Members of Parliament committed to prison by the Speaker, whilst "strangers" sentenced to imprisonment by the House are lodged in Newgate. I am not going to labour this point any further, but I wish to say in conclusion that I invite the House to consider for a moment what would absolutely happen under this Bill in the case of a breach of privilege. What would happen supposing some excited female or some misguided male, taking advantage of the innocence or the credulity or of the indifference of some Member—and there have been cases of that kind—got admission to this House, and was guilty of disorder either here or in another place. What would happen? There is no question of a warrant in this Bill. You, Sir, would be called upon, as would the Lord Chancellor, to consent to the arrest of that person. That arrest, according to this Bill, could only take place in the House. That must necessarily take a few minutes before you could give your consent. But the person in the meantime might go out of the House. I take it, according to my reading of the Bill, that the arrest must actually take place in this House, but no doubt that is a point which can be altered in Committee. You, Sir, having given your consent to the arrest, there must be a prosecution, and the person is entitled absolutely, according to common law, to call evidence and eye-witnesses. It would be no use for the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or even you, Mr. Speaker, to ask to be excused from attending the trial, if called upon by the person in the interest of justice. All these people who saw the incident would be obliged to appear, if called upon, and I suppose this is a matter that has been overlooked in the hasty drafting of the Bill. That would make a double hearing of the case, for it would have to go before a judge and jury, and all the witnesses would be compelled to attend again. It seems to me that this House already possesses powers to safeguard its own dignity and proceedings; that those powers, if exercised, are already ample and complete, both with regard to its own Members or any member of the general public. I venture to say that they could have been exercised on a recent occasion if the incidents had not taken everybody by surprise. Those offenders are now known to the Attorney-General, and there is no reason why disorders in this House should not be put an end to by the powers which it already possesses. The alternative is proceedings in a police court, and the officials would have to attend. I do not attach so much importance to that, because they have salaries and are drawing them, but there are many Members in this House who are not drawing any salary. I venture to say that the balance of inconvenience against this Bill is overwhelming, and that there is no necessity for it. There is evidence that it has been hurriedly prepared. I think that the remedy in this Bill is a great deal worse than the disease, an dofr that reason I propose that it be read a second time this day six months.

In seconding the Motion which has been moved by my hon. Friend in an extremely convincing speech, I do not propose to deal with the drafting of the Bill, because that has been so ably dealt with by him, and because it can be amended in the Committee; and I think it is evident that it will meet with considerable opposition in Committee. But I wish to ask the learned Attorney-General one question. I see that no prosecution can be instituted except with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, I presume, in another place—and with regard to disturbances arising in another place, I would like to ask the Attorney-General what would happen if the Lord Chancellor gave orders for the arrest of a person for creating a disturbance? I presume under the Bill the Lord Chancellor would have to investigate the circumstances that gave rise to the disturbance, and that he could not sanction a prosecution unless he investigated those circumstances. Supposing the Lord Chancellor, the head of the Law in this country, did authorise a prosecution, and supposing a stipendiary magistrate—the junior member of the law in this country-decided that the Lord Chancellor was altogether wrong and dismissed the defendant, what would happen then? That would surely create an extremely awkward position, not only for the Lord Chancellor but for the stipendiary magistrate. My hon. Friend has pointed out that we, as Members of the Palace of Westminster, have certain privileges which we have had from time immemorial. For instance, we are not liable to the intrusion of any medical officer of any borough council to see whether our drains are right and our water supply is fit and proper. Nor are we liable to the intrusion of any excise officer to see whether or not we have a license to sell spirits. We have many privileges which have obtained for many years, and I do not think that these privileges should be lightly parted with. It may be said that this Bill does not in any way part with these privileges, because there is a clause safeguarding the ancient privileges which we possess. But this Bill for the first time brings the common law into requisition in regard to something arising in the House of Commons, and I venture to say, with all humility, that that is a very dangerous precedent to create, and one which is absolutely needless. What we desire is to stop these disturbances which we all deplore. But is this the best way of doing it? The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, with whom I do not often agree, but with whom I agree on this occasion, said that in his opinion the only effect of this Bill would be to give such an advertisement to the person creating the disturbance that it would act as an encouragement, and not as a deterrent. I see the punishment is six months' imprisonment, or a fine of £100. We know that in the case of the Suffragettes a fine of £100 is a small thing, because they have an annual income of many thousands. The six months' imprisonment, which I understand is to be cut down to three months' does not, I presume, cover hard labour? [The ATTORNEY-GENERAL shook his head.] Some have already been sentenced to two or three months' imprisonment, and they do not seem to care anything about it—indeed, they seem to glory in it, and in preference to finding a surety to keep the peace they have chosen to go to prison. The real point is, How can we stop these disturbances? I venture to say that my hon. and learned Friend has shown that we have very great powers in our own hands. Which will be likely to cause the greatest advertisement—if this House exercises the power which it has in its own hands or if it passes this Bill and acts accordingly? I think if the House of Commons were to exercise the powers it has in the way it has generally exercised them it may possibly be held to be the greater advertisement of the two—that is, if an offender is brought to the Bar of the House of Commons; but it seems to me—and I put this suggestion in all seriousness—that that is not necessary. The hon. Member for Newry I think made an excellent suggestion, though I think it might be amended. It was to bring in a Bill. I do not think it necessary to bring in a Bill; but that there should be a new Standing Order which should constitute the Speaker and, say, four Members of this House, a panel of Chairmen, or a Committee or a tribunal which should deal with offences of this sort. The powers which the House possesses should be delegated to you, Mr. Speaker, or to that Committee, and you would proceed to deal with the offender in a private room, when there would be no reporters present, and therefore no advertisement, and the powers which we have got are absolutely sufficient to act as a deterrent in a case of that sort. It has been said that we have no powers to commit any person to any place for a long time. But my hon. Friend has shown that we can commit a person either to Newgate or to the Tower. I am wondering what would be done in a case of the abolition of Newgate and of there being no other building to take its place. But the Tower would do just as well. Even if it could not be available I think the First Commissioner of Works, who is fond of erecting buildings, would not find it beyond his ingenuity to erect a few dungeons near the House of Commons. It seems to me that that suggestion is worth consideration. We have had allusions made to legislation in a panic. I do not know that this is legislation in a panic. There is no doubt that this House has suffered from interruption from which it had previously been immuned, and it is necessary that something should be done. It is not always the case that the first conclusions are the wisest, and I think the House will be well advised if before they give a second reading to the Bill they would consider whether or not they could not utilise in a manner, as I have suggested, the powers that this House already possesses. I believe that could be done, and I believe it would deprive the offender of that advertisement which is the real object of the offence, and that it would have a better effect than if this Bill were passed into law.

I think the House ought to remember that in dealing with this Bill the Government are not acting exactly on their own initiative, but on the part of the House of Commons as a whole irrespective of party. The Bill has been brought in in conformity with the recommendations of the Select Committee which the House appointed last Session to consider these irregularities, and I hope that the Government will leave themselves in the hands of the House in this matter. I think enough has been said on the Bill this afternoon to show that the Select Committee in its recommendations, and I think the Government also, have not interpreted the general sense of the House. There are some very severe criticisms directed against portions of their scheme. Now, the object which the House had in view was to prevent the recurrence of the very distressing scenes in the Gallery owing to the admission of strangers. It was not to find a remedy for any purposes of our own. We have a complete remedy against disturbances so far as Members are concerned. There has been no disturbance in the Gallery this Session, because the public have been excluded. Therefore from the point of view of the House of Commons, no Bill of this kind was necessary; we are complete masters of our procedure, and can keep perfect order so far as we are concerned. Any Bill brought in is to enable the public to observe and listen to our proceedings, and if we can manage that without our proceedings being interfered with and our time being wasted we are willing that the public should be admitted to the Galleries. But I think I speak for every Member of this House when I say that the admission of the public does not facilitate our business, and we could carry on the business of the nation quite as well with the Galleries empty. But I would submit to the House (and this I think really does raise the whole question of the Bill) that it is practically out of cur power to make the public behave themselves. If the public have not sufficient self-respect when admitted to this Assembly to keep order, then I consider the proper and appropriate remedy is that which you, Mr. Speaker, have already applied in keeping the public from the Galleries, and I am not at all sure that the Select Com- mittee were right in urging that a Bill should be brought in, and whether it would not have been better to say that each Session we will give the public a fair chance, and that if our courtesy and kindness is set at nought then for the remainder of the session the galleries will be closed as at the present time. I think that a very short display of firmness on the part of this House would lead the public to keep order in the Galleries. Anyway, I submit that neither our procedure—our methods of business—nor our powers are appropriate for enforcing upon the public good behaviour which the public do not choose to impose upon themselves. Therefore, though we may pass this Bill, I do not believe any penalty you may make will be sufficient to create a sense of order in the public unless they have it in themselves. It is not by penalties that you are going to secure order in the Galleries of the House of Commons. I do not want to go over the ground which has already been traversed, but I think the penalties would be ineffective. These people, very mistakenly, are using very foolish, and I would not say criminal but unwise methods, and they imagine themselves to be serving a political purpose; and if we, the House of Commons, lend ourselves to inflicting penalties upon them for the purpose of forwarding their political propaganda, they will say we are persecuting them for political reasons and imprisoning them because they are the advocates of a particular measure. They will say that we inflict punishments because they agitate against our not doing what they want us to do. Nothing will be more unforunate than anything of that kind. Therefore I am not hopeful that the passing of a Bill of this kind, containing penalties, even severe penalties, will help to achieve the purpose which the Government and the House of Commons have in view. I think our present powers are better for preserving our order and preserving our dignity than the method devised by this Bill.

On the other hand, I feel a difficulty in voting against the Government proposal, because I recognise that it does carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee, and that the Government are trying to find a remedy for a very difficult state of affairs. I think the wisest course for us to pursue, I put it forward feeling that we all have one object, would be to allow the Bill to be read a second time and sent to a Grand Committee of this House. Then let us see whether in the Grand Committee the criticisms made today can be met, or whether we are absolutely unable to overcome them. One criticism which would be absolutely fatal to the Bill is, whether as the result of our passing it, you, Mr. Speaker, and the Officers and Members of this House, will be obliged to go down to police courts in order to give evidence under this measure. If that is so, I say the Bill is dead, and from the moment that that appears to be the case no Member of this House can vote for it. But if we can get round it and show that we can in some degree get order without such steps being necessary, then I think the House ought unanimously to pass the measure. As it stands this Bill has been riddled with criticisms to-day, and it is obvious in its present state that it cannot pass into law. But I do not know that it would be wise for the House to reject it on the second reading; perhaps it would be better to allow it to go to a Grand Committee and see if it can be put into proper shape.

I rise to express the hope that this Bill will receive a second reading, and that the proposed penalties will not, in Committee, be in any way diminished or abated. I had the honour of being a member of the Select Committee which considered this Bill, and though it may be said that our meetings were held while the offences were fresh in our recollection, in the weeks and months that have gone by, I am bound to say that nothing has happened that has caused me to alter my opinion in the least with regard to the main recommendations which we made. If I have any criticism to make on the present Bill, it seems to me to be criticism rather relating to the matters in which the Bill has departed from, or gone beyond, the recommendations of the Select Committee. For instance, I do not see why, when the Select Committee only proposed that this particular method of procedure should be adopted with regard to matters of serious disturbance in the Galleries, the Bill should go further and aim this new procedure against all controvertions of all kinds, of the Rules and Orders of the House, in respect to the admission and conduct of strangers—matters many of which are necessarily unfamiliar to many of the outside public. On the other hand, I do not quite see, if it be true—perhaps the hon. and learned Attorney-General will have another opportunity of speaking and will tell us—if it be true that the words of the Bill carry with them the right of trial by jury, why they should have gone beyond the recommendations, and certainly beyond the intentions, of a great many Members of the Select Committee. Our intention was that the proceedings should be as isolated, as little calculated to attract public attention as was possible under the circumstances. It is said, no doubt, that the House has full power to exact the remedies in its own hands. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool had no reason to cite Coke, whether covered by the venerable authority of Blackstone or not, to show that the trial should take place in this House or elsewhere. I know it is good law. It required neither Coke nor Blackstone to tell us that. Our experience shows that the law wants change, and that the law has broken down. The evidence of the unfitness of the present procedure of the law is, the emptiness of our Galleries and of the upper parts of this Chamber. This House could have made use of all the weapons that were in its hands, when the disturbances of last Session took place. It preferred to empty its Galleries. How long will it prefer to keep those Galleries empty? I am not prepared to go the length of the Roman virtue of the hon. Member for Westmoreland, who is prepared to visit upon the entire body of the outside public, the sins of the wretched minority of people who seek to intimidate this House. No, Sir, the recommendations of the Select Committee, so far as they are embodied in this Bill, are a protest against the constant attempts which are being made to rabble this House on the part of persons who are minorities, and who seem to want to make up for their want of numbers by their noise. It is not true that we are proposing to strip ourselves of our present powers. We recommended, and the Bill recommends that all our present powers should be preserved and safeguarded. All that is proposed is that it shall no longer be possible that whereas a person can be taken before a magistrate and dealt with ignobly and ignominiously as he should be if he misbehaves himself, he should escape and obtain a glorious fate for himself merely through the accident that his offence happened to take place within the walls of Parliament.

It has been urged that great inconvenience will be caused by the issuing of subpoenas to high officers, including even the occupant of the Chair in this House itself. It seems to me that we come dan- gerously near to that position as things are. We have Cabinet Ministers already subpoenaed and, though not taken out of London, escaping only narrowly from being subjected to that great annoyance and forced to attend and give evidence in provincial towns. That is an inconvenience that we have at present, and if Mr. Speaker himself happened while a disturbance was going on in the precincts of this House to be near, as the Home Secretary happened to be a spectator, nothing could have saved him under our present law by subpoena from being cited to appear. The remedy for that is to be found in some alteration of the law relating to the abuse of the process of subpoena. If you have a weak law and possibly a weak magistrate it seems to me that you are already exposed to the dangers, which it is said will be created by this Bill, and this Bill will not in any way increase them. It seems to me that a magistrate ought to be empowered, if he has any common sense, and if he is not already empowered, to draw the necessary distinction between an attempt to exploit the presence of a high officer of State, or the Speaker of this House, for the purpose of adding notoriety to the person who of all persons least deserves notoriety, and an attendance necessary to afford evidence. It is true that we do, for the first time in our history, and I should be the last to underrate the gravity of the occasion, make the great constitutional change of allowing outside tribunals to take cognisance of what takes place inside this House, contrary to the sanction of all the old constitutional principles; but there, again, it is proposed that no such proceedings shall take place without the consent of the Speaker or of the occupant of the Chair in the other House, and thereby this Bill makes this civil tribunal practicaly the agent or servant of this House, which is a very right and proper form for the proceeding to take. It has been objected that the Speaker may order a prosecution, and that his sanction of that prosecution may be practically reversed by the finding of a very junior magistrate. I can conceive that nothing of the kind could take place. If the sanction of the Speaker is given for the initiation of a prosecution it would not necessarily involve the smallest expression of opinion on his part on the merits of the case, but merely the expression of his own idea as an officer of this House that it is more convenient that the matters should be tried before the ordinary civil tribunal than be tried in any of the cumbrous and antiquated ways in which alone we could maintain order and dignity in our own proceedings. These ancient ways, much as we respect them and picturesque as they may be, have only to be described with the learning and industry which have been brought to the task by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool—they have only to be described to be condemned as practically of little use in the emergency in which we found ourselves during last Session.

The last two speakers referred to the fact that a Select Committee had sat last Session to consider the question of admission of strangers to this House. I am glad that they did so, because I think the House has some reason to complain of the manner in which this Bill has been presented this afternoon for second reading. The speech of the learned Attorney-General I make no complaint of at all, but to my mind it did not go far enough. I think the House, in discussing a question of this kind, is entitled to know what arrangement it is proposed to make, outside the penalties provided for under this Bill, in case the Galleries are again opened to the public. The Select Committee made certain recommendations upon that subject last Session, and I think we ought to be told by the Government whether it is proposed to put those recommendations of the Select Committee in force as they were made or to subject them to any alteration. We ought to know that, and I hope that the House will be given the information before the conclusion of this debate. For my part, I thoroughly endorse all the criticisms and all the objections that have been taken against this Bill throughout the course of this debate. Last Session, as we know, the Galleries were closed because of one or two or three cases at the most of disturbances—disturbances which there was no power to deal with except by the antiquated forms of this House or by ejecting the disturbers. My own view is that to close the Galleries because of these cases of disturbance was a mistake which amounted to an admission that Parliament allowed itself to be intimidated by the action of one or two strangers. In my judgment it would have been far better to take no notice whatever of these disturbances beyond swiftly and silently ejecting the disturbers, a course which would, in my opinion, have damped the ardour of any other intending disturbers who might at infrequent intervals have found their way into the Gallery.

But what will be the position if this Bill is carried into law and the Galleries are again thrown open to the public? There is not a single extra precaution under this Bill, or under the recommendations of the Select Committee, to keep possible disturbers out of the Galleries when they are again thrown open to the public. You cannot under any workable system you may devise keep these people out if they want to get in. If they want to get in they will get in in spite of you.

All this Bill does is to provide special inducements, which at present under the existing laws do not exist, to people to come in and disturb the proceedings of this House. This Bill, to my mind, puts a premium upon disturbers. You may think you are providing under it a safeguard for order. In my opinion you are merely providing a provocation for disorder. You are setting up an Act of Parliament as an Aunt Sally for every suffragette to come along and have a shot at. Is that an extravagant prediction? What has been the experience of the authorities outside this House in seeking to preserve order around the precincts. So long as they adopted a policy of arresting those who sought to force their way into the Houses of Parliament for the purpose of interviewing an unwilling Prime Minister they found they had plenty of work to do and a great many people to arrest, but it was only when they changed that policy and when they stopped making arrests except under circumstances of great provocation that matters became quiet. In pressing this Bill the Government is flying in the face of that experience and going back to methods which proved a failure in the past, and which will prove a failure in the future. I could understand it if along with penalising the disturber this Bill proposed to make the Member who introduced the disturber responsible in some way, either by depriving him for the rest of the Session of the right to introduce any more strangers, or else by making him liable for any fines which might be imposed under this Bill on the disturber. But that is not the proposal. There is no provision of that sort in the Bill, and, therefore, I believe this Bill; s not only useless, but is calculated to defeat the objects which the Government and the House have in view. The whole difficulty has, of course, been created by the suffragettes. I do not wish in anything I may have said to be taken as objecting or opposed to the aims or the tactics of the suffragettes. I merely wish to point out that in my opinion the Bill will not do what the Government has in view. But before going into the details of the Bill at all it seems to me it would be desirable for the House to consider whether or not the Galleries ought to be open at all. I have no objection whatever to the Galleries being open to the public, but so far as I know the Galleries never were open, at least within recent years to the public. They were open to the friends or to the visitors—

That matter is not dealt with in the Bill. It is quite outside the scope of the Bill.

