Clause agreed to.

Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL said, he proposed to insert a new clause which, after having been accepted by this House, was thrown out by the House of Lords. Some time ago, this House had learned that they could disagree with the House of Lords with success, and he should be glad to do so on this occasion. The clause would be thoroughly understood by anyone who knew his own language, and really spoke for itself. It proposed to make the estates of husband and wife jointly and severally liable for maintaining the spouses and family; and in all cases where a wife was legally entitled to order goods to be supplied or services to be rendered to the husband, or any member of his family, the creditor should have a claim against both the estates, whether the goods or services were ordered by the husband or wife, but reserving to the one from whose estate payment might be recovered the right to rateable contributions from the estate of the other, provided that such claims should suffer prescription after the lapse of three years from the date of payment. He hoped this clause would be accepted, for, although Clause 22 went a considerable way to meet the object he had in view, this new clause much more distinctly removed all doubt, and made quite clear what the liabilities of the parties were, and put the parties on a footing of equality.

Amendment proposed,

After Clause 21, to insert the following

1

Clause: The estates of husband and wife

shall be jointly and severally liable for the maintenance of the spouses and family, and in all cases where a wife is by law entitled to order goods to be supplied or services to be rendered to the husband, or any member of his family, at his cost, the creditor shall (whether the order were actually given by the husband or by the wife) have a joint and several claim against the estates of both for such goods and services, reserving to the spouse from whose estate payment may be recovered his or her right to rate

able contributions from the estate of the other, provided that such claims of contribution shall suffer prescription after the lapse of three years from the date of payment."

New Clause-(Sir George Campbell,)brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN said, it was quite impossible to accept this clause. It would introduce the most serious complications into a subject in which simplicity was of paramount importance. Question put, and negatived. Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

MR. HEALY asked for a few words in explanation of the objects of the Bill.

MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE said, this was a Bill to enable the Court in Ireland to carry out the purposes of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. That Act contained a clause enabling the Supreme Court to reorganize its staff within two years, and to consider what officers should be removed within two years of the commencement of the Act. It had now become necessary to make further alterations in the constitution of the staff; but the Law Officers were of opinion that they could not carry out those changes under the present Act, and this Bill was brought in to enable them to do so.

MR. HEALY asked whether the proposed changes would involve an extra charge on the Consolidated Fund or the Estimates?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): No, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

Order for Second Reading read. THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) said, in moving the second reading of this Bill, he desired to say a few words in explaining the objects of the Bill, because there had been some misunderstanding in various quarters on the subject. The object of the Bill, as it would appear from its terms, was to establish a Fishery Board for Scotland, directly to deal, not only with the subject of the herring fisheries, but also with deep-sea and coast fisheries, and also with the salmon fisheries. These objects, he was sure, would commend themselves to the House as desirable to be carried out. He ought to say, by way of explanation of the principal reasons which led to the Bill being introduced, that there had been, for a great many years, a Fishery Board in Scotland. That Board, however, had had cognizance, almost exclusively, until the year 1868, of the herring fisheries; but since then it had had, in a certain degree, cognizance of the deep-sea and coast fisheries, but never had anything to do with salmon fisheries. It was a very large Board, too large for sedulous attendance and active work. It consisted of 18 or 20 members. The retirement of the most efficient secretary, who had so long and so well fulfilled the duties of his office, was thought by many persons, and, amongst others, by the Scottish Members in this House, a fitting occasion to place on a more satisfactory footing a Board intended to deal with fishery matters in Scotland. The result had been the introduction of this Bill. He must also say that there was in the Report of the Herring Brand Committee, presented in June last, a recommendation that it would be an advantage to the fisheries in Scotland if the functions of the Board in Edinburgh were extended, so as to take cognizance of the coast and deep-sea fisheries; so that it was not only in pursuance of a very prevalent desire on the part of the Scottish Members and the Scottish

