that the proposal to introduce salmon fisheries within the action of the Bill met with the unanimous approval of Scotch Members.

On the Motion of The LORD ADVOcate, the following Amendments made:-In page 2, line 18, after the word "of," insert "without interference with any existing public authority or private rights; sub-section (2), add "but without preand in same page, at end of judice to the powers of district boards."

rivers, whether they belonged to the Crown or to private persons. Strong representations had been made to him (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) that this would be a great grievance. The House, in his opinion, would never tolerate, and ought not to tolerate, the conferring of unlimited and undefined powers upon the Fishery Board as was proposed in Sub-section 2 of the clause. If the Salmon Acts required amendment, let the subject be brought before Parliament, by all means; but he objected altogether to the Board having general THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. superintendence of all the salmon fisheries BALFOUR) said, he wished to state, with in Scotland, and instituting regulations, reference to Sub-section 2, that it conprobably, for some peculiar purpose of ferred two powers. The first of these their own. Such a proposal was un- was that the Fishery Board should heard of, and had never been made in have the general superintendence of the that House before. If it was thought salmon fisheries of Scotland; the second necessary to give powers to the Board, was that they should have the powers the Bill should state what those powers and duties of Commissioners under the were to be. Not only were the powers Salmon Fishery Acts. Now, he would undefined by the Bill, but the right hon. state that the first of these declarations and learned Gentleman the Lord Ad- was precisely the same as that contained vocate had given the Committee no in- in the English Act of 1861, which proformation whatever upon the subject. vided that the general superintendence Under the clause as it stood, the owner of fisheries in England should be vested of a private river might be examined as in a Fishery Board. This portion of to the number of salmon he took in the the clause, then, was to extend to season, and the value of them. No one Scotland the identical power given to liked to have people going about and the English Fishery Board by an Act of inspecting their property, unless, of Parliament now 21 years old. Then, course, there was some good reason or with regard to the second declaration of absolute necessity for it. This portion the sub-section-this simply transferred of the Bill was so objectionable that he to the Fishery Board the duties already appealed to the right hon. and learned discharged by the Commissioners under Gentleman to withdraw it, and to allow the Fishery Acts. There was nothing it to be considered by a Committee of new in that either; and, therefore, he the House, with a view, if necessary, to thought the hon. and gallant Baronet alter the Salmon Laws; but, under any opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) could circumstances, to state what the powers not, with respect to the two powers proof the Fishery Board were to be. If posed to be given, successfully resist that were done, he thought they would this portion of the clause. The Amendbe justified in passing the Bill. He ment which had just been agreed to by wished the right hon. and learned Gen- the Committee on his (the Lord Advotleman to understand that his remarks cate's) Motion-namely, that the action applied exclusively to the proposed of the Board should be without prejudice powers of the Board with reference to to, or interference with, the powers of salmon fisheries-against their super- district boards, had reference to the apvision of deep-sea fisheries he had no-pointments which took place under the thing to say.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) said, the hon. and gallant Baronet who had just sat down (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was inaccurate in saying there had been no discussion on the Bill. It had been discussed on Friday night last, and again on the following day; and his recollection was Sir Walter B. Barttelot

Acts of 1862 and 1868, which gave power to appoint district boards, who were elected by some fishery proprietors interested in the different rivers. It was by no means the case, however, that boards had been elected for all the rivers, and some of those which were at one time elected had since disappeared. The next sub-section provided

that the Fishery Board should comply
with any instructions which might be
issued by Her Majesty's principal Secre-
tary of State for the Home Department,
and should make an annual Report to
him, containing a statistical account of
the fisheries, and suggestions for their
regulation and improvement, which Re-
port should be presented to Parliament.
That, of course, authorized the Secretary
of State to issue instructions which the
Board would be required to comply
with, and carry out. The second part
of the sub-section supplied that which
had always been a great desideratum in
Scotland-namely, the means of obtain-
ing full information with regard to the
Scotch salmon fisheries, and he trusted
that the result of this provision would
be to benefit those fisheries.
It was

stated by the hon. and gallant Baronet

that salmon fisheries were in no different

hoped he was right in understanding
that the words "without prejudice to
or interference with the powers of any
district board" would not allow any in-
terference with the present balance of
influence between the lower and upper
proprietors. That being so, he should
not be disposed to oppose the Bill on
behalf of the Petitioners.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Salmon fisheries).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be struck out of the Bill."-(The Lord Advocate.)