I think the Government ought to give us some information with regard to the conditions under which the Gallery is to be open if it is to be open at all.

It is not a matter for the Government at all to decide.

For the reasons I have given I hope the House will not agree to the second reading. I consider this is eminently a question upon which the Government ought to leave Members on all sides of the House free to vote as they please. I hope the Government Whips will not be put on, and that Members will be free to vote according to their own judgment.

The hon. Member, I think, somewhat underrates the seriousness of the mischief with which this Bill is intended to cope. He says he thinks it would be impossible to prevent a repetition of the disturbance with which we have already become familiar.

The Select Committee said so.

I should be very sorry indeed if the House adopted that view, and took up an attitude of such hopeless despair with regard to a matter so vital to its own position. Such disturbances must be prohibited, and in my view they can be prohibited.

In the Report of the Select Committee, clause 3 says:—

"It is probably impossible to devise rules which an ingenious man or woman bent on disorder cannot succeed in evading?

I am by no means in very substantial disagreement with the remarks of the Select Committee. I do not for a moment suggest that any Bill would be effective in preventing attempts which may have more or less sporadic success in creating fresh disorder, but we have had to deal with a systematic campaign against the good order and the dignity and the efficiency of this House, and it is impossible that the House should sit down and surrender under such a campaign and admit that no measures, punitive or preventive, are effective in such a case. We have really only to consider what is best to be done, and I cannot help thinking that hon. Members who have criticised the measure have confined themselves somewhat too exclusively to criticism and have not considered what would be the effect of some of their own suggestions if a similarly vigilant criticism were turned upon them.

Let me deal with some minute criticisms which have been made against the Bill. First of all, the Noble Lord the Member for Chorley said the Bill applies to "any person," and it may, therefore, cover a workman who is engaged during the sitting of Parliament on the premises. What does he suppose the Speaker and the officers of the House are introduced for, if they choose to take action against some disorderly workman, perhaps for refusing to obey the order of his foreman? One has to assume that the officers in the House will exercise at least ordinary sense and to suppose that the great officials will under the strongest possible sense of responsibility give effect to this Act, and would actually use it for a purpose so absurd and trivial, as that is to do very little justice to those officers. Then, again, the Noble Lord forgot that the Bill applies to those who contravene the Rules with regard to the admission and conduct of strangers. I do not quite see how the hypothetical workman of the Noble Lord would be likely to come under words like that. Then he spoke of the area which was covered. The area is that of the Palace of Westminster, which is fairly well understood, especially for the purposes of a Bill like this. It includes Old Palace Yard and New Palace Yard. Old Palace Yard is that of the ancient Palace of Westminster; the New Yard is that which was made when the new Palace of William Rufus was built upon this site. It is no newer than that very ancient date, but both Palace Yards come within the precincts.

The Noble Lord undoubtedly mentioned one point which must always give anxiety to anyone who is framing new legal proceedings. He said the right of subpœna might be abused. Of course, it may be abused, but the right of subpoena is much less susceptible to abuse now than it was before the very recent decision in connection with disorders of this very character. On the first summons before the police magistrate I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary both appeared. I was of opinion that they appeared unnecessarily. Afterwards, when similar subpoenas were issued, I moved the Court of King's Bench to set aside the subpoenas on the ground that they were frivolous and vexatious, and they were according set aside upon grounds which, I think, would be sufficient in most cases to protect the officials here. But if it is desired to make the protection more genuine, there will not be the least difficulty in doing so, and in Committee that would be treated as a matter concerning which the most stringent and vigilant provisions would be made to prevent the officers of the House, and especially the great officers, from being made subject to the necessity for appearance in court. I do not think the House need concern itself with that objection, which is certainly the most substantial objection which has been put forward, and is the objection most likely to give hon. Members a sentiment somewhat adverse to allowing the magistrate to have jurisdiction. That, in fact, is the only objection of a serious character which seems to me to have been made either against the substance or the form of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil thought the Bill might apply only to men, as he discovered a personal pronoun of the masculine gender in the important clause, but under the Interpretation of Statutes Act the masculine imports the feminine, and "any person" would be construed as being applicable to both sexes in this connection, so I think the hon. Member has been under a somewhat unnecessary apprehension in that regard. Then the hon. Member for Newry again tried to push the wording of the Bill to the extreme of absurdity by saying it is "any breach of the rules" which will be made the subject of these proceedings. But what would he have the draughtsman do? Would he put upon him the obligation of scheduling the breaches of the rules which may be made the subject of proceedings of this character? That would be absurd. What is done in this case is what is done in every case where one is dealing with disorderly or criminal conduct, the precise form of which it is impossible to foresee. We are leaving it to the common-sense of the tribunal, in this case safeguarded by the action of the officials of this House. Therefore, there is not the slightest chance of a prosecution being instituted for some trivial breach of the rules or for some inadvertent act, such as a distinguished person forgetting to put his hat off in this House. Does the hon. Member suppose that Mr. Speaker would be likely to order the prosecution of such a person? One does not need to provide against such severity in the interpretation of the language in the Bill. Then we come to the criticism of the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool. Although he has given much valuable research to those ancient cases which he cited, he will forgive me if I say that I do not think he has given an equal amount of research and care to the wording of the Bill. He said that all our existing privileges would be affected by the Bill, because any person against whom it was proposed to proceed for disorder might demand to be tried not under this Act but under older procedure of the House, whether the House thought fit or not. No one can demand any trial under this Act. There can be no prosecution for disorder in this House unless Mr. Speaker sees fit to order proceedings to be taken. Therefore the objection of the hon. Member is one that vanishes altogether on an examination of the provisions of the Bill. Then with respect to what the hon. Gentleman said in regard to the power of arrest outside the walls of this House, I would point out that you have already the powers necessary to make an arrest within the walls. When within the precincts of the House disorder takes place, it is not desirable that delay should be incurred in obtaining a warrant for arrest. It was considered necessary that you should proceed with swiftness and without a warrant at all. That objection also is not one to be taken seriously. The bulk of the hon. Gentleman's speech was directed perfectly fairly to showing that the powers of the House are already, if not perfect, at all events very strong. There is no doubt about it. I think I made that perfectly clear in my opening remarks to the House, but it is not a question of the powers of the House, it is a question of the procedure of the House in giving effect to its powers. That is the point which is most important to be considered. What are you to do in order to give effect to the existing powers? When disorderly proceedings take place you have to consider first of all what shall be, or if anything, shall be done. We are dealing with a systematic campaign against the dignity of this House. When you proceed against one disorderly person, and when that person has been dealt with at the cost of the time of the House, those who are concerned in this campaign will put up another to create fresh disturbance, and, therefore, it becomes vital to consider how we shall make the procedure swift. It is not merely a question of making the power ample and perfect. In some respects it is ample already, but we desire above all things to take our procedure without delay, and without unduly occupying our time over matters which are beneath our notice so far as the persons concerned in the disturbances are concerned. Under our present powers we have first of all to summon the offender to the Bar of the House. Then we have to hear what the offender has to say in defence, for I think this House would be very loth in dealing with criminal acts to restrict, I shall not say the license, but the liberty to speak of persons whose liberty is at stake. If you bring them to the Bar of the House the matter may he referred to a Select Committee, and that I submit is a most inappropriate tribunal for dealing with such matters. I am quite sure that the House will not suppose that I am speaking disrespectfully of Select Committees when I say this. Everyone will admit that to appoint a Select Committee drawn from the different parties in this House—[An Hon. MEMBER: "There is a standing Committee"]. There is a Standing Committee on Privileges, but in the appointment of that Committee some regard is had to the representation of the different parties in the House. To send such a case to a Committee representing the different parties in the House, and to give that Committee the right to try and the right to imprison persons who may have been actuated by political motives would not be a convenient or a proper method of procedure. We would have all this great and unnecessary expenditure of time over an individual offender, and as soon as you have wasted your time over one offender you would have to take the same course in regard to the next offender. These are things we have to consider. We have considered them all, and, having done so, we have made the recommendations which are contained in the Bill. I think we have paid some regard to the recommendations of the Committee. An hon. Member said that what the Committee recommended was that serious dis- turbance ought to be brought within the cognisance of the ordinary criminal courts. Are the words "serious disturbance" words which a draftsman would like to adopt in such circumstances as these? The far simpler and better plan is to take words which are capable of easier application, such as "disorderly conduct," or "acting in contravention of the rules of the House." Where you are dealing with such matters it is much easier to proceed upon these words than it would be if you selected the words "serious disturbance." We do not propose to lessen the powers which we at present possess by a jot or tittle. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division spoke of stripping ourselves of the right to protect ourselves. I cannot imagine more inaccurate language than that which he has used in regard to the Bill. We do not strip ourselves of any power whatever. We do not affect or touch any power whatever which we at present possess. We are not aiming at the diminution of our rights or of any ancient usage which has come down to us.

May I ask whether it is correct to say that an offender has the right to claim trial by jury?

The hon. Member put two things together which are not consistent. He said he was against the diminution of the penalties, and next that he was against giving the right of trial by jury. If you maintain the term of imprisonment at six months, there is undoubtedly the right to claim trial by jury. If you diminish the penalty then there is no right to trial by jury. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London spoke of the inconvenience of prosecutions being authorised by such distinguished officers as the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker. All that Mr. Speaker or the Lord Chancellor does is to act upon information laid before him, and if he considers the matter is one for prosecution he will order a prosecution, but that is not a matter of adjudication. My duty, not always an agreeable one, is to advise in regard to prosecutions upon information which is laid before me. I do not adjudicate in the cases; I only say that there is a primâ facie case for a prosecution, and in doing so I do not regard myself as subject to any reflection if someone against whom a prosecution has been ordered is, after being prosecuted, acquitted of the charge made against him.

The officer who orders the prosecution in this case will probably have seen the disturbance. That is different from what occurs in the procedure instanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Well, he will not always have seen the disturbance, and he will not be the only person who has seen it, and in such a case as that I think we may confidently rely upon sufficient evidence being forthcoming to secure a conviction. We must not forget that, after all, as one hon. Member said, something here must be done. You cannot go on for ever excluding the public from the Galleries. No one can deny that there is a very strong feeling in favour of that course, but I gather from the course of the debate this afternoon that there is not a great grievance felt on the part of hon. Members in regard to the Galleries not being open. This Bill has been introduced, as I said in my opening remarks, in order that the Galleries may be reopened, and we have to consider whether the course suggested by the Committee is the better course, or whether any other course should be adopted. The hon. Member spoke of the panels sitting as judicial Committees in order to try persons who are charged with causing disturbances. If the House thinks that the better course, they will have an opportunity of judging. I can assure the hon. Member that the Government have thought it their duty to give effect, so far as they could, to the recommendations of the Committee. After all, this is a question for the House itself to consider and decide. I cannot imagine any question less appropriate for what may be called party polemics. The Government in this matter undertake not to use party pressure or to put on the party Whips. It is a case where the judgment of the House, irrespective of party, ought to be trusted. So far as this measure is concerned, if hon. Members do not wish that the Galleries should be reopened, or if they prefer some alternative of the kind suggested—if they prefer that Committees should be invested with the power of considering charges against persons who have been actuated by political motives, of course the House will choose that alternative. The House will be left to vote freely according to their convictions. I may venture to submit, very respectfully, as one who had some share in the preparation of the Bill, some advice to the House. If after the second reading the Bill should be found capable of adjustment or amend- ment in Committee these Amendments can be considered at a later stage. If the House refuses to give the Bill a second reading, considering that this is not the most practical and successful way of dealing with the matter, of course they will vote against the second reading in the hope that some other alternative will be adopted, I would venture to ask the House to weigh well both alternatives before a second reading is refused to the Bill.

I would be very slow indeed to offer opposition to a Bill which has been recommended to the House in its main features by the Committee which inquired into this question; but listening to the discussion to-day, I think what one has to consider is whether the disadvantages of the proposed new procedure that have been pointed out in the course of the debate do not entirely outweigh any possible advantages we could have. It is a very important and serious innovation to introduce the police court in any steps with reference to the order and dignity of this House. For my own part, I doubt very much whether this Bill will in the slightest degree improve the possibility of order when the Gallery reopens. I cannot but think that those persons who have created disorder—we all know the source from which this disorder emanated—would hail with delight the very punishment and the very procedure which are laid down by this Bill, and which would give them the opportunity of the advertisement that they so entirely desire. Why should we propose that people who outside the precincts of this House almost from day to day defy the police and defy the authorities, and thereby render themselves liable to be brought before the police courts, should take any different line of conduct when liable to the same penalties for causing disturbance inside the House?

The very first thing to consider is what is the probability of this Bill being effective in its object if we do go so far as to admit the police court into the regulation of disorder by strangers in this House? But when we go on and consider the matter a little further, as has been argued in the course of this debate, I cannot but express the opinion, and I do believe that it cannot be impossible for us out of our own Members to find a tribunal which would probably deal with these disorders in our own Assembly. The learned Attorney-General has said, and I quite agree with him, that we have the fullest power, but he says, and in this I also agree with him, that it is a cumbrous thing to call up these parties to the Bar of this House to have them examined and cross-examined or allowed to speak. I agree in all that. But is it really to be said in this House, which is able to deal, I think, well and, I think, in the very best possible manner with its own recalcitrant Members, throwing aside all politics and all bias when these questions arise, that we could not get a tribunal in the House itself that would deal with strangers who have created disorder in the course of the proceedings of the House? I do not believe that the House in any sense is so biassed politically that it is impossible for them to do justice to parties who have broken the rules of the House and abused their admission to the proceedings of this House.

We deal with a Member who creates disorder. Has anybody ever said that a Member who creates disorder was dealt with in any particular way because he belonged to a majority or a minority? We deal with many interests here apart from the question of politics. We elect a Member from one side of this House as a Speaker. We elect a Member from one side of this House as Chairman of Committees, and there never has been, certainly since I came into this House, a great many years ago, any suggestion or charge of bias in their administrations or in the settling of disputes on both sides of this House as against either of those high functionaries in the House. Therefore, I say if it is necessary at all, and I daresay it is, for any persons who desire the Gallery to be full—I certainly do not—is it to be laid down as impossible that we can get a panel of some kind in this House that would be able to deal fairly with those parties who have abused the privilege of being present as strangers? I cannot believe it. Certainly if we can do that, how very far superior that tribunal must be to making the police court an adjunct in keeping the order of this great assembly.

I do not at all think that the learned Attorney-General dealt adequately with what is likely to happen if we introduce the police court. I do not think my Noble Friend the Member for Chorley drew, in the slightest degree, an exaggerated picture of what would be likely to happen. How can you prevent the Speaker or any other Member of this House who has witnessed disorder being subpœned to give evidence? The learned Attorney-General said that in the Leeds case someone made an application to prevent the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister being brought down to Leeds on the ground that the matter was privileged. If I recollect aright the Prime Minister had no evidence to give on that occasion. He had seen nothing, and therefore it was privileged. But does the Attorney-General mean to say that he would deal in a similar way with a subpoena issued to Mr. Speaker in reference to a matter that he saw before his eyes in this House? The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot for a moment say that any court could refuse to administer the subpoena to any Member who saw the matter. Just look at what we would arrive at! Disorder occurs at the bar of this House or in the Gallery of the House, and Mr. Speaker directs a prosecution, and Mr. Speaker, being a witness and the director of the prosecution, is subpoenaed to come as a witness. Could anything be more ridiculous or anything bring this House into greater contempt than to have the police court administer a law of that kind? But the matter has even a further objection than that. Leaving Mr. Speaker out altogether, leaving the officers of this House out altogether, will hon. Members say that the sympathies of Members in relation to the particular incident will not lead them to go and volunteer evidence as to what happened with a view to mitigating the fines or the penalty that may arise in reference to a particular prosecution?

I can well see cases where the excitement would be so great that you would have to have a vast number of Members of this House examined on the one side or the other in relation to the particular matter and examined, having formed a perfectly bonâ fide view of what was the particular nature of the act that had arisen; and anything more lamentable than that a Session of this House should be removed from here to the police court at Westminster for the purpose of having a prosecution of that kind I could not: really conceive. But the Attorney-General says we can alter the law as to subpoenaing by this Bill. Is that really seriously going to be suggested—that in criminal prosecutions there should be a different law as to subpoenas in relation to the House of Commons from what there is as regards the most ordinary prosecutions of ordinary persons throughout the land? If you have to alter—and he now practically admits you will have to alter—the law as regards subpœnaing, I say that is enough to condemn this Bill, because you cannot lay down a code of evidence and procedure, in relation to prosecutions directed by this House, different from what you have in relation to any other ordinary prosecution directed by the right hon. Gentleman. That would be what would arise with reference to any prosecution. And a great many other inconveniences might also be suggested. The inconvenience of having your officers brought away when perhaps this House is sitting, the inconvenience of having them brought away from their business, probably urgent, important business that they would have to do in this House—all these are matters which we ought gravely to consider before we invite the police court into our proceedings.

But there are other matters which cannot be lightly passed over. I do not think it is a matter to be lightly passed over that the Lord Chancellor or Mr. Speaker may upon investigation—because, of course, it would be upon investigation—direct a prosecution, and that then a magistrate outside may say there are no grounds for a prosecution. I think that would bring the proceedings into very great contempt—that the Lord Chancellor or Mr. Speaker having said that there was a primâ facie case, the magistrate should say there was no case. And I do not think that that is a matter that the public will very well understand. There is no analogy, if I may say so, between this case and that of the Attorney-General directing prosecutions. The Attorney-General in the cases in which he directs prosecutions, merely has certain information put before him on which it is his duty to say whether there is a primâ facie case within the criminal law, and to direct prosecutions. That would not be the position of the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker. They would very often be witnesses themselves to these matters, and the inconvenience of having these matters to try, and these prosecutions conducted after they had made up their minds, very often on their own view of what had occurred here, renders the case absolutely different from any other kind of trial that I can conceive. Then again, the turning of the officers of this House into constables seems to me to be a very serious matter. You were told it was only for the purpose of enabling them to hand over persons who have committed disorder so as to enable them to be brought at once before a magistrate and dealt with. I do not know how that is to be. The Bill is very obscure on that point. I want to know, when the officers of this High Court of Parliament arrest a man, and it is afterwards held, either by the Lord Chancellor or the Speaker, that he should not be prosecuted, will they be open to an action for malicious prosecution or arrest? How can you prevent that action? Do you imagine that the people who come in here and create disorder will not take advantage of every possible legal procedure with a view to annoying your officers and the parties who endeavour to bring them to justice? By introducing police court law you are opening up a number of questions which it is impossible now to foresee. I can imagine nothing more disastrous than that a man, having been arrested, the Speaker should say he ought not to have been arrested, or at all events that no prosecution should take place, and that in that case the man should bring an action against your officer. Look at the case that would come before the court. The man had been arrested for disturbance by the officer, and then the Speaker had overruled the officer, and the man had been discharged. It would be certainly a nice primâ facie case to argue before a jury as to whether damages should be given in such a case. As the Bill stands I think I can show in a moment that it is absolutely unworkable, and although it may be said that these are Committee points, they are points which go to the very root of the question of whether it is worth while making a change of this kind and whether it would not be better to have a tribunal of our own.

