sistency of the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew He MR. J. W. BARCLAY said, he was quite ready to bear willing testimony to the desire of the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) to look after the morality, not only of the people of England, but of the people of his native country; but he thought it was a pity to take up the time of the House in considering mere cheeseparing economies, and in discussing such comparatively small matters. For his (Mr. Barclay's) own part, horse-racing was rather contrary to his taste; but, nevertheless, he believed that the people of Scotland, if polled, would be found to be in favour of the granting of these Queen's Plates. He knew, at least, one Northern town in which this question decided the fate of a municipal election. par and those who were in favour of horseracing carried the day by a large majority. The people liked to have a holiday. He did not say that, if the thing were to be done anew, this particular sum ought to be devoted to this particular purpose. No doubt, the money might flow into more useful channels; but, seeing that it had been devoted for a specific object, he did not think it ought to be cut off on the present occasion. Seeing, too, that a still larger portion of the public money was voted for a similar purpose to England, he thought that the hon. Baronet should endeavour to deal with the latter portion of the United Kingdom before attempting to deal with Scotland or with Ireland. SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY said, the Scotch Members found, after the Vote had been removed, that their constituents were not satisfied that the Votes should be continued to Ireland. They thought, if money was voted to Ireland, that it should be voted to Scotland also. It was a very small Vote; and although he did not know that it did a great deal of good in the way of improving the breed of horses in Scotland, he was satisfied that it was a popular one, and he hoped it would be continued. MR. RAMSAY, who rose amid considerable interruption, said, hon. Gentlemen evidently did not wish to hear a single word against the Vote, because they were so fond of racing. The hon. Baronet the Member for Peebleshire (Sir Graham Montgomery) spoke about improving the breed of horses; but he (Mr. Ramsay) did not know any class of Scotchmen who took any interest in the breeding of race-horses, except those who were interested in the Turf, and their number was very limited. If it had been a proposal to encourage and improve the breed of farmstead horses, such as the Clydesdale, he could have understood it; but there was no advantage to the public generally in improving the breed of race-horses. If the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) went to a Division, he should support him. Question put. The Committee divided:--Ayes 30; The question arose as to whether the Town Council of that Noes 107: Majority 77.-(Div. List, ticular place should grant the use of the No. 88.) links for the purpose of horse-racing, Original Question put, and agreed to. (11.) Motion made, and Question pro- | into the designs and construction of the posed, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,783, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scot land, and certain Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays." GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR called the attention of the Committee to the facts that, while Scotland had to contribute largely in the form of taxes to the construction and repair of harbours in the United Kingdom, and that while the sum of between £40,000 and £50,000 was at present being spent upon Dover Harbour alone, the amount expended on the harbours of Scotland amounted only to the miserable sum of £3,000, notwithstanding that these Scotch harbours were a source of revenue to the extent of £7,000 a-year from the tax on barrels of herrings. His object in doing so was to point out that in the distribution of funds raised by Imperial taxes on all classes of the Kingdom, in the mode in which this money was voted for harbour purposes, great favouritism was shown in respect of England and Ireland, as compared with Scotland; and what was far more objectionable was that, after all, the country had no security that any efficient harbours would be constructed at all. He intended to make use of every opportunity which presented itself to bring this subject before Her Majesty's Government, not with the view of preventing the necessary outlay of money upon harbours, so urgently needed along our coasts, especially on the Scotch North-east coast, but in order to urge upon them the necessity of ascertaining how far harbours in various parts of the Kingdom could be designed and perfected by means of investigations into the extensive failures in the past. In foreign countries harbours had been constructed on good designs, and completed in an admirable manner; but, as he had continually impressed upon the Government, many of the harbours in Scotland, as well as in England and Ireland, were utter failures. He trusted that the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be directed to this question by the Secretary to the Treasury, with a view to instituting inquiries most important harbours at home and abroad, as to the causes of success or failure, in the hope that the knowledge thereby collected would be useful in making this expenditure of some use to the country; otherwise, he should certainly ask that this Vote should be abolished. If it was in his power to move to increase the Vote to Scotland to £20,000, and if he knew that the engineers could design harbours likely to be useful, he would do so; but that was impossible. The Rules of the House prevented the Motion of increase, and the failures in harbour works in the past satisfied him that any further expenditure would be throwing good money after bad; and he must, therefore, remain content with raising his voice against expending money to no useful purpose. MR. MARK STEWART asked if in the charges for the Salmon Fisheries Commission the Solway salmon fishing was included, or did that merely refer to sea fisheries? MR. O'DONNELL said, that on the last occasion, when he had the opportunity, he supported the claims of Scotland; and though he rose on the present occasion to move a reduction in this Vote, he was by no means really hostile to the expenditure of