CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS. (Hansard, 9 August 1887)

HC Deb 09 August 1887 vol 318 cc1732-820 1732

§ (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £5,143, 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 clay of March 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Officers.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)
I do not think it will be necessary for 1733 me to move a reduction of this Vote; because I have no doubt that the Lord Advocate will be able to give the Committee some assurance on the matter to which. I wish to direct their attention. It may be in the recollection of some of the Members of the Committee, that more than once during this Session and last I have called attention to the damage inflicted both upon the fishermen and upon the people living in the neighbourhood of Loch Long and Loch Goil by the deposit of offensive matter at the mouth of Loch Long, in connection with the sewage and drainage works under the control of the Clyde Trust. The Lord Advocate when put a question to him some time ago, gave a promise that an inquiry should be made by the Scotch officials, and I believe that some kind of inquiry either has been made, or is in progress. What I want to point out to the Committee is, that the fouling of the water has gone on upon a very large scale since I last brought the matter before the House. In June, several chemical boats discharged about 500 tons of this filthy matter into the river, and all through July and also in the present month, the boats of the Clyde Trust have been engaged in discharging matter of an offensive kind. Perhaps I may he allowed to state to the Committee very briefly what the fishermen and residents say upon the subject, and what is the position which has to be met. One of the oldest fishermen in Loch Long states— It is the opinion of the fishermen here that there has been great harm done to the fishing in Loch Goil and Loch Long by the dredge bouts of the Clyde Trustees being emptied at the foot of the Loch. There are banks in Loch Long and Loch Goil where we used to get from 18 to 20 stone of white fish, and now with the same kind of lines we will not get the third of that quantity. It is the fishermen's opinion that the dirt drifts into the banks and spoils the spawn; during the time of the herring fishing I have seen so much dirt and scum on the water when it was calm weather that I could hardly haul the nets, and it would take us hours to wash the filth from them when we came in. I have always heard complaints about it being a nuisance both to bathers and fishermen. A gentleman residing at Loch Goilhead says— The pollution you have witnessed I can assure you extends even to the heart of Loch Guil—a considerable number of miles from the place where the filth is deposited.—Tho water, naturally 50 beautifully pure, is frequently in 1734 such a state that it detracts grievously from the charm of the locality, even being quite unfit to bathe in. So offensive is the matter deposited, that some men engaged in the construction of a new pier refused to continue to work, the conditions under which they were working being so unfavourable. The same gentleman I quoted just now writes— The Coalport Pier is a ease in point. The construction of this work was rendered very difficult through the presence of a deep lied of the Clyde dredgings overlying the natural bottom of the Loch. So foul was the deposit that the contractor had difficulty in getting his men to work in the 'slurry'" The reason these men have assigned is, and the Lord Advocate will correct me if I am wrong, that as far as the inquiry has already proceeded, the fact has been ascertained that so great has been the quantity of the deposits that they have entirely changed the bottom of the banks of a great part of the Loch. It is not a bottom with shifting soil, but is coin-posed of what is known as the "old fire rocks," upon which this filth, when deposited, accumulates. An inquiry took place within a week of the time at which I am now speaking. The account I have received of it states— A meeting of proprietors, residents, and fishermen was held last night in Blairmore, Sir John Douglas in the chair, for the purpose of affording Dr. Littlejohn an opportunity of hearing parties on the subject of injury to fishing. Soundings of the Loch itself were taken to ascertain to what appreciable extent the formation of shoals has taken place. Mr. Yevous drew a sample of the polluted water, which he handed to Dr. Littlejohn. Sir John Douglas said that it was not half as opaque a mixture as he could furnish Dr. Littlejohn. Upon the subject of injury to fishing, the evidence was most startling and conclusive. When the Lord Advocate replied to me on this question some time ago, I understood him to be sensible of the gravity of the matter, but further, I understood him to say that he considered it rather a matter for the Local Authorities, and for the individuals injured to deal with than for the Government to take action upon. Now, with all submission to the Government, I think it is utterly impossible for these poor fishermen to fight such a powerful body as the Clyde Trust, nor do I think it would be easy, even if it were lawful, for a number of Local Authorities to combine and find funds for the conduct of a prosecution. I am 1735 very much inclined to believe that the law of champerty and maintenance would preclude that; and that it would be impossible for the Local Authorities to make themselves co-plaintiffs, or co-prosecutors, in any proceeding. I believe the easiest plan would be for the Government to take action in the matter, if they are in a position to prove that a nuisance has been committed. I believe they have evidence of the existence of a nuisance, and also of the great amount of injury inflicted upon a number of the poor fishermen, who have been driven almost into starvation in some of the districts of Loch Long opposite the mouth of which the Clyde Trust now bring their boats and discharge this offensive matter on the edge of the Loch. Many of the residences have been rendered uninhabitable during a considerable portion of the year; and persons who have been, in the habit of resorting to this locality for the purpose of bathing have been compelled to leave it. In a small bay—the bay of Ardentinny-—there is an absolute bank of filth, of considerable extent, which is being daily enlarged. Under these circumstances, I venture to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can say something that will be satisfactory to these poor fishermen; and, whether he can hold out any hope that the Government will take steps to put a stop to the nuisance?