How is the Bill to work? The Bill applies to disturbance or disorder either inside or outside this Chamber, so long as it is within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. When a man creates a disturbance, as I understand the Bill, an officer of the House, whatever that may be—T have been looking in some of the books, and the term would seem to include even the printers—can apparently arrest that man, unless Mr. Speaker or the Lord Chancellor intervene. Suppose a disturbance occurs in the Lobby, how is the Lord Chancellor or Mr. Speaker to intervene? Is a special messenger to be sent in to say to the Lord Chancellor or Mr. Speaker, "There is a man creating a disturbance out here; will you please adjourn the House and come out and see whether he ought to be arrested "? The words of the -clause are: "Any person who commits an offence under this Act may, unless the Lord Chancellor or Mr. Speaker otherwise order—" If that is not the construction, what is the officer to do? He is to summon a constable, and the man is taken to the lockup until he can be brought before 'i magistrate. Meantime, apparently, Mr. Speaker is to have the facts hurriedly brought before him, and is to consider—because no proceedings are to be instituted without the sanction of the Lord Chancellor or Mr. Speaker—whether the man in the lockup is to be proceeded against before a magistrate or not. What is to happen if Mr. Speaker comes to the conclusion that the man is not to be proceeded against? Who is to let him out of the lockup? Then look at the injustice of what will have been done. A man will have been arrested, and Mr. Speaker, after hearing the facts, will have to come to the conclusion that he ought not to have been arrested; but meantime the man will have been in the lockup. Is that man to have no redress? If he has redress, are you going to allow actions to be brought against officers of your own House? I believe, as I said at the beginning, that the disadvantages far outweigh any advantages that are possible under this Bill. After all, I do not believe that it is a matter of Imperial consequence whether we reopen the Galleries or not. For my own part I think we can get on very well without an audience there. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for the Appleby Division that you will never by what I call your Coercion Bills, as regards these extremists, or faddists, or whatever you like to call them in relation to a particular question, be able for one moment to keep order, and if we are to have the same disorder in this House, and if this Bill will not prevent it, the only result will be that in addition to the disorder you will have all the inconveniences which I have tried to point out in relation to police court procedure.

It is quite refreshing to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman denouncing coercion in any form. I can only regret that the able and elaborate argument which he has just addressed to the House was not addressed to the Committee upstairs upon whose recommendations this Bill is framed. The House will observe that this Bill, like most Government measures, is put forward by the Government simply in order to enable the House to pronounce an opinion on the recommendations of its own Committee. I have been looking at the names of the Members of that Committee, and I think that any hon. Member who looks at them will agree that a more representative body of men, or certainly a body of men entitled to greater respect for their long knowledge of the forms and procedure of this House, it would be impossible to select for any inquiry of this kind; and when they formally and unanimously come to the conclusions, as they did, which are now embodied in the clauses of this Bill, I do not think it would be possible to ignore their recommendations or to refuse to give due consideration to them. That is the only interest the Government have in the matter. I must say, from what I have heard of the debate, and particularly the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who speaks with all the authority of the Front Bench, that it would clearly seem to me that the opinion of the House, if not adverse, is critical; and the last thing we desire is to press the House in a matter which is purely within its own cognisance to adopt any measure which is not in consonance with the general opinion. I will make a suggestion. I do not like, after all the pains and attention which this very responsible Committee gave to the matter, to withdraw the Bill from the consideration of the House; but I do think that there is so much weight in the criticisms which have been addressed to us, particularly as to the practicability of the procedure proposed, that before going any further with it we ought to have time for fuller consideration; and I think that if we now adjourned the debate so that the Government and all sections of the House might have independent and friendly conference on the subject, to see whether or not some form of procedure could be devised less open to objection, that would be most consonant with the dignity of the House. Therefore, if that view commends itself to the House, I will move the adjournment of the debate.

moved as an Amendment, "That the Bill be read a second time this day six months." In rising to move the rejection of this Bill, I feel in a rather embarrassing position, because I have always felt that the action of previous Governments in closing some areas against trawling was amply justified; and, on the other hand, I feel it an ungrateful task which I have undertaken, because it is no personal pleasure to me to have to move the rejection of a Bill introduced by the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Government. But the objections which have been urged to this measure by an important section of my constituents have impressed me so strongly, and have been so convincing, that I have no alternative but to take the action which I am now taking. It is sometimes alleged that the closing of such areas as the Moray Firth is brought about by the Government of the day for the purpose of protecting one class of fishermen at the expense of another. I have never entertained that view myself. I think the action taken by previous Governments has been intended to protect the fisheries themselves in the interests of all classes of fishermen. Therefore, it is with reluctance that I find myself not in a position to agree with the policy of the Government so far as this Bill affects the question in the Moray Firth and other prohibited areas. Everybody knows that the Moray Firth has never been absolutely closed. It has been closed to Scottish fishermen, but from the very first there has been a considerable number, first of all, of what may be described as Grimsby foreigners fishing there, and discharging their fish at English ports; and, later on, it is quite well known there has been a considerable group of vessels fishing there, owned and manned by foreigners, and discharging their fish at Continental ports. I think perhaps it is quite possible, if this measure in its present form should become law, that the number of bonâ fide, foreign vessels fishing in the Moray Firth will be largely increased. I know that that is the view of many men whose judgment is worthy of consideration on that point. I am not going to weary the House by repeating the story which has been told here Session after Session for many years, but I should like to point out that, under the existing law, if any British fisherman is accused of contravening the Statutes of 1889 or 1890, or the bye-laws framed by the Secretary for Scotland under those Acts, he has the opportunity of being tried by a competent tribunal in Scotland. The indictment has to be served upon him, and he secures ample time for the preparation of his defence. While I know that the action of the courts in Scotland has been criticised, I am myself firmly convinced that the sheriffs in Scotland have applied their minds impartially and in a judicial spirit to the consideration of all the cases which have come before them, and I believe that those who have been prosecuted have received justice at their hands. But if, unfortunately, the measure now before the House should become law, British fishermen who may be charged with trawling within either the three miles limit or the other prohibited areas in Scotland will be charged, convicted, and fined without ever having an opportunity of saying a single word in their defence. The procedure will be this. The persons accusing a fisherman of having contravened these statutes and bye-laws will send information to the Fishery Board. The Fishery Board will satisfy itself, and communicate with the customs' authorities throughout the country, and the man himself will have no opportunity whatever of saying a single word in his own defence.

With every desire to assist those who have been urging the Government to take action in this matter, I find it absolutely impossible, in view of the important interests which are committed to my care, to give my support to such a proposal. And really, I do feel sorry that, as the result of the representations, very moderate representations, which have been made during the past few months in regard to this measure to the representatives of the Government, that I am not in a position, at present at all events, to say that there is any disposition on the part of the Government to amend the provisions of this Bill. If we were told that when the Bill goes upstairs if it secure a second reading the Government would consider the advisability of limiting the operation of the Bill to foreigners, and that they will proceed, as hitherto, against British fishermen under the provisions of the existing Acts, then that would be a considerable relief.

On another point I think concession is absolutely necessary. I am not desirous of making any prophetic utterance as to what will happen if this Bill will become law. I am not prepared to say that the bonâ fide foreign element which is already trawling in the Firth will, as a result of this Bill, become more numerous than at present. I would not urge any of those things. There is at least serious risk, and in view of that, I think it is extremely desirable that if this measure is to pass into law that it should be with a limitation during the period that it is to be in operation. I think it is reasonable that there should be a limit of two or three or five years. I am perfectly satisfied that the Government in promoting this Bill are themselves satisfied that it is an experiment which may not succeed, an experiment which may fail and which may operate very seriously and prejudicially against the fishing interest of the United Kingdom. While I regret exceedingly having to take this course, I have no alternative, and I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

I rise to second this Motion of my hon. Friend, and I should like to ask the indulgence of the House on this the first occasion on which I have had the honour of addressing them. With him I see that this Bill will have such great effects on the trawling industry generally, and especially on the district which I have the honour to represent, that I conceive it to be my duty to oppose the Bill. I can only say I regret very much that on this the first occasion on which I address the House I find myself speaking in opposition to the Government. I do not wish to travel old ground. This Bill brings up once more a question which has been several times discussed the question of the Moray Firth. In 1892 the Moray Firth was closed against British trawlers, and the reason given at that time was that the area was required for scientific research. Sixteen years have passed since that has been closed, and we have not had the results of the scientific research put before us. Other gentlemen who support the closing of the Moray Firth stated that it was required because it was a valuable breeding ground. Now it has never been proved that the Moray Firth is a breeding ground for fish. The fish which are caught there are large fish or, at any rate, fish of a fairly large size.

It has also been said that the trawlers break up the spawning beds. The sort of fish found in the Moray Firth do not spawn in the same way as fish in fresh water, so that it is quite impossible for trawlers to destroy the spawning beds. Salt-water fish spawn in the open sea, and the spawn floats about in that sea, and in that way the fish are hatched. Take the example of herring: They come from the north, they are spawning the whole time. Haddocks follow and other fish, and spawn all the way round. The true reason why this area has been closed is to protect line fishing. It is purely a protective measure, and I think it comes ill from a Free Trade Government to attempt to bolster up what is practically a decaying industry—in the same way that any industry is decaying which attempts to compete with machinery. If the Government stepped in and said that the hand looms should be protected and that nothing made by machinery should be allowed to be sold in this country it would be very much on a par with what is proposed to be done under this Bill. That is one of the most important reasons why I personally oppose this Bill. What is happening in the Moray Firth? There are not so many line fishermen now there as before the Firth was closed. All the best, youngest and most energetic of those fishermen are following the herring fishery. They go all the way round the coast of England and Scotland, and it is only the old men and the feeble men who remain behind to eke out a precarious living by line fishing. Anybody who is acquainted with Scotland will have seen fishermen employed in many other ways than by line fishing. In the north they will see many of those fishermen caddying now for golf. That does not look as if line fishing is very productive. One of the chief reasons which pays trawlers to go into those waters is that it is a superior class of fish they catch there. They catch the crab fish, which fetches a very superior price.

I do not wish to go into the question of British and foreign vessels or of the transfers. I hold no brief for Grimsby, but there have been instances in which Grimsby trawlers have transferred to a foreign flag. They went into the Moray Firth and trawled there. The Scotch Fishery Board dug out a bye-law by which it was possible to imprison Englishmen fishing on those foreign vessels. The consequence was that those vessels were compelled to be manned by foreigners. The rsult is there is a good deal of unemployment in Grimsby. As I said before, I hold no brief for Grimsby, but I only wish to enter my protest for the sake of the trawlers in general and my constituents in particular against what is not a settlement of the Moray Firth question. We should be at least favourable to this Bill if we thought it was going to keep the foreigners out of Moray Firth, but because we do not think it will do so we oppose the Bill. We have, always been perfectly clear on this subject, and we say let all fish in the Moray Firth or none. At the present moment there are undoubtedly a much larger number of foreigners in the Moray Firth than so-called British vessels. Those foreigners, German, Dutch, Belgian, come there and land their catch in England.

Under this Bill you force them to take their fish and land them in foreign ports. You may get those back in England, perhaps shipped back to London, but if you do it will only be at higher prices. You propose to keep back from the English market a very large supply of very excellent quality of fish. There is no doubt of the fact that the British people, and especially the poorer classes, are becoming more and more convinced that fish is a very valuable and a very cheap food, and that they are using it more and more. At the present moment Germany is building fast vessels to perfectly easily enable them to take those fish to their own ports. That is nothing new. It is done every day. Our own vessels go from Aberdeen, Grimsby, Hull, and other places to the coasts of Spain, and return with their catch in perfectly good condition to the English market. If it is the case with them it will be equally easy for the Germans to take their catch home and sell it there. That is one of the reasons I oppose this Bill.

There is another reason, and that is the extraordinary clause which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, the, clause which confers the power of forfeiting the nets and fish, and preventing the fishermen exercising their calling for a month without any trial. It has never before been heard in this House that any British person should be convicted without trial and punished. What has happened in the past? I go further than my hon. Friend. I am perfectly sure that Scottish Courts have done their best, but there have been gross miscarriages of justice. I know at least of one case where people were tried for fishing in the affected areas, and where the man lost £500. I believe rewards are offered to those who would give information which would lead to the detection of trawlers. By that system you will have a man sitting on land with a spy-glass. He will report to the Scotch Fishery Board that a certain trawler, TI 256, or some such number, has been seen in prohibited areas. The Scotch Fishery Board will notify the Customs' officers, and when the trawler comes into port they will take his catch, and he will not be allowed to fish for a month, and that without trial. I can only say that in regard to this Bill I shall do my utmost in every possible way to fight against it. There is no doubt that there are more men at present employed in trawling than in line fishing. I do not include the herring men, who are of quite a different character from trawl fishermen, but I repeat that there are more men employed in trawl fishing than there are employed in line fishing. They produce a very large amount of cheap food for the poorer classes of the people, and they provide one of the very finest class for recruiting for the British Navy. For these reasons I have very much pleasure in seconding the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

Question proposed: "That the word 'now' stand part of the question."

I rise to support the second reading of the Bill, and in order to justify that support I desire briefly to refer to the prosecution of which the Bill was the outcome. The first action taken in the Moray Firth against trawlers fishing more than three miles from the shore was in 1905. It was the prosecution of the "Catalonia," a vessel fishing four miles from shore in the Dornoch Firth, in which judgment of the High Court was entered on appeal in favour of a conviction, and the skipper of the trawler was fined. The second action was taken by the present Government on 4th August, 1906, when they prosecuted the "Niobe," "Verbena," and "Pinewold." The "Niobe" was fishing five miles off Lossiemouth, the "Verbena" was fishing five miles off Carty Point in Sutherlandshire, and the "Pinewold" seven miles off Tarbertness. The cases were carried to the High Court with the same result, and the skippers were afterwards convicted and fined, and the fines were paid. The third and last prosecution by the Government, known as the Elgin case, was on 31st January, 1907, against the trawlers "King Erik," "Stromo," "Plover," and "Zenobia," all fishing far out in the Firth. After a fresh appeal to the High Court each skipper was fined £100, and in default the skippers of the three first-named trawlers went to Inverness Prison, and the skipper of the "Zenobia," Jalveer Hansen, paid the fine. The Grimsby owners of the last four ships moved the Foreign Office in the matter of the convictions, and the Foreign Office overruled the Scotch Office, ordered the convictions to be quashed, released the prisoners, and remitted the fines. That is the story, up to date, of the prosecution of trawlers fishing more than three miles from shore. The only remark thereon which I have to make is that they were all British-owned boats. In regard to its application to the Bill, we have before us a statement of the first importance was made in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 18th March, 1907. Mr. Sinclair said:—

"For many years there has been no trawlers in the Moray Firth except those pseudo Norwegian-Grimsby trawlers."

That is most undeniably correct, for since the North Sea Convention was signed in 1882 by Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands, down to January, 1907, these Powers have refrained from trawling in the Firth, and none come there except an odd Belgian, which now and again runs in after cod. With the permission of the House, I will follow the matter down to the present moment. I have shown that up to the release of the Elgin trawlers in January, 1907, no foreigners visited the Firth except the Norwegian-Grimsby boats. In 1907, after the release of the prisoners, one Swedish, six Belgian, and one German trawler proceeded to fish in the Firth. In 1908 three Swedish, ten Belgian, nine Danish, and two Dutch boats went there to fish. This year, 1909, up to the end of February, no fewer than 14 Danish boats, one Swedish, five Belgian, and two Dutch have appeared in the Firth. Besides those six of the Norwegian-Grimsby boats came as heretofore, but now others of them, in order to secure immunity under the action of the Foreign Office, hoist the flag of one or other of the signatories to the North Sea Convention. To-day the Firth is no longer harried by the Grimsby fleet, but is literally a preserve for foreign trawlers. From 1882 to 1907 foreigners believed themselves to be excluded by International law, but now they consider themselves invited to trawl in the Firth three miles from shore. Whether the High Court of Justice and Lords Pentland and Shaw were right, and the Foreign Office was wrong, or vice veisâ, I am afraid you will not allow me to argue under this Bill. I say no more than that the international argument which I prepared for submission to the High Court of Justice was unanimously considered by the 12 judges to be conclusive. The reason I support the Bill is that it would place the Government in a position to say to the foreigner: "We are so satisfied of the value of the Moray Firth as a nursery for the fisheries of the North Sea, that not only have we excluded therefrom our British trawling vessels in proof of our bona fides, but we have prevented the sale in Scotland of fish taken therein with the trawls; and, lastly, we have extended that prohibition to English ports, and therefore we now ask you, the Signatories to the North Sea Convention, to supplement our action by prohibiting the entry of your own boats, and we have taken this last step of prohibiting the sale of the fish in England at the cost of losing an immense sum, £155,000, the value of the Moray Firth fish annually sold here in England." The facilities at the command of the foreigner to-day to dispose of Moray Firth fish is just the same as that of the Grimsby owners. The foreigner can ice up and run to Geestemünde, Bremen, Hamburg, Ymuiden, or Ostend, delivering the fish in fine condition, just as the Grimsby fleets run south in ice with their catches to British ports. If the Government will not accept the judgment of the High Court, which was that this arm of the sea, inter fauces terrae, known as the Moray Firth, is under national law as also under Scots law not outwith the territorial jurisdiction of the country, then, I say, pass the Bill and go as a suppliant to the Signatories, instead of going as you might go, de jure, and let the Government remember that the three miles limit is no more than an Anglo-American doctrine, and never has been, and I trust never will be, incorporated into an international European law. Until the Government take action the Firth will be a covert preserved for the foreigner alone. Therefore, I support the second reading of this Bill.