the money mentioned under this head. However, following the example of the Scotch Members who the other day moved the reduction of the English Vote under the Poor Law Estimate, because there was not enough on the same head laid out in Scotland, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £5,000, inasmuch as if Ireland was being dealt with justly, Scotland was being dealt with at a most extravagant rate. The fact was, that on this Vote he wished to draw attention to the manner in which the Scotch fisheries were subsidized, and their competition with the Irish fisheries facilitated unfairly, by means of the public money. There was no doubt that the reason why this very much larger sum was demanded for Scotland was that the fisheries in that country were still an especial care of the Government; while, in Ireland, the fisheries were scandalously neglected. The result of that was that in all the markets of the world the fisheries of Scotland were able, thus subsidized and protected by the Government, to beat the Irish fisheries. Without going to the length of Protectionism, he believed that all the fisheries of the country ought, as far as possible, to be the object of especial care on the part of the Government; and had there been anything like a fair distribution of this care between Scotland and Ireland, he would have been the very last to say a word against the assistance given to the Scotch fisheries, because he believed that the development of the fisheries in Ireland and Scotland, so far as it could be aided by inspection and judicious direction, was an object eminently worthy of the fostering care of Parliament. As had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) on a previous occasion "A great naval Empire ought to seek to foster the fisheries about its coasts, because a race of hardy fishermen would be amongst the best re cruits for the Naval Service." But, besides that, the disparagement of the Irish fisheries deprived the country of a source of wealth. Not many years ago 120,000 people found a livelihood in the fisheries of Ireland. But the trade had since suffered terribly, and the Government continued steadily advancing money to its Scotch rivals and competitors, whom they directly subsidized by supplying the cost of branding, as well as the machinery necessary for that purpose, although the trade had developed to such an extent that the expenses of branding could now be paid out of the fees charged to the fishermen. Why was not a sufficiently large sum Voted to provide branding establishments in Ireland? He had no doubt whatever, that if that were granted, the same results would follow in Ireland as in Scotland, and that the expense would be fully borne by the fees paid by Irish fishermen and persons engaged in the fishing trade. It was useless to say that this Vote did not give a direct and unfair advantage to one set of fishermen over another; for it was very well known that in the markets of the Continent-where there was a great prejudice in favour of Governmentalism, and where our laisser faire system was not understood-if two barrels of herrings, one Scotch and the other Irish, were for sale, nine out of ten buyers would choose the former, because it had upon it a Government brand, notwithstanding that the herrings in the other might be of as VOL. CCXLVI. [THIRD SERIES.] good quality. If branding was necessary in Scotland, it was also necessary in Ireland; and he thought that the Scotch Members should, therefore, give some pledge that they would aid the Irish in their endeavour to obtain a system similar to their own. His Motion for the reduction of the Vote was only technical, and intended to raise this point in a manner by no means hostile to the people of Scotland. So far from the latter being the case, he believed the money was well laid out, and contended only that the same system should be extended to Ireland. Not only ought Scotchmen, but Englishmen, to have an interest in promoting the welfare of the Irish fishermen, who had never been accused of giving any trouble by their political proclivities. No trade in Ireland had suffered more terribly than the fishing trade; still, he believed that no trade could be more easily resuscitated if proper care were bestowed upon it; and with that view, he trusted that the Committee would give some indication of their opinions and put a little gentle pressure upon the Government. order to bring about the desired improvement, he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,000. In Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,783, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and in course of payment during the year ending on Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland and certain Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays."(Mr. O'Donnell.) LORD ELCHO said, there was no doubt that immense benefit had been derived in Scotland from the grant of £3,000 for quays and harbours, and he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) in thinking that it would be better that a larger sum should be granted for those purposes. Many persons in Scotland were anxious to have harbours of their own; there was, however, great difficulty in their getting loans for that purpose, and he thought it would be good policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government to increase the present grant. But his object in rising was to point out the present condition of the harbour of Dunbar in his own county. There were, in fact, two harbours at Dunbar-one G formed by the old sea wall, the other a new and well-constructed work, joined to it at an expense, he believed, of £50,000 or £60,000. Now, the storms of this and the previous year had knocked great holes in the walls of both the old and the new harbours, and rendered the place utterly worthless for the security of the 600 or 1,000 boats which, when the season came on, were sometimes to be seen there. According to the statement of the engineer, the harbour could only be entered in calms and with a steady sea. He (Lord Elcho) understood that but a small sum was necessary to place it in a state of repair; and he, therefore, thought it would be wise to restore it before it got into a worse condition. If, as he was informed, £2,000 or £3,000 would be sufficient for this purpose, he believed the Government would be showing wise economy in spending that sum of money, and he looked