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)
There can be no question that the matter to which the hon. Member has referred on more than one occasion is one which requires to be dealt with in some way or other. Since the hon. Member last mentioned the subject, not only have inquiries been made by the Board of Supervision, by the direction of my right hon. Friend now the Chief Secretary for Ireland, but reports have been obtained from persons of skill, and these reports bring out that there has been a very extensive and improper pollution of the districts of the loch to which the hon. Member refers. Dr. Littlejohn, who is probably one of our most skilled investigators in matters of this kind, was some time ago instructed to make an examination, and he has made a temporary report indicating what he has observed; but as regards the question 1736 of health, he proposes to go into it with more care, and to investigate it thoroughly, for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is ground for the belief that the present state of things is injurious to health, or is likely to become so. I must, however, point out to the Committee that there are two things which seem to be decidedly objectionable. The one is that the Clyde Trustees, in taking up the polluted refuse from the bottom of the River Clyde, save themselves the trouble and expense of sending it sufficiently far out to sea, and deposit it in places where it is not right and proper that it should be deposited, and if that process is carried on to any considerable extent it cannot be otherwise than most injurious to health. In addition to that, during the last year or more a large chemical company has been in the practice of sending large quantities of refuse from their works down the river, and depositing it also at places where it is not proper that it should be deposited. It is quite evident that the Clyde Trustees and the Chemical Company could send their refuse sufficiently far out to sea to make it perfectly safe. That they do not do that now is quite certain. The whole matter resolves itself into a question of expense. I can assure the hon. Member that the question is not being lost sight of. We are receiving from day to day information with regard to it; and the Secretary for Scotland is most anxious to take any action that the law allows him to take. It is very difficult to decide how such a matter is to be dealt with. I am not sure that unless the Secretary for Scotland can establish real danger to the public that he can take steps to put a stop to what is going on. If the Secretary for Scotland finds that his powers are sufficient to deal with the matter, I can assure the hon. Member that these powers will be exercised; and if he finds that he has not sufficient powers, the question will be most carefully considered as to what steps ought to be taken for the purpose of putting an end to this seriously objectionable state of things.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH
The answer of the Lord Advocate is in the highest degree satisfactory; and I thank the Government for the great pains they have taken in the matter. If it should turn out that it is not in the power of the Secretary for Scotland to deal with 1737f the matter, I would suggest that a short Bill might be introduced next Session to prohibit this deposit nearer than. Ailsa Craig. I have no wish to fix the precise spot, but I am informed that, except the question of expense, there will be no difficulty in taking this refuse as far as Ailsa Craig, from whence it could not find its way into the land loched waters or do any harm whatever.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR (Kincardine)
I see there is a Vote of £9,000 for the Office of the Secretary for Scotland. I want to know whether any portion of that sum has been taken from other Departments which have been discontinued, and, if so, to what extent the charges on the country have been increased by the creation of this Office?

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
I understand the hon. and gallant Member to ask how much of this item of£9,143 is for additional expenses. If I remember rightly there has been nothing added to the Vote, since the Department was formed. There has certainly been nothing additional in the shape of salaries.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
What I wished to know was what the cost has been of transferring the Department from the Home Office to Dover House?

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
I cannot say at the present moment.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
The information would, I think, be of importance, because it would enable the Committee to judge what the duties are which have been taken over. At present we have no idea of the value of the work performed by the Department. For my own part, I think that the Office of Lord Advocate ought to be abolished, and the Department of Secretary for Scotland made more efficient. At all events, we ought to have the Secretary for Scotland in this House, or someone to answer for him. The present state of affairs is most unsatisfactory. There is another point upon which I wish for information. On four occasions I have asked a simple question as to when the returns in reference to local taxation are to be given. I have questioned not only the Lord Advocate and his Predecessor, but also the First Lord of the Treasury without effect, and I find that the Return is more 1738 backward now since it came into the hands of the new Scotch Department than it ever was before. So far as the cost of the Office of the Secretary for Scotland is concerned, it is out of all proportion to the benefit Scotland derives from the existence of the Office; and it is a most unsatisfactory arrangement to have the head of the Department in the House of Lords.