Owing to the welcome if tardy change of opinion on the part of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, whose absence from this debate is perhaps one of the most remarkable of its features, the task of the Government and those Members who support this Bill is greatly facilitated. But the hon. Member who seconded the rejection of the Bill seems to think that the destructive method of fishing, such as trawling is known to be, is the best means of keeping up a good supply of fish for consumers in this country. His argument appears to be this: that the Bill is in some way or other an infringement of the doctrine of Free Trade. So far as I am concerned, I can see no relationship whatsoever between this Bill and any branch of the Tariff Reform question. Everybody knows, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen will be the first to recognise the fact, that if the Moray Firth were thrown open to all trawlers, fishing there would not last one month in the year; whereas if you restricted fishing to the drift net and the line, the supply of fish would be more constant, and, as a matter of fact, of far better quality. It should not be forgotten in this connection that it is not the individual who is objected to in the Moray Firth; it is the method of fishing only to which objection is taken, and I hope the hon. Member will realise that fishermen from anywhere else would be welcome in the Moray Firth if only they used the method of line fishing and drift-net fishing. And apparently, the hon. Member seems to think that it is an astonishing thing that the Government should wish to regulate an industry which depends, of necessity, and essentially, on the destruction of some form of animal life. As well may the hon. Member say that the Game Laws should be abrogated. What would become of the bird and animal life? How long would it last in this country, if there were no restrictions or close time? And I could cite particular instances where, in countries imposing no restrictions of that kind, animal life has become practically extinct, except where a particular species has been preserved for a particular purpose, either for human food or some other purpose. I think there will be very few who would suggest that fresh-water fishing in our lochs and rivers should be carried on without any restriction, or without restrictions of a most rigorous and drastic character. What is strange in this attempt of the Government to regulate fishing in the enclosed waters of the seas, where the destructive method of fishing, such as trawling is known to be, is known to have such an exceedingly detrimental effect on the stock of fish in those areas?

I ventured personally in the debate on this subject last Session to lay particular emphasis on one particular phase of this question, and I would attempt to do so again. Where a few years ago along the coast of the Moray Firth 20 boats engaged in drift-net and line fishing, now, owing to the prevalence of trawling, one only can do so. Who can be surprised if the result of that is an exodus from the rural districts to the larger centres, towns and cities where, for the moment, some prospect of more lucrative employment is held out to the fishermen. According to the hon. Member for West Hull, if this trawling is allowed to go on unchecked, the result would be the disappearance of the rural fishing villages of Scotland, and the child now bred in the healthy atmosphere of our sea-shores would be replaced by one town bred. This is a state of things which I thought it was a policy of every Government and every party to avoid; and this is at a time when we have been forced to turn our eyes with the gravest anxiety to our first line of defence. I was personally grateful that the Secretary to the Admiralty, in the re-recent naval debates in this House, ceased for a moment to speak in "Dreadnoughts," and mentioned the personnel of the British Navy. Money, no doubt, is the governing factor in the construction and maintenance of a large navy, but its efficiency depends on the extent of the population of the coastline. In every case where the navy of a country has outgrown its coast population, and the men have had to be recruited from the towns and land districts, it has been invariably at the expense of the efficiency of the personnel. I am not a sailor, and, therefore, I speak with considerable diffidence on this point, but I venture to say this is as true to-day as it was in the clays of Nelson and Blake. At a time like this, when the country and the majority of this House are determined that our naval supremacy shall be unquestioned, our naval strength crushing and invincible, the hon. Member for West Hull and his friends are willing to stand aside while an industry concerning by far the most important portion of our coast population is being destroyed, and for what? That there may be a small increase in the dividends of a few trumpery companies. I do not desire to say anything on the international aspect of this question. This Bill is an attempt to put all on an equal footing as far as lies in our power. There has been, and at the present time there is a much larger and wider question. It lies for the moment in the future. It is enough that the Bill has been approved unanimously by the convention of royal boroughs in Scotland at their meeting in Glasgow recently, and that it is eagerly desired and anxiously sought for by the fishermen of the Scottish coast. Therefore in the name of those whom I have the honour to represent I thank the Government for this fulfilment of their promise.

I feel that this Bill has been introduced to remedy a difficulty that the Government have got themselves into by closing the Moray Firth. As representing my constituents at Milford, we feel that this is an attempt to bolster up what is practically a dying industry that is quite able to carry on its business if it is confined to the three-mile limit in which those concerned have an absolute monopoly. The trawl owners feel that they also are entitled to some protection, and this Bill simply enables the Government to get out of the difficulty they are in over the Moray Firth. It may or not be successful. Personally I do not think it will be successful. For instance, at the present time the steam trawlers at Milford catch a large number of their fish off the coast of Morocco. They bring them back to England with the very greatest ease. In the same way, when this Bill is passed, it will be possible for foreign trawlers to continue to fish in Scotland in these closed areas. They will take their fish, and sell them at a profit in foreign countries, and it will be impossible for the British trawl owners to do the same. I understand for some years past that the British trawl owners who have registered their steamers under foreign flags have had this great advantage over their competitors of being able to fish in these closed waters, and sell their fish, with the result that they have been able to make about £1,000 per annum more than their competitors. They will not be able if this Bill becomes law to sell their catches in England, but they will still be £1,000 better than the foreign owners. It is action of this sort—pettifogging Bills of this description—if we are to have Protection let us have the real article. A Bill of this sort—there is nothing to be said in its favour. Either have Free Trade or Protection. But do not give us neither one thing nor the other. Many trawl owners in this country themselves consider that they have grievances at the Moray Firth, and also all round the coast of Ireland, where they are prohibited from fishing in many cases within 20 miles of the coast. If the Government will go back to the action of their predecessors, and stick to the three-mile limit in the future, and allow all British trawl owners to fish where foreign trawl owners can continue to fish, viz., within three miles off the British coast, then they will be fairly protecting the interest of the line fishermen—who are a splendid body of men, I frankly admit—with British trawl owners restricted to three miles off the coast, and to trawl anywhere outside of that limit off the British or Irish coasts.

I rise to support this Bill on two grounds, one of which has not yet been touched upon at length in this debate. The first of those grounds is, that trawling in prohibited areas such as the Moray Firth is a serious menace to the food supply of the people in this country. The second reason is, that it is a serious interference with other legitimate modes of fishing in our own waters. With regard to the food supply, I have listened as a member of the Committee that investigated the subject last year. One of the witnesses at that Committee said that it was estimated—although it was exceedingly difficult to get at the actual figures—that the food supply, the supply of white fish caught in the North Sea proper, during the last year or two, as compared with preceding years, had diminished by no less than £50,000. Now, that, of course, is pure estimate—but an estimate, I understand, accepted by the Scottish Fishery Board, but there is other evidence besides evidence of that sort. There is the evidence of the trawlers themselves, who have been fishing the North Sea to such an extent that they have depleted all the nearer banks, and the nearer portions of the North Sea, and made it not worth while for the larger trawlers to continue any longer there. They have even passed resolutions desiring the Government to take action to restrict the fishing over an area off the Dogger Bank, which extends to something like 5,000 square miles. In addition they have petitioned this House to enter into negotiations with the North Sea Powers to extend the territorial waters ten miles. There is, therefore, the evidence of the trawl owners themselves that the fishing in the North Sea proper—because I am going to distinguish it from the area which is now considered the North Sea—that they found the area of the North Sea proper so depleted of the supply of fish, especially flat fish, such as plaice, that the larger trawlers have now to go far a field for the supplies of fish which are now landed and sold at the ports of this country. The larger trawlers have to go, as has been said, to Morocco, Iceland, the White Sea, and recently it has come out in the Committee of which I have been speaking that they have extended their trawling to the West Coast of Ireland, to the deep waters of the Atlantic, and are raking up fish from the bottom of the sea 1,200 feet down. These are the reasons, then, because the fish has got into the deep waters, into distant places, that the supply of fish in this country is not failing as a whole. The fact remains, however, that the supply in the North Sea proper, which we used to consider our fishing ground, has very seriously fallen off, and there is no longer a livelihood for the smaller trawl owners. What has been the result? The result has been that these trawlers have been transferred in large numbers to the Norwegian flag in order with impunity to be able to break the laws of this country. In the Committee, Dr. T. W. Fulton, the adviser to the Scottish Fishery Board (Answer 2,866), said:—

"Every trawler that is registered in Norway fishes in the Moray Firth, and breaks British law for the purposes of profit."

and, further, at Question 2,895, trawl owners, said he, have capital invested in these boats instead of a few pounds, as in England. Now we have recently had some retribution fallen upon those connected with Grimsby for their action in this matter. The foreigners have through the action of the Courts been obliged to employ in these boats under a foreign flag foreign sailors, and they have been found to be so good that they have come into British boats under the British flag and ousted British labour. There are some 400 or 500 foreigners along the coast of Grimsby, wrere all of such men would have been British except for the result of the breaking of the law. Now I have spoken of the importance of the fishing, but there is another very important point, namely, the destruction by the trawlers in the inshore waters as compared with trawlers in the offshore waters. In regard to that point, I would like to refer to one answer given to the Committee in regard to the relative destruction of fish in the offshore and the inshore waters. Dr. Fulton said:—

"I have here figures giving the percentage of markets able and unmarketable fish taken by commercial trawlers in the offshore waters. So far as plaice is concerned on the offshore ground in deep water you find that 100 per cent. in the trawl nets are unmarketable. There is no destruction of plaice whatever by commercial trawlers in deep water. While the destruction resulting from trawling in inshore water or shallow water is something like 30 per cent. of plaice, and the Chairman asked him, 'Did he mean that practically 80 per cent. were destroyed,' and his answer was 'Yes. "

The Chairman of the Committee said: "I understand the marketable plaice was 27,000 and the unmarketable 12,000. That is about 30 per cent.?" and the answer was "Yes." Now it was borne out by a great many other witnesses that the destruction of fish in the inshore waters is a very important consideration to the people of this country. I support this Bill not only on the narrow ground of the interests of the Moray Firth for fishing, but on the wide ground that the present destruction of fish in the inshore and narrow waters is ruining the prospects of the food supplies of this country. It is a very serious question, and a much more serious question than those which occupy a considerable amount of our time. I said an area like the Moray Firth is a nursery for fish, the small fish, and, indeed, large fish too, are carried by the current to the inshore waters, where they develop, as is well known, because of the warmth of the inshore waters they grow, and if you destroy them in the narrow waters you will destroy the fish that spread through the whole sea and populate it. For that reason, and not on the narrow ground of the protection of one class of fishermen as against another, I support this Bill, and I would support measures going far beyond it. Now, with regard to the question of the interference with other modes of fishing in the Moray Firth, I heard a remark from the Member for Hull that the Moray Firth fisherman, when he went fishing for herrings round the coast of Great Britain, is an enterprising man, but when in the winter months he takes to white fishing he is no longer enterprising. Well, I think there is no class of fisherman more enterprising than the 12,000 who surround the shores of the Moray Firth. In one part of my Constituency some time ago there was not a single steam fishing boat when I sought election. Now there are 35 steam fishers, all belonging to the fishermen. That shows some enterprise. They have to fish for white fish in the Moray Firth during the months in which they cannot get the herring. Not only that, but within the last six months a new industry has been developed in the Moray Firth, and a very important development has taken place. These unenterprising fishermen have discovered a new way of catching cod by means of nets, and the consequence is that to this very day the Moray Firth is covered with floating nets for this cod fishing, and the entrance of trawlers there is obviously disastrous to the interests of these fishermen, and I think we have a legitimate grievance when trawlers are permitted to come in there and interfere with the legitimate mode of fishing pursued by these fishermen. We welcome all kinds of fishermen who will use the same methods, and it is only right and proper that people should be protected in their legal claims, so that on this ground of interference with the modes of fishing by others I also support the Bill. The evidence which came before this Committee very strongly pointed in the direction that it is an imperative necessity that the Government of this country should take a much wider view of this fishing than they have hitherto done. The destruction going on now, and which we hope to stop by this Bill, in the Moray Firth is going on elsewhere. It is going on in the Dogger Bank, which is not three miles from any country, and as the country most interested in this question of fishing, having more money in it, and more fishing boats, we ought to take the lead, and this Bill I hope will only be the beginning of a policy of protecting the future food supplies of our country.

I only desire to intervene for a few moments in this debate, because up to the present it has proceeded entirely on the question of the Moray Firth. I this morning received a letter from a very old friend of mine, in which he complained that the foreign trawlers had come round to the Firth of Clyde, and are doing as much harm, if nut more harm, there than they are doing in the Moray Firth. Therefore, I have no doubt that this Bill applies to the West Coast as well as to the East Coast and the North Coast, and that the fishermen there will receive protection under this Bill. Now a great deal has been said about the trawling industry. Well, there is a place for trawling, and there is a place for other fishermen, and I think they ought not to interfere one with another. We all know that fish caught by the line always get a better price in the market than fish caught by the trawl. They are brought into the market in a better condition than trawled fish. There is one phase that has not been mentioned at all in this debate with reference to this question, and that is the damage that has been done to line fishermen by having their line swept entirely away by the trawlers. I say in this respect also line fishermen are deserving of every possible protection. My whole sympathies are with the line fishermen. I am certain unless we protect these enclosed waters, and also the Firth of Clyde against the degradations of foreign trawlers, I am satisfied that one of the best supplies and one of the most wholesome food supplies we have in this country will be lost to the nation, and for that reason I cordially and most heartily support this Bill.

I associate myself with hon. Members opposite in supporting this Bill. I welcome the Bill with all my heart, not because I think it is a Bill of wide and great effect—it is really a small matter—but I look upon it as pointing to something greater and more far-reaching. I hope to see the Moray Firth closed to foreign trawlers as well as to our own. The present anomaly cannot go on. The Moray Firth should be open to all or it should be closed to all. Judging from the reports of all those who are best able to form an opinion, there can now be no doubt of the destruction of fish effected by trawlers in the Moray Firth. If we destroy this nursery for our fish, of course the number of fish must diminish. It is, I think, of vital moment that we should foster and maintain in every way we can the fishing grounds round our shores. What is the effect of this Bill if it is passed? It is merely to prevent poached fish being sold in England. It is already illegal to land or sell poached fish in Scotland, and this Bill merely extends that prohibition to England. How any hon. Members can wish to see fish that have been thieved in Scotland sold in England I cannot well understand. And the very fact that this iniquitous proceeding is indulged in, there being something like 600 foreigners now employed in English boats instead of Englishmen, ought, I think, to go some way to make those hon. Members who oppose this Bill take thought. If this Bill is passed the foreigner must go elsewhere, and take the fish to his own ports. Everyone who knows anything about fish must know the trawlers have their use and are most necessary things. This Bill is no attack on them whatever. We merely want to prevent fish poached in Scotland from being sold at English ports. The Signatories to the North Sea Convention, of course, agreed to a three-mile limit, but there is no three-mile limit in International law. We know that Lord Salisbury on the 6th May, 1905, said that great care had been taken not to name three miles as the territorial limit. As a matter of fact it is a moot point what the territorial limit is Spain and Portugal claim a five-mile limit round their coast, and other nations have different limits. It is only for the signatories of the North Sea Convention that the three-mile limit stands. I wish the Government would take their courage in both hands and proceed at once to close the Moray Firth. It was only last July that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in answer to a question which I put to him, said that he hoped that before another year elapsed foreign nations would agree to the closing of the Moray Firth. That year is running very close now, and we have only got two months more, and I very much fear we shall not see the hope expressed by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs verified. There are many instances in foreign countries of closed waters, and there are notable instances in France, the United States and in Newfoundland, as well as in the Bristol Channel. There is nothing unusual in having prescribed pieces of water, and I cannot see what there is to prevent the Government from urging even more strongly the closing of the Moray Firth.

It is high time that not only the Government but the nation itself did something more for the fishing population of this country. Consider how important fishermen are in case of war or the threat of war when a shortage of food might arise. Even to-day the price of bread is higher than it has been for many years, although we are in "the piping times of peace." Think what would occur if there was a threat of war, or if war actually broke out. I think it is the bounden duty of the Government to do all they can to foster everything that will help to mitigate the evil of a shortage of our food supply, and there is no doubt the fish supply would do a great deal to achieve this end.

Then, again, think what a grand source of strength the personnel of our fishing industry would prove for the naval reserve, because they are men accustomed to fighting the battle of life on stormy seas. For these reasons fishermen are well adapted to help the Navy in case of war, and I appeal to the Government to help them. If fishing communities are neglected and are allowed to decay the villages now populated by happy men, women, and healthy children will become desolate, and the inhabitants will migrate to the big towns, where slum life will take the place of the healthy life they are now living. I remember last Session a most eloquent speech on this question was made by the Member for Banffshire which struck me very much. If you allow these communities to disappear you will never be able to replace them. The boats are becoming larger, and the small harbours cannot afford them proper accommodation. It would be a great advantage to this country if the Government doubled the funds placed in the hands of the Fishery Board to enable them to do more in the direction of improving harbours on our coasts. If some of the money spent, no doubt with the best intentions, by the Congested Districts Board had been allowed to be spent by the Fishery Board a great deal more good might have been done for the country. In conclusion I appeal to the Government to help these men who have made their mark in the history of the nation. The true Viking blood runs in their veins, and no sacrifice is too great for us to make to foster and maintain the life and spirit of these descendants of our old sea kings.

Previous speakers have alluded to the necessity of maintaining the personnel of our fishing population. I think that is worth remembering when you consider that the people engaged in this class of fishing use sailing boats, so that the qualities developed in the management of those boats are really of much more value as a training for the Navy than the management of a steamer. Even the closing of the Firth, as far as it has gone, has already done something to preserve this industry, and in the last year or two some of the white fishermen have been successful to a degree not known before for many years. After the successful fishing of last year a much larger number of boats embarked upon the enterprise this year than in previous years, although the results this year have not been so good. It is difficult to understand what else the Government could have done than make this proposal, which is a purely logical one, of extending the prohibition of sale which now applies to Scotland to England. The position before was really an absurd one, and I think it is a pity that the Government cannot do even more by trying to produce some general agreement, even at the risk of some international or diplomatic trouble, by insisting upon the observance of the law as it exists now, and as it has been interpreted by Quarter Sessions. I quite understand the difficulty the Government are in. They are afraid, if they continue to prosecute under the existing law, that the Norwegian Government might make reprisals and close areas which are at the present time open to our fishermen, and thus prevent a large number of our trawlers from taking advantage of those areas. Even at the risk of that I believe the Government would have been wise to have extended the application of the existing law. The last Government did nothing to put this law into execution, and it has been suggested that the reason for this was that a large number of the trawlers registered under foreign flags were run in the financial interests of some of their own supporters. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh."] At any rate, it is a remarkable thing that during the time the late Government were in office they did nothing to carry into effect this law. The population of the fishing districts in Scotland is universally in favour of the passing of this Bill. There has been a universal voice of approval in regard to this measure, small though its scope is, and I trust that even those hon. Members who represent constituencies interested in the trawlers will recognise that the Government is really doing what it can for the benefit of the country, and I hope they will be induced on that account to withdraw their opposition.

