Earl who has spoken on behalf of His Majesty's Government this evening.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I desire to associate myself with what the noble Marquess said at the beginning of his speech by way of compliment to the noble Lord who introduced this Motion. We all of us, I think, owe a tribute, as the noble Marquess said, not merely to the persistent manner in which he has shown his interest in this question, but also to the great moderation and courtesy with which he has always advanced his views both in and out of the House.

The noble Marquess quoted the opinion of my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth, who replied last year on this subject before the appointment of the Committee of which we have heard so much. My noble friend then said that he did not think an Act of Parliament dealing with this subject, unless it was very well thought out, and unless it provided for a great many possible contingencies in a thoroughly just manner, would be of much more service than the Act now in force, and he certainly did not commit himself at that time to anything but a general desire that, if inquiry showed that early legislation was possible, His Majesty's Government should then take the whole matter into consideration. Consequently the real point at issue appears to be this. Do the Report of that Committee and the evidence on which it was founded provide a clear basis on which the Government can and ought to undertake early legislation in this matter?

The most rev. Primate paid my noble friend behind me a very deserved compliment by saying that he was an expert in this matter. I, personally, come to the consideration of the Report and of the evidence with the opposite advantage, bringing so far as I can a fresh mind to their consideration. I am bound to say that, approaching the matter in this way, I have read the Report-and though I have not read the whole of the evidence I think I have a general idea of its bearing -with great disappointment. Not in the least that there was any want of ability or industry in the manner in which the Committee conducted their inquiry. Quite the contrary. But I am bound to The Marquess of Lansdowne.

say I cannot recall a case where either a Report, or the evidence upon which it was founded, was of so little assistance to a Government who might desire to undertake immediate legislation on the subject. The fact is that the Report, although, as my noble friend behind me said, technically unanimous, really avoids giving decisive opinions on anything except the most general propositions such as those quoted by the noble Marquess who has just sat down.

Now, upon general propositions we are all agreed, but, if you are going to legislate, everything depends upon the details you propose to include in your measure. Take, for instance, the one question of compulsory Sunday closing as against closing on one day of the week; After my experience of last autumn in connection with another measure, I see endless possibilities of discussion on that question alone, and I should not be surprised if any measure which might be brought in were wrecked on that single issue. That is one point.

Then, again, on the matter of exemptions. People talk very lightly of exemptions, and how easy and pleasant it would be for the small consumer owing to the exemptions. But what exemp tions? The whole question as to whether it is worth while to undertake this legislation at all depends upon what you are prepared to exempt and what shops you are going compulsorily to close. For instance, the tendency is more and more to sell things at mixed shops-places at which a wide variety of goods can be procured. Everbody agrees that chemists ought to be open on Sunday, but the tendency is for chemists to sell a large variety of goods other than medicines and drugs, and if you are going to say to the small shops that they may sell one set of articles and not another you introduce complications which add greatly to the difficulties of enforcing the law.

Then there is the question of the Jews, which the most rev. Primate faced in a spirit which I am sure we all admired. I find it difficult to extract from the Report or the evidence any distinct notion as to how that serious difficulty is to be dealt with. Are you prepared to say that all Jews who are good Jews are to be limited to five days a week trading;

Those are all matters which would

give rise to an infinity of discussion in both Houses of Parliament, and, looking at the matter, as the Government are obliged to do, from the Parliamentary point of view, we are not able to hold out the prospect of being able very early to Ideal with the matter. We found our reason for making that statement not merely upon what the noble Marquess twitted us with the general excuse of 'Governments that their programme is already full-but also to a great extent upon the really very limited amount of assistance rendered to the Government by the Report of the Committee and the evidence which they collected.