MR. BUCHANAN hoped there would be some explanation of the grounds on which the Tweed was to be exempted position from that of any other property from the operation of the Act. If one of the kind; but that proposition he (the river were exempted, he could see no Lord Advocate) was unable to admit, reason why that should not also be the either with regard to England or Scot-case with other rivers. He thought it land. Certainly, in Scotland, from the time of Alexander II. until now, salmon fisheries had been the subject of distinct legislation. On the whole, he thought there was nothing in the Bill which stood in need of any defence. There was no proposal to alter the law as applying either to sea or salmon fisheries. The Bill was simply for the purpose of constituting a Board to administer the law as it then existed, and, subject to any improvement which might be made therein, as they hoped it would

exist for some time to come.

MR. C. S. PARKER said, the thanks of the Committee were due to the hon. Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) for eliciting from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate the explanation he had just given with regard to the powers and scope of the Bill. It was evident that a rather strong feeling existed amongst the local boards in connection with the Bill. They seemed to fear that some mischief would result to them from it. They were, in fact, somewhat jealous of the authority that was to be created. He had himself presented a Petition from the district board on the Tay, which showed the existence of those feelings; but he thought the words which the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had just inserted in the clause would do much to remove apprehensions of the kind. He

VOL. CCLXXIII. THIRD SERIES.

ן.

was very much to be regretted that the Amendments which were being put from the Chair had not been printed in the usual way, so that hon. Members might have had an opportunity of seeing the alterations intended to be made in the Bill. With the exception of this Amendment, the rest were quite new to the Committee.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B.
BALFOUR) said, it was understood on a
former occasion that the Tweed was to
be exempted from the operation of the
Bill. There were two reasons for that,
as he had explained at the time. In the
first place, strong objections had been
expressed on the part of those interested
in the Tweed fisheries to the inclusion
of that river within the purview of the
Bill; and, in the second place, the
Tweed had always been the subject of
separate legislation-it had never been
For
brought under any Scotch Act.
these reasons, the course which had been
long followed had been taken with re-
gard to that river.

Question put, and agreed to.
Clause struck out accordingly.
Clause 8 agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

3 M

Lords Amendments considered, and as is often the case, moved next Friday agreed to.

PASSENGER VESSELS LICENCES (SCOT

LAND) BILL.-(No. 252.)
(The Earl of Rosebery.)

SECOND READING.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

inquired into, and this Bill was the result.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." -(The Lord Privy Seal.)

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said, he did not rise to object to the Bill, but medical officers of the Force had been to ask whether the position of the chief brought under the notice of the Government, and whether they would come

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it had passed the House of Commons, where there had been no dis-under the operation of the Bill? sentient voice raised against it. It dealt with the question of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors on board passenger vessels. These licences were now granted by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who were not the ordinary licensing authorities. It seemed that scenes of great scandal had occurred on some of the Glasgow Sunday boats owing to the sale of intoxicating liquors on board of them, and the object of this Bill was to give the Commissioners power to prevent such sale on Sundays. Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." -(The Earl of Rosebery.)

Motion agreed to; Bill read 2' accordingly.

Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3 To-morrow.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY

BILL.-(No. 255.)

(The Lord Privy Seal.)

SECOND READING.

SEAL) said, the point had been brought LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY to his notice a short time ago; but he was informed that the House of Lords would have no power to include any other officer in the Bill, as that would imply an official character. He had raised in the House of Commons, and been told that the question had been considered by the Irish Government; but they did not see their way to include in the benefits of the Bill any other

officers.

Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3 To-morrow.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS-
HYDE PARK CORNER.

THE MARQUESS OF AILESBURY asked Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is seriously intended to carry into effect

Order of the Day for the SecondRead- the alterations proposed by Her Maing read.

LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the Bill had come up from the House of Commons. The Bill was in the interest of the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, with whom alone it dealt, and its object was to improve the pay and pensions of those individuals. Their allowance, as well as the allowances of the men, had already been dealt with; but for the purpose of increasing their pay and pensions it was necessary that an Act should be passed. The measure also proposed a scheme of compulsory retirement, to be applied to the officers of the Constabulary, which was similar to the scheme in force amongst officers in the Army. The subject had been carefully

jesty's First Commissioner of Works at Hyde Park Corner; and, if so, when the said alterations may be expected to be commenced? The noble Marquess said, that in asking these Questions he had no intention whatever of finding fault with the scheme proposed by the First Commissioner of Works-quite the reverse; but what he wished was that the works should be commenced at once, as the nuisance was becoming every day more intolerable, even as early as 10 or 11 a.m., as well as 4 or 5 p.m. His reason, too, for pressing this on Her Majesty's Government was that as long ago as 1874 a Motion was carried and the sum of money required actually voted by the House of Commons on the proposal of the noble Lord at that time at the head of the Office of Works, then a Member of the other House for Chichester, and

nothing more was ever done about it. I exact date when the works would be When he (the Marquess of Ailesbury) completed; but he could assure him that, made further inquiry, he found that the the money having been agreed to by money had been repaid into the Treasury. Parliament, and the Metropolitan Board He trusted that Her Majesty's Govern- of Works and all parties having given ment would at once commence the works, their consent, everything would be done as they would certainly take six or eight to expedite the completing of the improvemonths to complete, or till Parliament ments as soon as possible. In reply to should meet next year. the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Milltown), he had to say that it was not proposed at present to open Constitution

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN said, that he desired to supplement the Question of the noble Marquess by asking whe-Hill to the public. The question had ther, in the event of these proposed im- not been under consideration. provements being effected, the Government would avail themselves of the opportunity thus afforded to throw open the roadway down Constitution Hill to the public? He asserted that if the contemplated improvements were carried out the exclusion of the public from the roadway in question would be more than ever a grievance. He was satisfied that this proposal would meet with the approval of Her Majesty, who throughout her long and happy Reign had ever considered the convenience of her subjects. Carriages and other vehicles had been allowed to pass in front of Buckingham Palace, and this road would run at the back of the Palace. The public use of it would be a great convenience, and at the same time no nuisance to anybody.

LORD SUDELEY said, that he had to state that immediately the Vote was passed by the other House steps were at once taken to commence carrying out the great improvement at Hyde Park Corner. The first thing that had to be done was to remove the reservoir from its present position to a suitable place in Hyde Park, and tenders had already been invited for carrying this out. The First Commissioner had not yet decided whether the Duke of Wellington's Arch could be moved in one block on rollers, or whether it would be necessary to pull it down and rebuild it; but it was hoped that this matter would be settled in a few days. The Government hoped that cutting off the corner of Green Park would entirely remove the congestion of traffic, which had for so long been a standing nuisance to that part of the Metropolis; and they believed that of the numerous schemes which had been suggested, this formation of a large "place would be the boldest and happiest solution of a somewhat difficult problem. He

THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE said, that he was very glad that what was now proposed was to be carried out; but he was convinced that the block in the traffic at Hyde Park Corner would never be got rid of until a subway had been made from Hamilton Place, under Piccadilly, to Grosvenor Place. He was aware that the construction of such a subway would be a very expensive matter, and that all sorts of difficulties connected with water and gas pipes and sewers would have to be encountered; but, in his opinion, these difficulties ought to be overcome, because the block at Hyde Park Corner was really a disgrace to a great city like this.

THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES) asked whether it would not be possible to place the statue of the Duke of Wellington on a pedestal opposite to Apsley House?

LORD SUDELEY said, that the First Commissioner had received a great many representations respecting what should be done with the statue of the Duke of Wellington. Among many conflicting opinions, he had not yet decided what would be best to be done; but if the Arch were obliged to be pulled down, then he would take care that experiments were made to see how the Duke would look on a pedestal in the middle of the proposed place" or similar position. If the Arch were not pulled down, but were rolled into its new position without having to take down the statue, then it was probable it would be better to leave it alone. The matter was, however, still under consideration.

"

TRIPOLI-SAFETY OF BRITISH

SUBJECTS.

MOTION FOR PAPERS.

EARL DE LA WARR, in rising to call

could not give the noble Marquess an the attention of Her Majesty's Govern

The Marquess of Ailesbury