Both parties in this House have pursued the same policy in regard to the question which is supposed to be dealt with in this Bill. So far as I know I do not think any Member on this side has said a word against it, although some hon. Members opposite have opposed this measure. So far as Scotland is concerned this subject was dealt with by the intervention of the last Government, who were able to carry out that reform without having recourse to legislation. This Bill is carrying the policy we gave effect to a stage further, but the Government, if they are going to be logical and fair to British industries, must go a step further than they are doing in this Bill. I confess that if the Moray Firth is closed to British trawlers and open to foreign trawlers, and that not only British trawlers are excluded but British fish are carried away to foreign markets, that will bring about a condition of things which will be simply intolerable. I am not in any sense opposed to this Bill, because it is merely carrying out a policy which both parties have supported.

I hope we shall have as strong a support for this Bill from the party opposite as from the supporters of the Government. The county I have the honour of representing is deeply concerned in this question of trawling. I hope after this Bill has become law the Government will have the courage to go on and put an end to illegal trawling everywhere else, as well as in the Moray Firth. I understand that it is the Norwegian trawlers we have to complain of most. The Norwegian Government have allowed this to be done, not to benefit their own people, but to benefit English companies who use their flag in order to break the laws of this country. I regret that Norway should allow that, because it is very unfriendly, and I am sorry the Government have not been able to settle this question by inducing the Norwegian Government to do exactly as the other parties concerned in the North Sea Convention have done. It is absurd to allow foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth and at the same time keep out British trawlers.

That, on the face of it, is very absurd, but it is a good reason why we should attempt to keep the foreigner out. I should have preferred to do without this Bill, and that the opinion of the judges in the law courts of Scotland should prevail as pronounced in 1906. After the judges had given their decision, and trawling in the Moray Firth was prohibited, the line fishing very much improved, and much more profit was obtained in that year than has ever been obtained since. Parliament has thought proper to prohibit Scottish or English trawlers from taking their fish into Scottish ports. Surely the English ports would come under the same law. I understand that this Bill is to make the law the same for this part of the country as for the other parts. These line fishermen are a very fine body of men. They number many thousand. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of people are concerned in the profits of these line fishermen. Some people tell us that we get much more fish by trawling, but the fish by trawling does not get any cheaper, and therefore there is no benefit to the country from trawling. I am aware that there is the large question of companies and trust against the industrial classes of this country, and if it continues the country will lose the benefit of this fine body of line fishermen. You will drive the young men away and leave the old behind, and you must remember that most of these line fishermen belong to the naval reserve. You must also remember that this question of the naval reserve refers not only to the Moray Firth, but is associated with the coasts of Scotland ail round. I hope that the Government will persevere with this Bill, and that they will enforce the decision of the Scottish law courts. We are apparently expected to save this Bill, because it seems to be the best we can get. I trust that the House will look upon the course that has been adopted as simply protecting our own country and our own workers, and that it is one for the benefit of the country generally. My constituents are deeply interested in this matter, because their means of livelihood are involved, as they are employed in the line-fishing industry. I am not going to blame the late Government whatever in the matter. I have no doubt they were as much interested in looking after the people of this country as we are. I do not want to make it a question of party politics at all.

The late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman told us that his policy was to colonise our own country. You may do that by protecting industries such as fisheries, and I should be very glad to see this Bill passed in the interests of the hardest working people in the northern parts of Scotland. That may be noticed in regard to old age pensions by the percentage of persons over 70 years of age in those parts. This trawling will kill the line-fishing industry, and prevent these young men getting work near to their own homes. I welcome the Bill as an effort on the part of the Government to settle this question of trawling. I believe it to be in the best interests of the whole people, no matter to what political party they belong, and I hope that we shall proceed to stop the illegal trawling all round our coasts.

It is a somewhat curious fact that neither last year nor this year has any Member of the Government until now uttered a single word on this question. The efforts to solve this question have been going on for a long time, and they have resulted so far in a dismal failure. The reason for the failure is a fallacious one. I can give my authority, the very best authority, namely, the scientific adviser to the Scottish Fishery Board, written in September, 1908. It is an extract from a letter of D'Arcy Went-worth Thompson to the chairman of the Fishery Board of Scotland. It relates to the outcome and result after 20 years. Here is the extract:—

"But our statistical investigations fail to give a definite answer to the apparently simple but really difficult and complex question of whether the supply of fish upon our fishing grounds is or is not diminishing on the whole; if there be a diminution it is at most in amount compared with the large and frequent natural fluctuations by which any slow progressive change is bound to be in large measure obscured and concealed. Not only must our statistical enquiries be continued for a longer period, and our statistics as far as possible improved, but we must realise that each fish and each area must be carefully and separately studied, and what is true of one fish may be by no means true of another, and in short that the general question of whether the fish supply be diminishing may not be susceptible of a. simple or general answer."

Impossible, therefore, except by an international understanding. I advocated in 1896 and 1897 the closing of the English ports. In 1906 the Scottish Courts pronounced judgment with reference to foreign trawlers; but that proved a failure. The Foreign Office, intervened. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs is not here to take part in this debate, and that is an instance of the way in which Scottish matters are neglected from beginning to end. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ought to be here to defend this Bill and be here out of regard for the feelings of Scotch Members. British subjects have been prosecuted for doing that which foreign trawlers are allowed to do. With what result? So-called Grimsby trawlers have to be manned by foreigners, and the last failure of all in the hands of the Government last year was in the debate in the House of Lords, when Lord Heneage moved a Motion in the other House. It was said at the time that that debate proved conclusively the case for the Government. I beg to say it was the other way. It was an admission by the Acting Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the other place, and it was apparent when he said it was no use making any allusion to the matter: the Government had to recognise that they could not prevent the foreigner from fishing in the Moray Firth. I desire to indicate accurately the position of the Moray Firth in the present day. Fifteen years ago the position was very different to what it is now. There were then perhaps 70 old sailing vessels which never went far out to sea. Now there is a large capitalised fleet of 500 steam vessels for line fishing worth £400,000 in steam and herring drifters. These are built to go far out and they follow the herrings from the West Coast of Ireland to Shetland, Peterhead, Yarmouth, and Lowestoft. I go now to the Chief Clerk to the Scottish Fishery Board, who, in cross-examination before the Committee on Fishery Investigations in December last, said, in answer to a question by Lord Nunburnholme, that:—

"Line fishing is not now prosecuted to the same extent in the Moray Firth that it was at that time (before the Moray Firth was closed) because the fishermen find that the herring fishing pays them very much better; it does not entail so much labour as the line fishing; the result is that the best fishermen we have in the Moray Firth now devote almost all their time to the Herring fishing, leaving only the older men and the younger men to prosecute line fishing, etc. The great majority of those who go to the English fishing are the Moray Firth boats."

I think these two authorities ought to carry some weight as to the true position of the question with which we are deal- ing. Now for a few facts The hon. Member for Sutherlandshire said trawling has not succeeded in making the fish food of the people any cheaper. In 1906 the total quantity of fish landed in England was 12,250,000 cwts., of the value of over £7,500,000; 66 per cent. of that, or two-thirds, came from the trawlers, and the average value of that catch at ports was Id. per lb. That represents the industry which as yet has not received in Scotland the fair and impartial treatment it deserves. I ask for no favouritism. All I ask for is mere fair justice. The Solicitor-General for Scotland in the late Government said the Government could not let the Bill rest there because it would evidently lead to a state of affairs in which, the foreigner would obtain entire possession of the Firth to the exclusion of the British trawler. It is stated that the foreign companies are at the present moment fitting out fast steaming vessels simply to land the catches from the Moray Firth in the various foreign ports. If this becomes law there is nothing whatever to-prevent the foreigners catching fish in the Moray Firth, and taking it to some German port, and whence it might be transferred back again to the English markets. The whole of the question of the landing of catches at the present moment is a question of the market. In very many cases now they can get better and higher prices in the foreign ports than they do in the English ports. I would also call the attention of the House to an extract from the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Injuries to Submarine Cables, presented to Parliament in 1908.

"It may be as well to mention here that the Committee saw three steam trawlers at Fleetwood flying the Dutch flag, and discharging catches of prime fish which were stated to have come from the Firth of Clyde where British vessels are not permitted to trawl."

The danger if the Bill becomes law is enormous. One of the most serious objections to it is the elementary injustice of its details. It actually condemns a man without trial. Trawl owners in the past have had very little justice. What will they receive in the future? As regards the convictions, I would like to call the attention of the House to the justice meted out in the past. In March, 1907, I asked the Secretary for Scotland whether it was within his knowledge that rewards had been offered for information which would lead to the conviction of trawlers fishing in the Moray Firth. The Secretary for Scotland answered: "I have no official knowledge of such rewards having been offered as those referred to by my hon.

Friend." I am glad to bring this matter up again. Rewards have been offered in the Constituency represented by the hon. Member below me (Mr. Cathcart Wason). I have a copy of the "Shetland News," in which there is an advertisement. This advertisement reads:—

"Orkney and Shetland Vigilance Association.

"Without local effort it is impossible for the fishery cruisers adequately to protect our fishing rights. Local associations securing the conviction of persons engaged in illegal trawling will receive £ 5 reward.

In response to the challenge of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I rise to state the position of the Government in this matter. My hon. Friend is wrong in supposing that there is any reluctance on our part to defend the Bill, which explains the policy which the Government desire to carry out. There is at the present moment no Motion for the repeal of the statute of 1889 and the bye-laws made thereunder, and for that reason I am puzzled to understand the opposition of my two hon. Friends who represent the City of Aberdeen, who represent constituents who have faithfully observed the law, and I willingly bear testimony to the loyalty with which they have observed the law. But what they actually desire is not that they may be permitted to trawl in the Moray Firth, but that the foreigner may also be permitted to trawl in an area from which they are excluded. It is a little difficult to understand that position. Of course if we were here discussing the question of whether or not trawling was destructive or injurious to fish, or whether it was desirable to substitute one method of fishing for another in the Moray Firth, then an interminable area for discussion would open up before us. But really the only question we have to debate is whether this is an effective means of giving a full and complete effect to a statute which none of us desire to repeal, and which there is no motive for repealing. The situation is this: The courts have declared, and my right hon. Friend opposite will agree have rightly declared, that this statute is applicable not only to British subjects but to foreigners, but for diplomatic reasons it became undesirable to enforce the law made by the Act of Parliament against foreigners. My right hon. Friend will recollect that during the time of the late Government no attempt was made to enforce the law against the foreigner. No doubt they had not made such powerful incursions into the Moray Firth in his time as now, or in more recent times; still, it was the policy of the last Government, as of this Government, not to enforce this strict and rigid law against foreigners.

We did enforce the law against the captain of one vessel in the time of the late Government.

My hon. Friend refers to an entirely different case. He refers to a case in which the law was enforced inside the area on which the North Sea Convention was imposed.

It was within the 4½-mile limit.

It was inside the area to which the North Sea Convention applied, and by which all the Signatories of the North Sea Convention are bound. The real question which was discussed and decided by the full bench was this, whether or not we were entitled to exclude foreigners from the whole area outside the limit drawn by the North Sea Convention. The court came to the conclusion that that was the law, but it was a very different question as to whether it was expedient to enforce that law, and this Government followed the policy of its predecessors in office and made no attempt to enforce the law which we knew we were able to put into operation if we chose.

Does he intend to pursue that policy in the future?

The hon. Member will see that the object of this Bill is to effect what we could not otherwise have effected, namely, to exclude the foreigner from the Moray Firth, holding as we do that the foreigner who trawls in the Moray Firth is a man who always came from Grimsby and landed his fish at Grimsby.

I am sorry to interrupt the Lord Advocate again, but I should have been saved that necessity if he had made his speech in moving the Bill. The point is this: Will these diplomatic reasons which have influenced the Government in not enforcing the law in Scotland against foreigners, continue in the future as in the past?

Of course they will; but, on the other hand, if the Bill passes we believe—we have good reason to believe, that it, will have the effect, that instead of enforcing against the foreigner the very drastic provisions of the Act—we have reason to believe, that if we prevent the fish being landed in all the ports in the United Kingdom, that will put an end to the trawling of the foreigner in the Moray Firth. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that there have been, with very few exceptions, no genuine foreigners in the Moray Firth, they came from Grimsby, and the hon. Member knows very well that by a curious Nemesis the supporters of the Grimsby trawlers are now absent from this House, because they have found that owing to the exigencies of foreign law they were compelled, if they made their appearance in the Moray Firth, to discharge their own crews and employ foreigners. That proves, and makes it quite plain, that it is not an honest foreign invasion in the Moray Firth which we have to contend with, but a pseudo invasion, and this Bill will have the effect of preventing that, it is thought, in future. Of course, nobody can say what will be the result. The hon. Member says we must go further. We cannot go further by legislation, we may go further by diplomatic representation, but in the meantime is it not plain to every Member of this House, that we shall have a much stronger position in diplomatic representations, if we have honestly and sincerely done our best to enforce the law as it has been declared by the courts of law. I think in that case we shall be in a very strong position, but I can offer the House this assurance, that we have no reason to believe that any serious difficulties would be raised by either Norway, Denmark, or other countries in regard to this question. And if we show a sincere desire to keep out these pseudo trawlers we shall have very little difficulty with the genuine foreigners, whose policy is very much the same as our own. Indeed, we have very good reason to suppose that at the time of the prosecution which has been referred to and the proceedings before the twelve judges, Norway entertained a very much stronger view than we did as to her control over territorial waters there, and thought she was entitled to exclude all foreigners and prohibit all trawling. What I say to my hon. Friend is that if we require to go further we are prepared to go further, but we have every reason to believe that if we prevent this fish being landed in the United Kingdom that would put an end to the foreign trawling so-called, which has been so troublesome to the line fishermen. It may just be that the prohibition to land fish in the United Kingdom may create a foreign trade which does not at present exist. That is obvious to all of us, but we must take our chance of that.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say there are no foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth? I say that there are plenty of foreign trawlers there not Grimsby trawlers.

I am not aware of that. I do not know whether the hon. Member means genuine foreign trawlers who take their fish to foreign ports. If he refers to foreign trawlers who take their fish to foreign ports, then, as far as my information goes, they are few and far between. The foreign trawler seen there takes his fish to ports in the United Kingdom for the reason, as we believe, that the additional length of the voyage makes it an unprofitable business to carry trawled fish from the Moray Firth to the various ports on the Continent. Accordingly, if we prevent them from being landed in our own country, it will require it to be uncommonly good fishing which will render it profitable for the foreigner to take the fish over to his own ports. But that remains to be seen. This is the best we can do, and our hands will be greatly strengthened if this Bill be passed. If we do require to undertake diplomatic negotiations with foreign Powers to induce them to prevent their own subjects from prosecuting the trade of bringing trawled fish to their ports we shall do so. So far as my present information goes Norway is rendering every aid to exclude their own fishermen from poaching, as the hon. Member calls it, in the Moray Firth.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen says we are applying a very drastic remedy, and are proposing to convict men without trial. But we are not proposing to try men at all or to interfere with the men, with their boats, or with their gear. All we propose to do is to confiscate their trawled fish if they land it in the ports of the United Kingdom. That is not a great hardship. We are only placing trawled fish in the same category as diseased meat and prison-made brushes and mats, and asking the Custom House officers either to destroy them or to dispose of them in some other way. The Custom House officers have power under the 42nd Section of the CUB-toms Act of 1876 to deal with an immense variety of different products in this drastic way. Trawled fish are not being placed in a different category from those other prohibited commodities. The only difference is that we do not in the case of trawled fish leave it to the Custom House officers to distinguish trawled fish from fish caught with the line; but we place them in possession of the requisite information by the best means in our power—by communication made to the various quarters in which fish may be expected to be landed, giving the date when the vessel was observed to be trawling in prohibited waters, her name, and her description, so that we are merely supplying the Custom House officers in the case of the trawled fish with the information which his own eyes and other means of information convey to him in the case of the other commodities found in section 42 of the Act. I observe that my right hon. Friend opposite made no challenge of the method by which we proposed to effect our object, and I am quite certain he would have challenged it if he had not been perfectly satisfied that it was really the only means by which you can accomplish the object. We cannot cite a foreigner outside our jurisdiction to appear in our courts. We cannot lay hold of him, and the only means by which we can enforce against him the prohibitions in the Statute of 1889, and the bye-laws connected with it is by the machinery which we have provided in this Bill. It is not really, therefore, so unusual and so drastic as the hon. Member seems to have supposed, and it is the only possible means by which we can give effect to the prohibition which not a single hon. Member desires to repeal.

The remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen with regard to the action which I was compelled to take in the interests of my constituents I am sure call for some little reply on my part. I make no complaint against my hon. Friend of having brought this matter forward, as it is not a matter of which I have the very least idea of being ashamed in any sense whatever. What we found out in the Orkney and Shetlands with regard to this trawling question was that a number of trawlers came from my hon. Friend's Constituency and elsewhere, and they were in the habit of coming into our inshore waters and destroying the living of the line fishermen. Associations were then formed all over the different ports, and we have done our very best to catch trawlers wherever we can. We supply them with telescopes and charts and so forth, and we have enabled them to become quite experts in this matter of catching trawlers. The only error which I fell into was when I said I paid for it. I certainly paid a cheque for advertisements in connection with the matter, but I am not at all the only paymaster. A number of other friends have afforded assistance.

I claim with regard to this Bill that the Government have done their very best, and the utmost they possibly could do, and the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, to the effect that this matter cannot stop here, are entirely out of place. We complain that the late Government—we do not make any attack upon them—did not introduce the Bill years and years ago, when they had the chance. The hon. Member for Aberdeen has distinguished himself as an advocate of Scottish Home Rule, and he carried a very large majority of the House in favour of that measure only a Session or two ago. This question really is demanding of the House of Commons that the Scottish laws should be enforced by this country, and this is the only method under which it is possible for the Government to have done that. Those of us who represent the line fishermen made this claim to the late Government year after year, and we received no sympathy or support from them. The real reason for this Bill is this: It is a difficult position for the Government to face. Here they are openly charged with closing the Moray Firth to British trawlers while at the same time foreign trawlers can trawl there as much as they like. That seems an indefensible proposition. They are also accused of allowing foreign trawlers to catch fish there and take them over to foreign ports and preventing them from landing the fish in English ports, thereby depriving our population of a large supply of most nutritious and valuable food. That is a very difficult point for the Government to answer. But the point the Government have to look to is that they have the whole of the representatives of the Scottish fishing Constituencies at their back in this matter, and the Scottish representatives have their Constituencies at their back absolutely, because they know exactly what is meant and what the effect of this Bill will be. If we pass this Bill, as I sincerely trust we shall pass it, and prevent these foreign trawlers landing their fish in our English markets, the effect will be naturally that they will have to take their trawled fish to their own market or to foreign markets. Well, when they have got them there, in every foreign country absolutely, I think, with the exception of Norway, these trawl fishers find themselves face to face with serious disabilities. Every country, except Norway, has very stringent regulations in regard to the sale of fish. This country stands almost alone in allowing fish of any size to be landed. In Iceland there are very stringent regulations, in France the fishermen are prevented from landing fish under a certain size. In Germany just the same restrictions are imposed. In Holland fishermen are not allowed to sell any fish under a certain size. In Sweden there is a similar regulation. In Norway the principal regulation is in regard to the sale of young fish for manure or guano manufactures. The laws in Denmark are even more severe, so that our line fishermen know exactly what they are doing. They know that the only object which foreign trawlers have in the Moray Firth in taking undersized fish is to land them in English ports, which are the only ports where they can land them. If they go to their own countries they are met with these severe restrictions in regard to the question of the smallness of the fish. That is why we are anxious that this Bill should be passed, and that the Moray Firth should be closed to foreign trawlers in the way suggested, namely, that they should not be able to land fish in English ports. We have not absolute evidence where the fish are caught, but presumably large numbers are caught in the Moray Firth, and sold for a mere song, in many cases, for manure. Mr. J. Wrench Towse gave evidence, and stated that the fish were sold for manure.