The speech, for instance, of Lord Montagu was in itself evidence of what sharp discrepancies of opinion may exist among those who are, on general grounds, equally desirous to secure this reform. Consequently I am afraid we cannot accept even the words suggested by the noble Marquess opposite as an Amendment to Lord Avebury's Motion. I need hardly say that we do not propose to divide the House against the Motion, as it stands, but I should not like to be taken as making any kind of pledge or promise to deal with the subject either this year or next year or any given year; and, therefore, though, as I say, we shall not divide the House, we cannot accept the Motion even if amended as suggested.

even

*LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, and to the noble Earl who has just sat down, for the kindly way in which they have alluded to me personally. I commenced my observations by saying that I did not wish to make any complaint of His Majesty's Government; neither do I wish to rush this question. I admit it is one that requires careful consideration.

I must confess I think the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council has greatly minimised the agreement of the Committee and magnified the difficulties

VOL. CLXX. (FOURTH SERIES.]

as to the best mode of procedure; but, as regards the object to be aimed at and the main way of securing it, the Committee were agreed. It was felt that the present fines should be made really effective. The case of Scotland has been referred to. It is true that the case there is different from that in England, but the whole of the shopkeeping community of Scotland joined with the shopkeepers of England in desiring to see the Bill of 1905 carried. The Municipalities also stated that they all supported the Bill of 1905, though they rather preferred the mode of dealing with the subject proposed by Mr. Cameron Corbett.

With regard to the question of hardship, it must be remembered that hose who complain are those who are breaking the law. The real hardship is to those who conform to the law and who see their buiness taken away by traders who are breaking it. Then something has been said about the large associations and the small shopkeepers, but the large associations consist of mainly small shopkeepers. The small traders have been the backbone of this movement and are most anxious that

something should be done. I listened to the speech of Lord Beauchamp with both regret and surprise. He said he went on to the Committee with the courage of ignorance but that was dissipated by the evidence brought before. him. But when his courage of ignorance had been dissipated by the careful consideration of the evidence, he himself proposed this as a general conclusion—

"The Committee do not consider that the

words of any particular Bill come within their terms of reference, but they recommend strongly that legislation, subject to such modifications in the existing law as may be necessary, should be initiated in general accordance with the increasing feeling against Sunday trading in the country."

That is all we ask him to do by this

Resolution. There is no mention whatever of the present session. I should have been glad to have accepted the suggested Amendment of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition if the Government had seen their way to agree to it.

2 U

We have heard a great deal about exemptions. There must be some exemptions. Both Committees agreed with the exemptions suggested by the shopkeepers themselves, and there is no substantial difference as regards that point. Even with these exemptions the Bill would apply to many great trades, and if we could get these businesses closed on Sunday an immense amount of good would be done. I regret that His Majesty's Government cannot accept the Motion, but I must press it, if necessary, to a division, because I have the support of the whole of the shopkeeping community, and I am anxious that they should feel that I have done what little I could to carry a Resolution which is in accordance with their very strong and keen desire. The shopkeepers believe that if such a Bill were passed it would be of great advantage to the shopkeeping community, and particularly to shop assistants, who now work such long hours, and would at the same time inflict no inconvenience on the general public.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): Does the noble Lord move his Motion in the amended form suggested by the noble Marquess?

their intention to do so, and if so,under what conditions"-said: My Lords, the Question of which I have given notice has been on the Paper of your Lordships House for some time, and I am sorry I had not an opportunity of putting it earlier, but I postponed it in consequence of the regrettable absence, through indisposition, of my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, whom we are all [glad to see again in his place. Meanwhile, а somewhat similar Question was asked in another place, and the answer returned to it was such that I need not trouble your lordships by going into the matter in detail and stating the reasons why, in my opinion, it is very undesirable that we should go on participating in this investigation-at any rate on the lines on which it has been done during the past five years. Inasmuch as I have been informed that, pending the consideration of the whole question by a Committee, His Majesty's Government have decided to continue their participation, at any rate for one year after the expiration of the five years to which they had committed themselves, I shall not enter into those matters of detail, but shall reserve to myself the right of raising the question at another time after this Committee has reported.