with satisfaction upon the fact that the engineer of the Fishery Board had been ordered to report upon the state of the harbour as an indication that the Government would not allow that, to his mind, well-built structure, which, as he had said, had cost the country already £50,000 or £60,000, to crumble away. in favour of the system of branding MR. RAMSAY agreed that the case of the harbour of Dunbar, described by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), was one that ought to be specially considered. His object, however, in rising was to point out that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was, to some extent, under a misapprehension in using the term "subsidy" with reference to this particular Vote. The sum of £5,000, by which he wished the Vote to be reduced, was more than the sum asked to SIR ALEXANDER GORDON said, be voted, so far as the Treasury was the argument used by the noble Lord concerned, the receipts for branding, of the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord which the hon. Member complained, Elcho) in urging the Government to vote being £7,610, as against £5,430, the more money for Dunbar was the most amount of the grant; so that the brand- remarkable he had ever heard. The ing, instead of being a cost to the coun- sum of £3,000 annually was not put try, was actually a source of profit. into the Estimates by the Government of When, therefore, matters arrived at that their own accord; but it was under the promising state in Ireland, the Govern- provisions of a very old Act of Parliament would have no difficulty in ap-ment, and the money was intended to pointing persons to brand herrings be applied to the repair of harbours there in the same way as in Scotland. throughout Scotland. The noble Lord He believed, however, the hon. Mem- told them that Dunbar had already reber would find that the larger fish-ceived no less than £50,000 or £60,000 curers in Scotland were not so much out of that annual grant. Lord Elcho LORD ELCHO observed, that he had said nothing of the kind. The money spent in the construction of the new harbour at Dunbar had nothing to do with the £3,000 annual grant. SIR ALEXANDER GORDON replied that it came to much the same thing, as it was all public money; and because £50,000 had been granted for the local benefit of Dunbar, that scarcely justified them in asking for more. He (Sir Alexander Gordon) lived on a part of the coast very much exposed to the North Sea, and thickly populated by fishermen. In the North, they built harbours with their own money, and did not come to the Government for assistance. The noble Lord would, in his (Sir Alexander Gordon's) opinion, act wisely in encouraging the people of Dunbar to do the same. If the local proprietors came forward as liberally in the South of Scotland, the noble Lord would find that Dunbar harbour would soon be repaired. In regard to the branding question, if the fishermen of the West Coast of Ireland showed the same energy as the people in the North of Scotland, they would soon establish their fishing, and then the Government grant would come to them, instead of, as at present, the fishing coming to the Government. SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON said, he trusted the different parts of the United Kingdom would not be brought into rivalry with each other as to their share of the public grants, but that each case as it arose would be dealt with in accordance with the necessity of the ease. It would be a very unfortunate state of things if they were obliged to measure out so many pounds or halfcrowns to Scotland when she did not want them, merely because so much money had been voted to England or Ireland. With regard to the proper investment of money in harbour works, he believed that the investigation suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) might be very usefully and properly carried out; but this particular expenditure of £3,000 was incurred under an old Act of Parliament as mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), and was renewed annually, for the purpose of repairing the harbours in Scotland. It was intended to apply a portion of this amount to the harbour of Burnmouth, a place where £2,000 had already been raised by the local authorities for that purpose, and in such a case as that, where the people of the locality desired to improve their harbour and came forward with a considerable portion of the money required, he thought the grant might very properly be made. The money was sometimes given to one part of Scotland and sometimes to another. As to Dunbar, he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), that when so large a sum of public money had been spent on that harbour, it would be false economy to let it go to ruin for the want of £2,000 or £3,000; therefore, since the matter had fallen under his notice, he had directed a Report to be drawn up with a view to ascertain in what way the necessary repairs could be met. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) relating to branding, which was really the subject of the discussion, he would point out that the sum expended in branding was far more than covered by the amount received in fees under that system. He should like the Committee, also, to remember that it was not in every case that that system would meet with favour, supposing it were applied, because, as had often been pointed out, it was only in the case of the small fish-curers that it was supposed to be of great assistance, and it was on that account alone that he thought the Scotch Members and the Scotch people generally would regret to see the branding done away with. He was glad that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had drawn attention to the discussion of last year, because it gave him (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) an opportunity of pointing out that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had, on that occasion, deprecated the taking from Scotland of a Vote simply because another part of the Kingdom did not get it. He hoped, therefore, the Committee would agree to the continuance of the Vote, in the belief that it was acceptable to the people of Scotland, and that it really did some good. He would venture to suggest, with regard to the sum of £3,000 expended on piers and harbours, that although it was small, it might still be very serviceable; and wherever it was shown |