Does he make that suggestion in regard to fish caught in the Moray Firth?

No; it is in regard to undersized fish in general. He does not say where they came from. He states that the fish are sold for a mere trifle. They are sold at 1s. or 1s. 6d. a box, whereas good sound fish are sold at almost as many pounds. We have reason to believe that these fish are caught in such waters as the Moray Firth. At any rate, we know that they are not caught in the deep sea. If the Bill passes we will find that trawling in the Moray Firth will soon be a thing of the past, and that the Government will be able to negotiate with foreign Powers in regard to other ports. We will find, therefore, that protection will be afforded not only to our fish, but to our fishermen. We will then be able to enter into diplomatic arrangements with foreign Powers. We are told that Germany is fully alive to the importance of this question of the depletion of the waters of the sea. I have here the evidence which was given by Mr. Walter Garstang. He said:—

"They, the Germans, see from their own figures that the catches of their own steam trawlers are going down from year to year, and of course the price of fish cannot indefinitely go up to compensate."

Foreign countries, having all these facts in mind, would, it is perfectly certain, cooperate cordially with our Government in regard to this matter. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman, in bringing forward this Bill, has done a great work for Scotland, and if the measure is carried into law it will have an admirable effect in promoting the proper protection of our large food supplies, which are drawn from the sea.

As representing a large number of fishermen interested in this question, I desire to say that I am going to support the Bill. I believe very much in all that the Lord Advocate said in his able and interesting speech. I think he puts the case a little too high for the Bill, but I hope myself that the results he anticipates from it will be perfectly certain to arise. The Moray Firth appears to be very excellent fishing ground. I remember when I went up there at the election which took place in Banffshire I was told by a member of the Fishery Board that the short time the trawlers had disappeared had been sufficient to bring fish back to these waters. I think both the turbot and sole reappeared there almost immediately after the bottom had ceased to be raked by the trawlers. If that be the case, and if we can get the right to object to what goes on there now, we will very largely improve the fisheries and the livelihood of the fishermen who are engaged in the industry. I know that in my own district in the West of Scotland there have not been any very grave complaints as to the presence of foreign-trawlers, although I have found that they have appeared there, and that there is considerable apprehension that they may appear more in the future if no check is provided. The difficulty I see in the matter is that, while no doubt it will be less easy for the trawlers to dispose of their fish than in the past, with the present system of packing in ice I do not know that these trawlers are seriously afraid of the longer distance they will have to steam to foreign ports before being able to land their fish. In regard to the legal question with respect to the landing of fish, I think my hon. Friend below me entirely agreed that it was impossible to do anything more than had been done to provide for that contingency. It is impossible to carry out a cumbrous process of law dealing with matters of this kind. If you give power to Custom House officers there seems to be no other way of dealing with the matter in the circumstances. I know that my Constituents are anxious that the Bill should pass, for, while it may not be a complete remedy for the evil from which we suffer, we hope that it will go a long way towards remedying it.

I think my hon. Friend who has just spoken has well summed up what the effect of the Bill will be. It will be a partial remedy; but, so far as present circumstances restrict our action, I do not think the Government can do more. The Lord Advocate, I think, has every reason to be satisfied with the reception given to the Bill. In fact, it might almost be said, as Charles II. said to himself when he landed at the Restoration—I wonder it has not come before.

When the original statute was made I could not help wondering why the English ports were left open while the Scottish ports were closed. That has been the defect of the measure ever since it has been on the Statute Book. The whole of Scotland is in favour of the Bill with the exception of Aberdeen. The opinion of Aberdeen is represented in the old saying:

"Tak' awa' Aberdeen, an' twa mile roun', an' whaur are ye?"

It is Aberdeen against the world. The representatives from Aberdeen seem to think it would be impossible for the fishing trade to subsist unless the Aberdeen trawlers had a free run of the Moray Firth. The Moray Firth was originally closed in order to protect the breeding ground and increase the fish supply, and I think it has been perfectly clearly indicated that where the trawlers have the perfectly free run of narrow waters they fish those waters out. These valuable breeding grounds have been no doubt partially protected even by legislation as it stood. I do not know that foreign trawlers are now to be excluded altogether, but at any rate trawl fishing in the Moray Firth must be greatly reduced by this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen, who was so strong an opponent of this measure, told the House in the debate in July last year that he was astonished that so-called British trawlers steamed under foreign flags in order to evade the law. He joined in the condemnation of British subjects guilty of such proceedings. British subjects will no longer be able to be guilty of such proceedings, and that must occasion some satisfaction to my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen, and also to his colleague, who has spoken in the same sense.

In the debate on that occasion we were generally denouncing the system of trawling. In that debate I did make a definite suggestion that this was the only way in which we could mend the former Act, namely, by closing the right of entry of these fishermen in all British ports. Therefore, I am an enthusiastic supporter of this Bill, which entirely carries out the views which I then expressed. We had the great advantage on that occasion of having the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Foreign Affairs taking part in that debate, and I think we all owe him in Scotland a considerable debt of gratitude for the interest which he has taken in this matter, and in this particular measure, which is now before the House. But I should not quite agree with the Lord Advocate that this measure of itself is final, and that it will exclude foreign trawlers. I think nothing short of a North Sea convention will ever do that. I should be sorry to think, from what the Lord Advocate said, that the Foreign Office should think that its exertion was no longer necessary because of this Bill which we are passing this evening. The exertions of the Foreign Office are just as much required as ever, and I think that it is eminently desirable that the Scottish Office should remain in closest touch with the Foreign Office, and that the Scottish Office should not lead the Foreign Office to suppose that by this Bill everything has been done that can be done, but that it should be in close touch with the Foreign Office in trying to promote this North Sea convention, without which I do not think there will ever be complete protection for these invaluable breeding grounds.

I hope that this may be the end of the attempts, which have been made, no doubt, by both sides through a long series of years to make party capital out of these fishing matters. The interest of the fishermen seem to me to be used to a considerable extent as a pawn in the party game. I trust with the passing of this Act that, on both sides, we shall unite in securing the interests of the fishermen as a whole; not running the interests of the trawlers against the interests of the line fishermen or the interests of one set of boats against those of another; but that, agreeing upon this Bill, we shall continue to agree to develop the whole of the fishing industry of Scotland, and protect it.

I have listened with some interest to the hon. Member for South Aberdeen, who moved the rejection of this Bill and the hon. Member for West Hull, who seconded the rejection of this Bill, and I waited for some valid reason why they should object to the Bill as a whole. This Bill would apply only to foreigners; British trawlers at the present moment cannot under the law, as it stands now, trawl in the Moray Firth. They are already excluded, and, therefore, the law as regards them being in the future as it is now, why should they object to the Bill as a whole? While I was in Aberdeen a few months ago I received a deputation from some of my trawling constituents. I may mention that there is a number of trawlers amongst my constituents as well as line fishermen, and the impression left upon my mind when that deputation withdrew was this, that they had no valid objection to the Bill as a whole, and that their objection to the Bill lay in clause 3. Clause 3, as the House is aware, lays down the method under which it is proposed to bring these trawlers to book, that have been found fishing in the Moray Firth. I think in this respect we have had an explanation from the Lord Advocate which ought to go a long distance towards allaying the fears of the Scotch and English trawlers—fears which have arisen owing to the fact that they are of opinion they will be unjustly accused of trawling, and that their catches would be confiscated at times when this ought not to be the case.

I think, as has been said by various Members during the course of this debate, that this Bill is certainly a step in the right direction, but only a step, and that it must be followed up by the Government, and must be followed up by international agreement. It must be proved to Foreign Governments, and I think it can be proved, that the Moray Firth and areas around the coast of this country such as the Moray Firth, are most important as fish breeding and spawning ground for the population of this country. I hope the Government will take the matter in hand, and will prove to foreign countries that they are suffering as much as this country from unrestricted trawling in these areas, and that we shall have a settlement eventually that will be satisfactory to all concerned.

Much has been said in this debate in support of the interests of Scottish fisheries, but there is another interest very much affected by the provisions of this Bill which should be considered. It seems to me that the interests of the English consumer of fish have been to a large extent lost sight of. The Government have been urged to pass this Bill on the ground that the Scottish Members are unanimously at their back in regard to it, and little or no consideration has been given in the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the interests of the English consumer. In many ways the Bill is an interesting one. I should be the last person to say that it may not be necessary at times for one part of the country to suffer in order that other parts may be benefited. In order that the products of foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth should cease to enter into competition with the products of other trawlers in other districts it may be necessary for those products to be rejected by this country as a whole. But if we are taking a step of that kind, which is purely protective in its whole bearing and nature, and in absolute opposition to the principle of freedom of exchange, we ought to know what we are doing, and I think the Lord Advocate might very well have brought that side of the question before us, and have shown us that while the Scottish trawlers are certainly debarred from trawling in the Moray Firth, although foreigners are permitted for diplomatic reasons still to break our law or bye-laws or regulations with reference to the Firth, yet nevertheless it is also the case that as a result the English community get a very large supply of cheap food. Even the strongest advocates of the Bill have pointed out that, let it do as much as ever it will, the Bill is only likely to be partially successful; they look for something more—the success of diplomatic arrangements. As a representative of an English Constituency I hope that the diplomatic exchanges now in the hands of the Foreign Secretary may show more success and go a little faster than they have recently. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs a moment ago thanked the Foreign Secretary for the success which had attended his efforts. As far as I can see, there has been no success at all so far as the Moray Firth is concerned. We have heard of this question ever since we met in 1906, but English constituencies have never been-brought into such close touch with the Moray Firth as they are by the introduction of this Bill, under which they will have to pay all the penalty while the Scottish trawlers get all the benefit. I am not trying to destroy the Bill; I merely consider it necessary to point out and that English constituencies should realise that they are making a sacrifice, and I think a little more might have been said on that point by Scottish Members. Under this Bill fish which now comes to England is to be forced to the Continent. The country ought clearly to understand that the principles which underlie the Bill are frankly Protectionist. I do not object to them on that ground—not a bit. I should be rather inclined to favour them on that account. They have the same characteristic as the Merchant Shipping Act and the Patent Law passed by the present Government—both of them excellent measures in every way, both highly protective, but neither of them so entirely and completely protective as the measure now before the House. It is not at all clear that arrangements could not be made with foreign countries to abstain from trawling in the Moray Firth, at any rate during certain months of the year. I am very ignorant on the subject of spawning grounds, and so on, but surely there are months in the year when the absence of trawlers would he specially valuable. Although foreign nations might object to fall in wholly with our arrangements in regard to the Moray Firth, they might be willing, if we could show them consideration in other ways, to abstain from this pursuit during certain months. Moreover, if English constituencies are to make the sacrifice called for under this Bill, we ought to have some assurance from the Government and from Members representing Scottish constituencies that they will endeavour in some way to replace the supply of fish which is going to be cut off from the English ports. An hon. Member suggested just now that more money might be spent on the harbours of Scotland out of the funds of the Congested Districts Board or some other fund. If that could be done it would be an earnest to the English constituencies that the Scottish people really meant to replace this supply of cheap food, at any rate by an additional supply of fish, either from the Moray Firth or from other districts of Scotland. The measure is probably quite a good one, and I do not in any way wish to destroy it; but I wish to emphasise the fact that we English representatives realise that we are asked to make a sacrifice in order that Scottish constituencies may be benefited. I do not want that to be lost sight of. They have forgotten to bring this prominently before us in their speeches, so that I think it is just as well for an English Member to make reference to it, and then to urge upon the Government that side by side with this highly protective measure which they now introduce to us that they should realise that there is responsibility resting upon them so to improve the harbour arrangements of Scotland, as has been pointed out by Scottish Members, in order that at any rate we English constituencies in the future may have replaced by additional fish supplies from Scotland those supplies which are forcibly to be shut out from English ports, driven into foreign countries, and thus lost to the English consumer.

The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has taken up rather a grand position for the English constituencies, representing that we are calling on them to make a noble sacrifice by the second reading of this Bill. He seemed to be unconscious all the time that the objection of this Bill was simply to prevent the ruin of a large source of fish supply for the United Kingdom. Then he goes on to say that in return for that Scotland ought to in some way guarantee that there will be as large a supply of fish in the future for the United Kingdom as heretofore. In saying that he gets wonderfully out of accord with his fellow Members on that side of the House who have spoken against the Bill, and in fact on both sides, because their argument was that if this Bill passes the foreigner would immediately take his supply, not to this country, but to his own country. The foreigner can do that now, so that it cannot make any difference to the food supply of this country in that respect. The real point which I press upon the House is that if the Bill passes at all it must pass as a sensible measure for improving in the long run the fishery both of the Moray Firth and the Firth of Clyde, and eventually the fish supply of the United Kingdom.

I only rise in this debate as it has turned almost exclusively on the interests of Moray Firth. I am personally a representative of a large fishing industry on the Firth of Clyde. They are both alike in this respect, that they are inland waters. They are waters which, under the Act of 1899, were brought within the operation of that Act, though part of the area of both was beyond the three-mile limit. That had the effect, of course, as far as dealing with foreign nations, we could not act beyond the three mile limit in the same way as we could towards subjects of the United Kingdom. The Prohibition Act only extends beyond the three mile limit so far as regards the subjects of the United Kingdom, who were for this purpose local fishermen. One hon. Gentleman on this side of the House said there had been a blunder committed in distinguishing between those waters and the three mile limit. I think not. I think the right hon. Member for Glasgow rather demolished that point by saying that the right thing to do was to arrange to treat the whole of those waters as territorial waters, as if the three-mile limit did not matter at all. The point which I wish to accentuate is this, that a large population has throughout a very long period of time been allowed to grow up and communities to establish themselves on the Firth of Clyde as upon the Moray Firth on the strength of this indus- try of fishing with the line and fishing with the drift net.

It is quite true that you cannot say in any strong terms that they had any right to prevent the class of fishing which would spoil or interfere with their industry or means of livelihood. I am afraid I could not contend that as a matter of law, but at the same time the Government having jurisdiction over the waters I think may be fairly called upon to exercise their control in such a way as not to destroy the livelihood of those communities who have grown up on that expectation. If I may give an analogy, I would say, apply the law in the same way as to the rights of common. The rights of common were acquired in this way. There was no right to prevent anybody else using waste lands in a manner which would limit the amount of use which a particular community was having. And the argument was actually used in old times, it struck me when the hon. Member for St. Albans was speaking, that it was for the benefit of the country and agriculture that all commons should be included and should be turned into grazing land. The specific interest and immemorial interest of the community was allowed by Parliament to prevail against that. If that be so I think we may strongly say that a similar course should be adopted in a measure like this to preserve the livelihood of a large population which, on the strength of line-fishing and drift-net fishing, has been established on the banks of Moray Firth and the Firth of Clyde. Of course, the word protection alarms the public a good deal. We talk of protecting those people and their industries, but it is only the means which we take to protect which I object to. I never objected in certain cases where protection is afforded; it was only to the means of protection, and what I am advocating in this Bill is the means of protecting the industry of line fishermen and the drift net fishermen. One final word about the argument that was again used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow. He said if this Bill—I understand he does not oppose it in any way, but I think he a little discouraged it—passes, then you will have the foreigner allowed to catch in Scottish waters fish which he can carry to foreign ports, while you will not allow English fishermen to do the same. I do not think that means anything, except that you are obliged to preserve the three mile limit, because you might as well say that we could go to the three mile limit of Norway and catch Norwegian fish and bring it over here. I agree entirely that it would be advisable if some arrangement could be made by which waters similar to the Firth of Clyde and the Moray Firth could be treated as purely territorial waters, and, of course, waters similarly situated abroad in any foreign country would have the same right to claim them as territorial waters. In the meantime I do not see in that anything which would render it at all absurd or unreasonable or do anything to discourage the Government from taking at least this step, saying, "We will diminish the facilities to this extent, that you cannot sell your fish in British ports. We will diminish it at all events to that extent internationally." I shall only be too happy if they can see their way to take the further step of freeing for fishing purposes the general proposition of what are territorial waters from these anomalies.

The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is apparently a Protectionist, provided the means taken for enforcing that Protection are in his judgment sound and true. That is a very great admission coming from an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House. I have always thought that in all probability before very long the most ardent advocates of Tariff Reform would be found on the opposite side of the House, but I was not prepared for hon. Gentlemen coming down to say that they are in favour of a measure of Protection—pure and simple Protection—provided that it is carried out in a proper manner. But I rather disagree with the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman in so far as I do not think that this Bill, though it is undoubtedly a measure of Protection, is a measure of Protection which is carried out in a good and proper manner, because as far as I can see one certain effect of it will be that it will deprive the people of this country of pure and wholesome food, which pure and wholesome food will go to the foreigner. This Bill seems to me to be one that should be called a Foreign Preference Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, I believe, are opposed to colonial preference, but apparently they are in favour of foreign preference. That seems to me to be a most extraordinary attitude to take up, because, after all, the Colonies are of our own flesh and blood, and the foreigners are not, and, therefore, why we give preference to foreigners and at the same time refuse to give preference to our own flesh and blood, seems to me to be a position which I cannot fathom, especially as the hon. and learned Gentleman is in favour of Protection.

That is a somewhat sweeping deduction from my observation.

I should have said Protection with regard to the industry in which the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents are interested, and perhaps that is a deduction which I omitted to make. As far as I can gather from reading this Bill, it will allow a trawler to trawl in the Moray Firth, and, having obtained fish out of the Moray Firth, it will allow that trawler to do one of two things. He can either fly a foreign flag and sell his fish in foreign ports, or he can sell his fish in foreign ports without flying a foreign flag. That is, so far as I know the provision of the Bill, and I am glad to see that the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland is present on the Front Bench, and if he will allow me to humbly congratulate him upon his return to this House, I shall have very great pleasure in doing so, especially in view of the result of the last election, which took place a few days ago in Scotland. If I am wrong in what I say, that the one result of this Bill will, be to allow the trawler to dispose of the catch which it has made in an illegal water, in a foreign port, without flying a foreign flag—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is not an illegal water."] It is an illegal water against the British trawler.