What I do want to know, however, is what is to be the constitution of this Committee, and what is to be the reference to it. A distinguished statesman, I think it was the late Lord Salisbury, once said that a committee usually consisted of three men who had made up their minds on one side, and three who had made up their minds on the other, with an impartial chairman, who drew up a milk-and-water report which satisfied nobody. I hope that will not be the kind of committee which will be appointed in this case. There has undoubtedly been a great amount of quarrelling and bickering on this particular subject. There are three departments interested-first, the Treasury, which holds the purse strings; secondly, the Scottish Office; and, thirdly, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. I think I may here say that the interests of the two great fishing industries-the line industry and the trawling industry-are by no means identical. The Scottish Office very

largely defends the interests of line fishermen, but the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, representing, as it does, the great trawling industry, very often takes a different view. Then the English part of the participation in the International Council has been entrusted to the Marine Biological Association. A memorial has been presented to the Government entreating them to continue to entrust the English share of the investigation to that association. Besides that, there are a number of persons, both in this House and in the other House, particularly in the other House, who are interested in the policy of closing the Moray Firth and other areas of the same kind. I very much hope that none of those persons will be put on this Committee. If we are to arrive at a sound conclusion on the subject the Government ought to appoint a Committee of persons wholly unconnected with the fishing interests, but able to sift the evidence put before them by scientific and official witnesses and to come to an unbiassed report upon it. I earnestly trust that His Majesty's Government will appoint a thoroughly impartial Committee to advise them upon this important question.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, I have to thank my noble friend for his kindness and courtesy in putting off his Question until I was able to be in my place again, and, as it has been asked and answered in another place in the meantime, I will follow my noble friend's example and not say anything on the question itself. As to the composition of the Committee, at the present moment I am unable to give the noble Earl any definite information, but I think I can make his mind easy on one point by assuring him that the Committee will not be formed in the way referred to by the late Lord Salisbury, but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take every possible precaution to secure that it shall be an entirely impartial Committee composed of the best men who can possibly be got; and I hope that when the Committee have deliberated and come to some conclusion, the conclusion to which they arrive will be acceptable to the noble Earl and all concerned.

TRAWLING PROSECUTIONS. LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is correct that the Scottish Office have decided to prosecute the first fishermen on board the Norwegian trawlers whose masters have been released from prison and their fines remitted; whether the fishermen were not under a contract of service to their employers to obey the masters of the vessel on which they were serving at sea; and whether the masters of each of the Norwegian vessels were not entitled both under International Law and the North Sea Convention, 1882, to fish with the trawl outside the three mile limit of territorial waters, and to order all those serving on board their vessels to take part in such trawling operations.

When I put this Question on the Paper I did not think it possible that the prosecutions to which I alluded could take place, especially after the statesmanlike speech of my noble friend the UnderSecretary of State for Foreign Affairs in reply to the Question put to him about three weeks ago by Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I rather thought there had been undue delay in refunding the money to those owners who had paid the fines illegally inflicted on the Norwegian skippers, and that there had also been undue delay in withdrawing the summonses against the other men who had not then been tried. I think I had a right to assume that, not only from the speech of my noble friend Lord Fitzmaurice, which I am sure was made in perfect good faith, but also from an official letter which I received from the Foreign Office a few days before that speech was made, and which was to this effect—

"Foreign Office, February 16th, 1907-I am directed by Secretary Sir E. Grey to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 12th inst. respecting the case of the Norwegian and Swedish fishermen who have recently been convicted in the Scottish Courts for trawling in the Moray Firth. I am to state, for your Lordship's information, that the men imprisoned have now been released and that Sir E. Grey is in communication with Mr. Secretary Sinclair with a view to all further prosecutions being stopped pending the consideration of the whole question by His Majesty's Government." I certainly took that to refer, not only to the Norwegian skippers who had been illegally convicted, but also to the vessels themselves and to the crews on board. One thing is perfectly clear. It does not