The

sitting a year ago. He did not think that, as regarded that part of the Bill, he needed to say anything more. Bill was not intended to alter, in any respect, the law of herring fishery, or the deep-sea fishery, or of salmon fishery. It was merely to set up an administrative body, which should have cognizance and supervision of these fisheries. The particular manner in which those duties would be performed were intimated in the Bill itself. There was one point on which he desired to say a few words, because it was one in which there had been most misapprehension-that was the question of salmon fisheries. He knew there had been a considerable prevalence of the idea that in some respect the law of salmon fishing was to be altered by the Bill. That was not the case. Salmon fishing had always been regarded in Scotland as a matter of national concern. It had not been left to be dealt with entirely by the owners of the rivers or sea coasts; but for centuries there had been many regulations, by enactments and otherwise, directed to secure the free access of the fish to the upper waters, and to secure the propagation of the breed, and its preservation as an article of food. But, while that had been the case, there had not hitherto been any Board in Scotland which had cognizance of the salmon fishing. This was thought a fitting occasion to place under the care of the Board the supervision of these fisheries as well. It was not the purpose of the Bill to supersede the District Boards, which had the direct administration of the affairs of the different rivers in Scotland. As far as salmon was concerned, it was to supervise the manner of fishing and the methods adopted in the different rivers, to see that the law was obeyed, and to collect information and to make suggestions, with a view to the amendment of the law. On this point, also, it was no purpose of this Bill to charge the Board with the duty of watching the rivers. The Bill had been criticized in the idea that the duty of watching was to be performed in some way by the Fishery Board, and that, in consequence, it would become a charge on the fund. That, also, was an entire misapprehension; so he did not think he need say

anything more on that point. Of course, it might be necessary, and, indeed, would be proper, to amend the Bill in various particulars in Committee, so as to take away any grounds for the misapprehensions which had arisen in regard to it; and any Amendments which might be suggested from private Members would be carefully considered. The proposal was to constitute a Board-not of eight members, as stated erroneously in the Bill, but of nine members. The constitution of the Board was indicated, although not worked out in detail, in the Bill. As the Bill was introduced, it was made applicable to the Tweed; but it was found there was a prevalent objection to that by those interested in the salmon fisheries of that great river. It had to be kept in view that the Tweed had always been under separate legislation, and not under the general law of Scotland, in regard to salmon matters; and, having regard to that fact, and to the prevalent objection which appeared to exist, the Government were willing to exempt the Tweed from the operation of the Bill. He begged to move the second reading.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(The Lord Advocate.)

MR. MARJORIBANKS said, he did not think it was at all clear that the Tweed Commissioners wished to be exempted. He knew the Chairman and Vice Chairman both very much wished that the Tweed should be in the Bill; and he hoped, if the Bill was not passed this year, that next Session they would again find the Tweed in the Bill.

COLONEL ALEXANDER said, he had an Amendment to the Bill, but it was not that he objected to the Bill. He approved of it, and he only wished it could be properly discussed. What he would like to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate was whether the Commissioners would have power to inspect the sea fisheries inshore as well as river fisheries? He explained the other night, on the Fishery Board Vote, that his constituents were anxious to stop beam-trawling; and he would like to know whether the new Fishery Board would have power to recommend, in proper cases, the abolition of beam-trawling inshore?

The Lord Advocate

MR. A. ELLIOT said, he had to express his thanks to the Lord Advocate for having intimated that when they got into Committee he would exempt the Tweed and its tributaries from the operations of the Bill. He put a block against the Bill, but removed it when he heard that the Tweed was to be exempted. The feeling was intensely strong against dealing in this way with the Tweed Fisheries Acts, which had already given considerable dissatisfaction. If these Acts were to be taken up, it was hoped they would be dealt with much more thoroughly than was now proposed.

MR. ANDERSON said, the Lord Advocate had acted wisely in agreeing to throw out the Tweed Fisheries from the purview of the Bill; but he sincerely hoped that if an attempt was made, here or elsewhere," to throw out all the salmon fisheries of Scotland, that attempt would be strongly resisted. It would make the Board weak and useless, and the same amount of good would not be done if the salmon fisheries of Scotland were exempted from the operation of the Bill.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL said, there was a great want of some general authority to regulate the salmon fisheries of Scotland. He was connected with a river which could be made a good salmon river if only a proper authority were constituted to look after it. With regard to deep-sea fisheries, he entirely agreed with what had been said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Alexander), that it was most desirable some authority should have the power to look into the question. At present, there was no question which was more obscure or difficult, and he hoped the Bill would give the new Board the power needed in this matter.

MR. R. W. DUFF said, that, in reply to his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Alexander), he had to say that the matter of inshore-trawling was more or less regulated by an Act which was passed last Session, under which, if a trawler was found within three miles of the shore, the local authority had power to apply to have certain restrictions placed upon trawling in the district. In this Bill there were no provisions directly interfering with trawling; but, at the same time, it was perfectly competent for the new Board to suggest regulations. He presumed these regulations