It is an international water, and, therefore, not an illegal water.

It is an international water, but it is illegal for the unfortunate Britisher. That is why I object to the form of Protection which the hon. and learned Member claims. My form of Protection is to protect my own countrymen against the foreigners. The form of Protection of the hon. and learned Gentleman is to protect the foreigner against my own countrymen. I do not agree with that, and that is one of the reasons why I oppose this Bill.

I said to protect a particular industry. That was my argument.

I come to the reason of the advocacy of the hon. and learned Gentleman of something which has always been anathema to all hon. Members on the other side of the House. When the hon. Gentleman's own Constituents are interested, then he is a Protectionist, but when other people's constituents are interested then he is a Free Trader. With all due deference to the hon. and learned gentleman, I do not think that is quite logical.

I quite admit it is not logical, but not that it is my position.

I think it is evident that one of the results of this Bill will be to enable the trawler, whether he is flying the foreign flag or English flag, to sell the results of his industry in a foreign port. I think I am right. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not correct me, and therefore I feel justified in saying that I am right in making that assumption. ["Go on."] An hon. Gentleman opposite says "Go on." I can quite conceive that the line of argument I am taking up is not palatable to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they would be very pleased if the real object of this Bill were not brought home to the country. The result of trawling and of selling the fish in foreign ports will be to deprive the working classes of this country of a very large amount of wholesome food at a time when there has been a great rise in the price of bread, and in view of the fact that their cry at the last election was that food should not be dearer. Not content with allowing the price of bread to rise, they must prevent the working classes of this country from obtaining a proper and wholesome supply of food in the shape of fish. And why? Because the constituents of the hon. and learned Gentleman think they will make rather a larger sum per week if this Bill becomes law. Well, now, I am not at all sure—and I do not pose as an authority at all—that this Bill will enable Scottish line fishermen to obtain a larger share of this world's goods. We will presume that the Bill becomes law. It is rather a big presumption. What will be the result? Will these trawlers stop trawling? Unless they do there will be no advantage to line fishing. The grievance, as I understand it, of the line fisherman is that the fish which he would like to catch are caught by somebody else—namely, the trawler. Supposing you say the trawler shall not sell his fish in English ports. That does not prevent his trawling. He will trawl, and sell his fish at Amsterdam. If I am wrong in that assumption, I should be quite prepared to admit it, but I should really like to know where I am wrong in drawing that conclusion. He will sell his fish at Amsterdam, and who will benefit? It will not be the line fishermen in Scotland, because the fish will be taken out of the water all the same. Who will lose? The people of England and Wales and other places who have hitherto bought this fish which has been taken out of the water. May I point out to the hon. Member that to have attained his object he should either himself have brought in a Bill or persuaded one of his Friends on the Front Bench to bring in a Bill to prevent the fish being taken out of the water. That will have given real protection to his friends, the line fishermen. Unless he does that he does not protect their industry in the least. I do not know whether I am wrong.

You are right, for what it is worth.

I think then I am justified in saying—I do not know whether I ought to use a slang expression in this House—but I do think that I have perhaps "scored a point." I would suggest that the Government should, on further consideration, adopt the attitude that they adopted towards the Bill earlier in the afternoon. I do not wish to make any reference with regard to that Bill beyond this: that it was evident that the Bill had been brought in without due consideration, and the Government took the right step—and I should like to congratulate them in having taken that step—in moving the adjournment of the debate in order to consider the matter further. I think it is evident on the admission of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that this Bill has been brought in without due consideration. Certainly pressure has been put on the Government by certain Scottish Members—quite legitimately and in the interests of their constituents. They thought that they were going to do something that would benefit those constituents. I believe that I have shown that this Bill will not benefit those constituents. Under those circumstances may I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he would inaugurate his career on that Bench with great éclat in following the example of the Prime Minister by withdrawing this Bill. It could be done in a way that would offend no one's susceptibilities, and I think it would be the proper course to take with regard to the Bill. It cannot do any good to the people which it is supposed to benefit, and it may do a good deal of harm to certain classes of the people who desire to have cheap food. I am glad to see at least three representatives of the Labour party below the Gangway—and possibly four. I also see the hon. Member who, before dinner, on the opposite side of the House made an extremely eloquent speech in defence of this Bill, apparently on the ground of the naval question, and that this Bill would do something to provide a strong Navy. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member, and while I freely admit its eloquence, I must admit that I did not see the relevancy of it. Though I am strongly in favour of a strong Navy, I do not quite see how a strong Navy arises on this Bill. I trust that the four representatives of the Labour party who are in favour of a cheap supply of food for the people will show me where I am wrong in my denunciation of this Bill, and, if I am not wrong, will support me in endeavouring to obtain for that particular part of the nation which they take under their particular care, and of which they claim to have special knowledge—will endeavour, I say, to assist that part of the nation to that which we all desire, a cheap and abundant supply of food, and this whether we are Protectionists or Free Traders. I shall be happy if the Bill goes to a Division to tell against it, because I think that of all the measures which it has been my misfortune to have seen introduced in the three years that I have sat for the City of London, this is, on the whole, the worst.

I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I should like to associate myself with what has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire as to the great importance of this question in all parts of Scotland. Representing as I do a constituency on the West Coast, where the fishing is possibly the most important industry obtaining there, I should like to congratulate the Government on having decided to take some definite steps for preserving and improving the position of the fishermen of Scotland. I hope that their efforts will not be necessarily confined only to the East Coast of Scotland, but that we shall have attention given to the interests of the fishing classes over the whole of Scotland. I should like to reassure the hon. Baronet who sits for the City of London as to any contemplated danger to the food supply of this country by this Bill. On the contrary, it even goes further to increase and make more certain the supply of fish. What has been aimed at, and what I doubt not will receive most close attention all over the whole of Scotland, is the preservation of the breeding areas and the preventment of undesirable methods of fishing, with the result that the best efforts will be made to improve the sources of our food supply.

If the Bill did that I should not oppose it. It may aim at doing it, but it does not do it. It is no good passing a Bill that aims at doing a thing which it really does not do.

I can assure the hon. Baronet that the universal opinion among the people of Scotland is that the best method of preserving the breeding grounds is to protect the areas for the breeding of fish, to prevent methods of fishing which may injure the fishing ground and interfere with the spawning, and at the same time to take care that there should be proper preservation of the breeding without as far as possible any interference with legitimate methods of fishing. I think if the hon. Baronet will assume that the people of Scotland have some knowledge of these subjects, and if he will also bear in mind that practically, with the exception of the few small points of detail, there has been absolutely no opposition from the Scotch Members to the Government Bill, he will see the need for withdrawing his opposition. This matter was under consideration by a former Government, and I certainly hope the hon. Baronet will see the necessity of preserving the food supplies, and carefully watching over them, and having them made more secure in the future than they have been in the past.

I should very much like if possible to support the Government in the Bill they have brought before the House, but I regret to say that knowing something about this question I feel that I must at least criticise to a very large extent the proposals embodied in this Bill. The Lord Advocate will know that so far as I am personally concerned I am rather in a difficult position—because I have in my Constituency a very divided opinion as to the means best to be taken under the circumstances that have been created by the manoeuvring of the Scotch Office. Ever since I have been in this House this has been a very vexed, a very irritating, and a very unpleasant question. It does not matter who the gentleman is who has occu- pied the position of Lord Advocate or Secretary for Scotland, I venture to suggest he has met nothing half as troublesome to him as the questions of the difficulties arising in connection with the Moray Firth, and I think if I had been in his positon I should almost imagine I wanted a salary equal to his simply to stand the irritating consequences of the questions of Members arising out of the necessities in their different constituencies in this matter. I think the proper solution of the question is for any Government that may be in power to go back again to the position before 1882. The real solution of the question is to withdraw the restrictions which at present obtain in the Moray Firth and to give all parties the opportunity with equal rights of fishing in these international waters. I know it is argued that if you do that in the Moray Firth you will have to do it in other enclosed areas. Now, those connected with fisheries and who understand that question know there is a vast difference between closing 2,500 square miles of international water against British subjects and the mere closing of certain places that may be only 12 or 13 miles across the mouth. At the present time and, indeed, for many years, there has been such an anomaly in connection with the Moray Firth question that I think very few Britishers really understand or realise it. In 1889 the Herring Fishery Act was passed. It was supposed to confer certain powers upon the Scotch Fishery Board. It was understood at the time that these powers only referred to territorial waters, but in 1892 I think it was the Scotch Fishery Board assumed that they had power to operate their powers in extra-territorial waters, and they closed a portion of the Moray Firth, and I believe in 1896 they close the whole of that enormous area against British trawls altogether. Now, what has been the position since that time? It has been the most irritating and unsatisfactory one to the British fishermen of this country. You have been keeping in these waters gunboats for policing them at the expense of the British taxpayer, and for what purpose. For the purpose of keeping British fishermen from earning a livelihood, and for the purpose of indirectly protecting these waters for foreign fishermen to make their fortune on. That has been the position up to now; that is the position to-night. British money taken out of the revenues of this country is being expended in maintaining police there in the form of British gunboats for the purpose of policing these waters for the advantage of foreign fishermen, and for enabling these fishermen to do much better than British fishermen can do. I frankly admit to the House that some of my friends were ingenious enough to endeavour to get round the Act of Parliament that was passed. I never sympathise with the action they have taken, but it was perfectly legal even for the gentleman who had his investments in the fisheries to invest them in foreign fisheries just as it is for an Englishman to invest his money in railway transactions or in other forms of investments abroad. Some of my Constituents conceived the idea that they would transfer certain of their ships to foreign countries, and that they would invest a part, probably the whole, of their money in these particular ships, and they then sent them to the Moray Firth, and for a number of years they reaped a very satisfactory harvest. The Secretary for Scotland, owing to pressure put upon him by the representatives of the Firth of Clyde or the Moray Firth, from time to time in this House found that the artificial restrictions he put upon the Firth was such that after all a way could be found out of them, and that a large amount of fish was taken from the Moray Firth and sold at Grimsby Fish Market. Another step was taken then, and it was in my opinion rather high-handed procedure. It was found in some of the musty old Acts of Parliament belonging to Scotland that you could prosecute a British subject who might be working upon a foreign trawler. Prosecutions were entered against British subjects fishing on those particular ships. They were taken to Elgin in Scotland, severely punished, and fined very heavily, and the general impression got abroad that no person could work on those ships, or be in any way connected with them, unless he happened to be a foreign subject. I am bound to say that I think the Scottish Office got their deserts in that matter, because it is well known that the Foreign Secretary was not prepared to defend the action they took up, and he sent a telegram to the Scotch Office saying that if the men were imprisoned they must be released, because they had a right to protection under their flag. I think those fines ought to have been remitted. So far as my Constituents are concerned they are more affected by this Bill than any other constituency, and the general impression obtains amongst the owners of these foreign ships that no British subject can serve on them, and therefore every man on board is a foreigner. I think there are now about 36 of these vessels sailing from Grimsby fishing in the Moray Firth, and before the Government gave notice through the Prime Minister that they intended to put this Bill through, ships under the British flag in Grimsby were being transferred to the foreign flags and foreign crews were placed on them, whilst the British fishermen were put upon the shore to do nothing at all. That is the position with regard to Grimsby. When the fishermen came to see Lord Pentland they said, in their quaint and practical way, "If we cannot have the restriction moved which would give us the right to fish there just as the foreigner does, why not close the Firth altogether against persons who sell fish in this country?" That is the situation so far as Grimsby is concerned. For my part, I feel that this Bill is an unfortunate one, that it is based upon a wrong principle, and that the real and only solution of this question is to be found in removing the restrictions which at the present time prevent British fishermen going to fish there. British fishermen ought to have the same right there as you give to the foreigners. This Bill will certainly prevent the fish being sold in British markets, but it will not prevent foreigners fishing in the Moray Firth. The object of this Bill is to preserve the Moray Firth for the line fishermen very largely and for scientific research and as a breeding place. I thought those propositions had long since been allowed to pass away. In 1889, when the area was closed, it was said it would be to the advantage of science, because it was a breeding ground, and the hon. Member for Orkney has told us the same thing to-day. If the hon. Member knew as much about this question as I do I do not think he would have made that remark, because there has been no real scientific research in those waters for the last twelve years. That idea has been given up altogether, because, as Professor Mackintosh said at Aberdeen:—

"Yon may prevent the trawler fishing there but you cannot pass an Act of Parliament that will keep the fish there."

It is absurd for the hon. Member for Orkney to say that this is a place where immature fish are caught, and the authority which the hon. Member quoted on this point did not make those remarks in relation to the Moray Firth but in reference to the North Sea exclusively. There are no immature fish caught in the Moray Firth. I believe it is a spawning ground, but I wish to say that as soon as the fish has shot its spawn a good deal of it is carried by the eastern currents to the German coast, where thousands of tons of flat fish come to life. Therefore the question of scientific research has been exploded, and now the only argument advanced in support of this Bill is that it is an injustice to Scotch fishermen. If that is what we are fighting for then we understand where we are.

If I thought the line fishermen were seriously suffering I should have no hesitation in saying that we have no right to rob them of their livelihood. I have made inquiries into this question, and I find that the fishermen in the Moray Firth have made more money, lived better, and flourished more since the closing of the Firth than they did before. They have increased their steamships to 502, and instead of fishing with lines in the Moray Firth they go with their herring boats not merely round the Firth, but they follow the herring round the Scotch coast and down the English coast, and they make a very good living. I am pleased that they do this, but since we allow them to come down the East Coast of England and interfere with legitimate fishermen in the home waters there, I do not see why British fishermen should be excluded from this very important source of fish supply.

I wish to refer to this question from the standpoint of the food of the people. If this Bill had been brought in by a Tariff Reform Government I could have understood it, because it is a piece of absolute Protection. If hon. Members conscientiously feel that this is a right thing to do, I do not say you should not do it, but the point is that this food which is now brought very largely to the Grimsby market is not the cheap food which some hon. Members have suggested for the working men, but it is largely fish required by those who can afford to pay a big price, and consequently to those who catch it is a lucrative means of getting a livelihood. Last year there were about £100,000 worth of this fish landed in Grimsby. If you do not stop them by this Bill I think there will be £200,000 worth landed this year. If you look at that matter in relation to the vast amount of fish consumed in this country, I know it is a small matter. No less than £11,000,000 worth of fish food are consumed by the people, and therefore £200,000 worth is not a very large sum. But when you take into consideration that sum in relation to £3,000,000 sold at the port of Grimsby you realise that the fish merchant who has to supply the requirements of his customers in the country does realise that a very serious difficulty is going to be placed in his way in supplying his customers and in keeping going the general machine.

What I have to say in regard to food supply is this: This Bill is, whatever may be said to the contrary, a measure of Protection, to the advantage of the Scotch fishermen. This Bill is brought into the House to benefit the Scotch fishermen. It is a piece of sectional legislation to enable the constituents of hon. Gentlemen who represent the various fishing constituencies on the coast of Scotland to reap some benefit. I am very glad to see the Prime Minister in his place, because the next point I want to make arises out of, I think, the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, who said that this Bill is only a stepping-stone, and that we are to have an arrangement with the different foreign Governments interested in this question with a view to coming to an understanding. Has the Prime Minister, or the Cabinet, or the Foreign Secretary come to the conclusion that we are to open again the North Sea Convention? Are we to discuss again with foreign countries the important question of the three mile limit? We have hitherto been satisfied with the position of the Foreign Secretary on this question. This is a more serious question than hon. Gentlemen seem to suppose. It might mean the closing of one-third of the fishing area of the North Sea, and that would mean a great deal to the fish consumers of this country. Whatever may be the object and intention of the Government in pressing this particular Bill through Parliament—and I am not going to oppose it on the second reading—I do say that they ought not to deviate from the general principle of the North Sea Convention. We are satisfied with the three mile limit. If you say we are to have a Convention to reconsider that proposition, then I tell you the only losers must be the British people, and it would result in a much greater disaster than the average man could conceive. I wish that the Government had seen their way to end this question of the Moray Firth by removing the restriction, and by making this water part of the North Sea, and to give to every individual fisherman an opportunity of getting his livelihood. There is one part of the Bill which I do not see how it can cure the evil. The object is to keep the Moray Firth clear of trawlers for the benefit of the line fishermen, but if foreigners can go there with profit they will go, and where will they take their fish? There is a place called Hamburg to which this fish might possibly be taken, and from there it might find its way to this country. I have made a good deal of inquiry into this matter, and I wish the House to understand that practical fishermen think there is much in that particular proposition. I hope that if this Bill is to go to a further stage that the Lord Advocate will insert safeguards against the possibility of foreign trawlers fishing in the Moray Firth with a view of serving the British markets. I do not think many of them will go there to secure fish for foreign markets, as I am informed the German market might not benefit very greatly if the foreign trawlers went there. I think that the Bill may be satisfactory up to a certain point, but it is not a cure for the evil which exists. We have a right to expect that the British fisherman should be given the same advantages which you give the foreign fisherman. If we had fair play in that respect there would be much satisfaction to everybody before we were very much older. I do not like the power which is to be given to Custom House officers. I do not think that any person should run the risk of being convicted before he has had a fair trial. In this case the information is sent from your gunboat to the Scottish fishery boat, and then to the Custom House officers, and these men are to confiscate property of an individual without his having any appeal. That is un-English, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will introduce the necessary safeguards to give fair play to every subject who lands his fish in the British market.

I wish I could support the Bill. It would give me more pleasure to speak in its favour than to speak against it. I do not think that it is a settlement of the question. This ought not to be a political or a party question. It is one that involves the well-being of the people. I think you expect that it is a settlement, but I have my doubts about it, because I think it would establish in foreign countries fishing markets, very much to the detriment of the English tradesmen.

I do not follow the hon. Member. It seems to me that he has travelled wide of the scope of the Bill. Whether the Bill is good, bad, or indifferent, I know of no man more re- sponsible for it than the hon. Member for Grimsby.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like the hon. Member to say why I am responsible for it.

Because at a meeting not so many years ago of the Fisheries Association in Aberdeen the hon. Member adumbrated a policy which has since been followed in Grimsby.

I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. I have never been either directly or indirectly interested in fishing in the Moray Firth, and I have always been against the policy which has been pursued.

I accept the hon. Member's explanation. At the same time, in the official record of the association to which I referred, words were used by the hon. Member suggesting a policy which I say has been followed in Grimsby.

I am very sorry to say that you are altogether mistaken.

I deny altogether that this Bill is one intended to promote Protection. If all the fishermen along the shores of the Moray Firth were to-morrow to go in for a system of trawling, I think this Bill would be even more necessary than it is now. Why is it you have a close time in the catching of salmon and in regard to game? The reason is that by that means you can protect the young. This Bill is intended merely to enable the Fishery Board for Scotland to detect illegal poaching. I say with deliberation that a more vile conspiracy than that which has taken place in Grimsby for the transfer of boats—first from the British flag to the Norwegian flag, and then to the Danish flag—it is almost impossible to conceive. There was a possibility of international complications, but that seemed to be nothing to the owners of the boats. They were willing to risk it.

Mr. Speaker, I pro test. These are very serious remarks. Nearly the whole of these—

Order, order. The hon. Gentleman has already addressed the-House.

The hon. Member who seconded the rejection of the Bill thanked Heaven that Hull had not followed the example of Grimsby. Aberdeen was said to have a keen regard for money, but yet Aberdeen had not transferred one of its boats to a foreign flag. The hon. Baronet has said that what has taken place is no worse than taking shares in a railway of a foreign country. Surely there is a great difference between taking shares in a foreign railway and having shares in trawl boats which, in order to evade the laws of their own country, have been transferred to foreign flags. The "Scotsman" newspaper the other day gave a report of ten trawlers that had been to Iceland. They sailed from Aberdeen and returned with their cargoes to Aberdeen. Seven of them were German, one French, none Grimsby, and two Aberdeen. How does it come about that if there is such a good market for that class of fish in Germany that these foreign trawlers sailed from and to Aberdeen? Another thing. You will scarcely find more than one really foreign trawler trawling in the Moray Firth. They

I beg to move "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House."

It is provided by an old Act of Parliament of 1826 that the President of the Committee of Council for the consideration of matters relating to trade for the time being should have a salary not exceeding £2,000, and the object of this Bill is to repeal that enactment and to leave it open to the discretion of the Treasury, with the consent of Parliament, to assign a higher salary than £2,000 to the President of the Board of Trade. That is the scope of the Bill. It is not very wide, and in itself probably not a matter which will excite either much contention or argument. I need not remind the House that the Bill is introduced in pursuance of a pledge which, I think, I myself gave a year or a year and a half ago in the debate on an Amendment to the Address that His Majesty's Government would reconsider the status and position of the various Departments of the public service. I have not before me now the exact words which I used, but I remember the substance of them very well, and it was that the matter should be considered by a Committee of the Cabinet, and it has been considered' by a Committee of the Cabinet, which has carefully investigated the relative position and status of the various Departments of the State. The conclusion to which we have come is that as regards the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board they should be placed on substantially the same footing, not in point of title but of status and emolument, with the Secretaryships of State. That is not a new policy. Years ago, in the time of the late Government, a Departmental Committee was appointed under the presidency of Lord Jersey which considered the whole matter, and which made a Report, which was laid on the Table of the House and circulated, with the result that the then Prime Minister, now Leader of the Opposition, in the last Session of that Parliament, brought in a Bill to raise both these Departments, not only as regards status and emolument but as regards title also, to the rank of Secretaryships of State. It may, therefore, be assumed that both parties, when in responsible office came to the conclusion that the circumstances of these Departments justify their being placed in a higher position than that which they at present enjoy. There is no neces- sity for legislation in regard to the Local Government Board, because there is no statutory restriction on the salary of the President. There would be no necessity in the case of the President of the Board of Trade but for the section which I have read in the Act of 1826, which places such restriction on the salary. Otherwise, it could be done by putting a Vote down on the Estimates for the approval of the House. But I think it would be respectful to the House that legislation should be passed. It is only respectful to the House that I should state what are the reasons that have led us to the conclusion that this change should be made in the status of the two offices. In the days of the Act of George IV. which I have cited the Board of Trade was comparatively a small and subordinate Department of the State, and the Local Government Board, even in the older shape of the Poor Law Board, of course, had not then been called into existence. It was the creation of a later date and of subsequent legislation. But as time has gone on these two Departments have collected and aggregated an enormous amount of multifarious functions, not perhaps very scientifically arranged or digested, but which have been cast upon them by successive Parliaments from time to time, and which have made them two of the most important Departments in the State.

The Board of Trade, as everybody knows, is entrusted with very large powers with relation to railways, harbours, and other matters of that kind, the collection of labour statistics, and so on. In particular the Board of Trade has now become—and I am not sure that this is not really its most important function—the organ of conciliation and mediation in industrial and labour matters as between the various interests concerned. If you look either to the number of subjects, or their importance, or their variety, or the cares and responsibility which their proper discharge involves, I do think, even as a past Home Secretary, and therefore with a natural bias in favour of my old Department, that the Board of Trade at the present moment is as important a Department of State even as the Home Office itself. The same is true in a greater or less degree, I think, although not strictly relevant to the subject of the Bill, of the Local Government Board. There again Parliament has by a long series of successive legislative Acts, entrusted to a Department, which at first was confined to a very shadowy supervisory jurisdiction of the Poor Law administration of the country, vast powers in relation to public health and the superintendence of the whole fabric of local taxation, which involves the employment of a very large and very competent and responsible staff, and which requires for the adequate discharge of its duties that there should be at the head of the Department a Minister of the first class. I do not think that anybody in the House will dispute that a full case has been made out for raising the status of these Departments to a higher rank than they have hitherto enjoyed. At present, under the existing system—and this is not a question as primarily affecting the head of the Department, which would be relatively a small matter—everybody in the office is paid on a lower scale, and has from the Civil Service standpoint a lower status than if he had belonged to one of the more favoured offices. I do not think it possible to justify that invidious discrimination between two sets of offices which respectively discharge equally important functions and which deserve equally good treatment from the State.

I can hardly anticipate anything in the nature of opposition to the general principle of this Bill. There is a provision in the Bill that the Act shall not apply to any person who at the time of the passing of the Act holds the office of President of the Board of Trade so long as he holds that office under his present appointment. A similar provision, if my memory serves me right, was to be found in the Bill introduced by the late Government in regard to the same matter; and it is, I may say, a natural and proper thing, and certainly in accordance with the best traditions of our public life, that the occupants of offices of this kind should not take advantage of the Parliamentary raising of the general status of their Departments, including the Balary of the chief, so long as they hold the office which they at present do. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, with whom I have discussed the matter, is anxious that this provision should be inserted, although at the time he was appointed to the office it was already practically known, after the statements which had been made in the House, that there was at least a strong probability that there would be an alteration of the status in the manner in which it is now proposed. My right hon. Friend, with natural and becoming delicacy, has urged, and indeed insisted, that this provision should be inserted in the Bill, and following all pre- vious precedents, we have put it therein. Let me add, in order to complete my account of the matter, that we did not confine our investigations to these two Departments. We inquired also into the position of the Board of Agriculture and the Post Office, and upon the Order Paper, following the Bill now under consideration, there will be found, if we are allowed to reach them, proposals dealing with both those Departments, which I hope on the proper occasion to be able to explain and justify to the House. I only mention the point—it is not strictly relevant to the Bill under consideration—in order to show that this is part of a comprehensive survey of the whole field. We have not dealt with the matter piecemeal; we have considered each case on its merits, and with regard to the relative position of the different Departments in the general hierarchy of the State. I have said enough, I hope, to justify me in asking the House to read the Bill a second time.

The Prime Minister has left out what we thought would be the main portion of his statement. He has told us the history of previous Bills of this description, but he has not told the House why we stopped them. These Bills have always been stopped because of a very general feeling of the House, unanimously expressed and accepted on two occasions, that there should be a complete survey, with a view not to increasing the salaries or positions, but to a reallocation of business between Government Departments. There has been no reallocation of business; nothing but an increase of salaries and offices—an increase which is always followed by further increases. In the case of the proposal to create a Secretary of the Board of Agriculture, there is a Motion on the Paper to create a similar office in regard to Scotland. In the case of the Local Government Board, the functions of which are limited to England and Wales for most purposes, there again you involve yourselves in similar demands with regard to other portions of the United Kingdom. On the occasion of the two debates to which the Prime Minister called attention, when pledges were given, the point on which the House insisted—in words which were put on the Paper by myself on one occasion, and by the Labour party on another, and accepted by the Government as expressing their intention—was the re-allocation of business between the various Government Departments. We have had proposals for increase on three occasions. This country already has four times as many Ministerial offices in Parliament as any other Empire in the world, and five or six times as many as most of the leading countries. The enormous number of Ministerial offices occupied in this House is not, I think, an advantage. A smaller number of powerful ministers could carry on the business of the country more effectively, and organise their Departments better, than an enormous horde of ministers, for whom accommodation on the Treasury Bench can hardly be found. But leaving that question aside, this House is extraordinarily peculiar both in the number of Ministerial offices and also in the total absence of payment of Members. This House is almost alone among all the democratic assemblies of the world in refusing to grant payment of Members, but the Ministerial salaries are so large and numerous that the total cost of the House is not very far inferior to that of those assemblies in which the members are paid by the State. I shall not detain the House by developing any of these points, as the subject is familiar to the minds of hon. Members, but no one will oppose the provision with regard to the position of the clerks in the various Departments. I think there will be no difference on that point, and that nothing could be more preposterous than that the fact whether an office is that of a Secretary of Stale or not should affect the salaries or positions of the clerks in those offices. No one, I feel sure, would stand by such a principle.

The Prime Minister has just told us, speaking of the Board of Trade, of its enormous variety of multifarious functions. We all know that if you go on dealing with this matter piecemeal, by increasing salaries and increasing offices, meeting each case as it arises by the creation of one, or ultimately two or three new offices, you will never get that redistribution of work, or never get that scientific re-allocation of business which the Prime Minister himself stated to the House as essential to the efficiency of the public service. Those are his words. I do not know that there is anything to prove that is not perfectly plain. The House accepted a proposal unanimously on 3rd March, 1903, and in the debate the words of the Prime Minister were these:—

"That the time had come for a general allocation of the functions and a redistribution of the duties more scientifically between the various departments."

And that that

"Would tend to the efficiency of the public service."

That was the whole ground accepted by the House unanimously on that occasion. We have had an inquiry, but the inquiry has failed and broken down. Very likely these facts did not come to the knowledge of the Prime Minister, but, at any rate, the inquiry broke down and failed. Amongst the staffs there is very bitter jealousy of any redistribution of duties between the various Departments. There are three Bills before the House on which this qustion arises. Those three Bills are being opposed on the grounds I have stated. As regards the Board of Trade, the particular Department now most before us, confusion of duties is, of course, admitted, and allusion has been made to-the creation of separate departments, costly departments, out of what were formerly in the Board of Trade, still leaving in the Board of Trade an accumulation of functions.

We have a practical example now before us in the proposals of last year with regard to the Wages Boards. They were supposed to be dealt with by the Home Office up to last year, but now they have been banded over to the Board of Trade. Speeches which have been made in the course of the present Session have disclosed a variation of view based on the very ground stated here to-night by the Prime Minister that the Board of Trade is a conciliation Department. The Home Office, as the President of the Board of Trade stated the other day, has to deal with the penal side of labour legislation. There you have at once one of those difficult points of overlapping of duties, and one of the grounds why the House refused over and over again to interfere with those two Departments. You have the necessity for the re-allocation of duties to which the Prime Minister gave such unhesitating assent.

(who was indistinctly heard) was understood to say: The Prime Minister in his speech has made the statement that the increase of the emoluments will not apply to the present holder of the office. When the Bill gets into Committee I shall move to omit the sub-section limiting the increase of salary to the successors-of the present holder of the office.

I desire in a very few words to express my dissent from the second reading of this Bill, for I think that the House has not been treated quite fairly as to the issue which this measure raises. We had a discussion, which I remember quite well, on this subject in the early days of last Session. The Prime Minister during that discussion made some definite statements to the House, and if he will pardon me for saying so, I do not think he has quite stated the position which he then took up in the speech which he has made this evening. No doubt it was quite unintentional. But he made, I think, a very definite promise that the inquiry which was going to be instituted would be something more than a Cabinet inquiry.

What did I say?

I think I have it here; it was in the debate on 6th February. One of the Members for Sheffield asked if it was proposed to appoint a Committee of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman replied:—

"It is obviously desirable that it should be in the first instance a Departmental Committee. I think that is something more than an inquiry by the Cabinet, and any proposal a Departmental Committee may make will have to be sanctioned by the House."

Having regard to that promised inquiry at the hands of a Departmental Committee, I think it did certainly create the impression upon the minds of those who heard the Prime Minister make the statement that the inquiry would be full and complete, and that the result of the inquiry would be brought before the House previous to any other step being taken. No statement as to the result of that investigation has yet been submitted to the House, except in the few words which the Prime Minister has addressed to the House this evening. Having regard to the admitted importance of a searching inquiry into the whole of the Departments, and having regard to the promise which was held out that there should be, shall I say, a reshuffling of the duties to be undertaken by the various Departments, perhaps the House may like to hear the statement of the Prime Minister, who, I think, put the matter plainly before the House. He said:—

"Is not the general inference to be drawn—an inference which I think the House with almost unanimous consent will draw from the considerations which I have ventured to lay before them—that the time has come—"

And I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this:—

"That the time has come when an inquiry ought to be made into the whole matter of the allocation of functions, the relative status and emoluments, of one Department of the Board with the others, with a view to seeing whether we cannot arrive, as I. think we can, at a general agreement, at a change which will redistribute the duties of the Department more scientifically, which would remove invidious distinctions, and which would tend to the advantage and the efficiency of the public service."

Now, the impression, I make bold to say, that was created in the minds of the House when these statements were made, followed by the reply that was given to the Member who submitted the question from above the Gangway, was that the inquiry should be conducted by a Departmental Committee. I cannot say that either the impression created upon the House or the promise of a Departmental Committee have really been fulfilled. I think, having regard to the importance of the whole question, that we are justified in asking the Government not to press for the second reading of this Bill until that inquiry, in all its completeness, has not only been made, but reported to the House.

When I came to examine into the measure—it may be the right way for the Government to proceed, I am rather doubtful about it—but I do notice in the section of the Act quoted by the Prime Minister, there was this to be said for its credit, that it did lay down the salary that the President was to receive. In the Bill that this House is now asked to give a second reading to there is no mention made as to the amount of the salary that the President is going to receive in the future. Now, surely, that is not exactly the way that we should proceed. The very best case may be made out. I do not doubt it, having regard to the additional duties which have been imposed upon the Department in recent years. But surely this House should always retain within its own right the definite fixing, yes, the definite fixing, of the salary of an official, when we undertake the responsibility of increasing it. I think the Government ought to have laid down in the Bill the amount that the Government propose to increase the salary by.

Another point is this: Surely the House is entitled to know— [An HON MEMBER: "These charges are upon the Estimates."] Yes, we are well aware that all these things come upon the Estimates, but it is not always easy to get them discussed on the Estimates. We have got to remember that. Another point ought to be kept in mind: The Prime Minister admitted that one of the effects of his proposal will be that the whole of the staff, or, at any rate, a good proportion of the staff, will have to have their salaries increased, probably in order to bring them into harmony with the salaries received in some other Departments. That may be right. We are not disputing it. But surely this House is entitled to know what all this is going to come to. Surely we are entitled to have put before us in proper shape what the increased payments to the President and to the President's staff will cost. Surely it is only right that this House should be put in possession of this information before it takes the very first step towards the consequent increase that will take place if this measure be passed into law. Therefore I sincerely hope that before the Bill is passed we shall be supplied with much fuller information than that which has been vouchsafed to the House by the Prime Minister this evening.

I can only speak again by the leave of the House, but as the hon. Member has made an appeal to me perhaps the House will allow me to say a few words in reply. As regards what I said, I doubt very much whether I used the expression "Departmental Committee" which appears in the Report. If I did use it I used it foolishly, because a Departmental Committee would be the last kind of Committee that would be suitable. I fulfilled in the spirit the promise which I made to the House, because a Committee of the Cabinet is much more competent to deal with the matter. That Committee included the heads of all Departments. Therefore, in the spirit, if not in the letter, I completely carried out the pledge. That Committee did inquire into the re-allocation of the duties, and they came to the conclusion which I confess I had myself come to that the time really had come when it was almost impossible and impracticable to conduct what is called a scientific allocation of business between the two Departments. I have always thought that as between the Board of Trade and the Home Office it might be possible to do a good deal in the way of transfer, levelling up, and levelling down; but when we came to deal with it practically we found it a much more difficult matter than we thought it was. All I want to say is to assure the hon. Mem- ber that these matters were not lost sight of; they were most carefully considered, and the pledge I gave was fulfilled in the spirit. I quite agree that before this Bill goes into Committee the House should be furnished with an estimate of the increased cost which the Bill will involve, and also, I think, what the application of the same principle to the Local Government Board will involve. I think that is perfectly fair and reasonable. I am only sorry such an estimate was not presented before the Bill was brought forward. Upon the merits I do not think anyone disputed, in the course of this short discussion, that the Board of Trade is well entitled to be placed upon the same level as other Departments, and I hope the House will now grant the second reading of this Bill.

It does seem to me to be a very curious circumstance that at the moment when practically everybody else's income in business is decreasing, we should proceed to increase the salaries of the members of the Government generally. What I suggested before was that we should consider the whole, question of salaries, reduce some of them and increase others. There is no reason why one man should get £5,000 for doing practically the same work as a man who gets £2,000, and the proper way to proceed is to reduce the £5,000 salary. When I raised this question before I suggested to the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman that I would exempt the Prime Minister on the ground that he -has to spend a great deal of money, and does not make much out of his office. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean spoke about the expenses of Government in this country. May I point out to the House that the present Government get about £180,000 per annum, and surely that is enough. I am not including the permanent staff in that total, but merely the members of the Government. I think that sum is quite enough for one Government, more especially when we are told that this is more than is paid to any other Government in the world. If you compare this country with the United States the cost of our Government is double and treble for doing less work, because in America they have a much bigger country to look after. It is highly probable that this proposal will add another £20,000, making the total cost of the Government £200,000, and I think that is a great deal too much. Before you settle this question you ought to settle the question of the payment of Members, because if you spend all your money on the Cabinet you will have nothing left for the payment of Members. I am not quite satisfied with this Committee of the Cabinet, because it is about the worst body you could call together to consider what they will do with their own salaries. What we expected was that there would be an inquiry by a Committee of this House, who would look fairly into the question, and say what sum ought to be paid to Ministers generally. There is no proposal of that sort before the House, and we have no estimate before us as to what this is going to cost. Before we commit ourselves to spend all this money in these hard times we ought to have the whole case before us, so that we can judge as to how much it is going to cost the country. We have been told that this will be put upon the Estimates. [Cries of "Agreed, agreed."] There are many occasions when we never get an opportunity of considering the Estimates, and at least one-fourth of them are guillotined without being discussed at all. The Government by not putting the Votes down can, and do, prevent discussion, as they did last year in the case of the War Minister. In that case we wanted to discuss questions which could only come up on the Minister for War's salary, but the Vote was never allowed to come before the House at all, and consequently we missed the opportunity of discussing the question in any shape or form. [Cries of "Divide, divide."]