§ MR. E. ROBERTSON (Dundee)
I am very glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has called attention to this very important question of expenditure. The question submitted by my hon. and gallant Friend was how much does the Office of Secretary for Scotland cost the country. We know how much it is worth to the country, and we want to know what it costs. I have been extracting some figures from official documents which give, to some extent, an answer to the question. The Scottish Secretary's Office costs £9,143. In "another place "the Secretary for Scotland resented, with indignation, the supposition that his Office costs as much as £10,000 a-year. He said it was only about £7,000. Yet we have here a single item that amounts to £9,143. But that is not anything like the whole expense. The most important department of the office is that connected with education, and I find that the expense of the London Office for the management of Scottish education is £9,455. Then there is the cost of the building in which the department is accommodated. The annual value of Dover House is, I believe, very considerable. I do not know whether it is leased as Government property, or whether it has been purchased; but the expenditure upon it cannot be much less than £3,000 a-year. [An hon. MEMBER: £2,800.] Then we may call it £3,000 in round numbers. In one of the other Estimates we have passed there was a considerable sum put down for the furnishing of the office, and what other items there may not he scattered through the Estimate I do not know. Taking all the figures I have before me, I find that the Scottish Secretary's Office, instead of costing only £10,000, costs something more nearly approaching £20,000 a-year. It may be said that some of the work connected with the Education Department is done by means of English expenditure and the cost defrayed under the head of 1739 English items. How that may be I do not know; but it is one of the points upon which I think the Committee ought to have information. We ought to know how much additional expenditure has been caused by the creation of highly-paid offices in order to provide for the management of Scottish education and other business offices which were not in existence before the Secretary for Scotland was appointed. The Secretary himself has £2,000 a-year; Sir Francis Sandford, the permanent Under Secretary, £1,500 a-year. Then there are a Private Secretary, an Assistant Under Secretary, and other officers. The permanent Under Secretary, in addition to his salary, receives a pension for services in connection with another Government office. [Mr. J. H. A. MAC-DONALD: That is not so.] I think we are entitled to know exactly how much additional expenditure has been inflicted on the country by the creation of the new office. We are going, I believe, on Wednesday next to discuss a Bill which deals with the Office of Secretary for Scotland if other important orders can be finished in time to reach it. Therefore, I will not follow my hon. and gallant Friend at length into the important question he has suggested, rather than raised, as to the utility of the Office of Secretary for Scotland. I agree with him, as an outsider, that the business of Scotland was as well, if not better, done by the Lord Advocate in former days than it is now by this elaborate machinery of the Scottish Secretary. If I were in the position of the Lord Advocate, I should feel ashamed of myself and of my immediate Predecessors, who have succeeded in destroying the prestige and efficiency of the great and noble Office which he now fills, and which they have allowed to be replaced by this Brummagem Office of Secretary of State for Scotland. Whatever the facts of the case may be, as to the additional expenditure which the Office of the Scottish Secretary has brought upon the country, I want to warn hon. Members from Scotland that in all probability they have not seen the end of this increased expenditure. Most of us here have heard hints dropped that the expenditure is likely to rise higher. It has been suggested that the Office of Secretary for Scotland is not sufficiently dignified, and that we must 1740 make him a Secretary of State, with a seat in the Cabinet, and a salary of £5,000 a-year instead of £2,000, and have an Under Secretary to answer questions in this House when the head of the Department is in the House of Lords, which means at least £1,500 a-year additional. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardine (Sir George Balfour) for having raised the question, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will be in a position to tell us what is the extra expenditure imposed on the country by the creation of the Office.

§ MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)
I heartily endorse all that has been said by my hon. Friends as to the very unsatisfactory position of the Scottish Secretary's Office. Speaking as a very humble Member of the House, I am prepared to say that since the removal of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland and the appointment of the Marquess of Lothian, the Office has, so far as this House is concerned, been practically closed. It was originally intended, before the Act was passed, that the Office of Secretary for Scotland should be held by a Minister of high position, and also a Member of the House of Commons. That was the position of affairs until the unfortunate removal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour) from the post he was so well qualified to fill to another which he was altogether unfitted to fill, and the appointment in his place of Lord Lothian. The Marquess of Lothian before his appointment had no departmental experience, and he was not a Minister in any sense of the word. It was never intended that a nobleman who had had no departmental experience should be placed in an important Office of this kind. I cannot help thinking that it is rarely possible to put a man into such an Office as that of an important Minister of State all at once. To fit him for the Office he must have had some previous practical experience. This nobleman had had no experience whatever. He had never been in any Office at all, and I think that it was one of the most unfortunate steps that have ever been taken by a Government. Surely there might have been found in this House some hon. Member who was fit for the Office. The Conservative Party 1741 is very numerous, and the Government ought to have large supplies upon which they could draw, and I cannot understand how it has happened that they have been unable to find in this House an hon. Member whom they could appoint. The result has been that the Scottish Business in this House has been in a state of indescribable confusion. First of all, we ask questions of the Home Secretary; he tells us to put them to the Lord Advocate, as he, of course, knows nothing about Scotch Business. [Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD dissented.] The Lord Advocate shakes his head. What I desire to point out is that the Act of Parliament in creating the Office of Secretary for Scotland placed the business of the department in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland only. The Lord Advocate has no more jurisdiction and no more power to discharge the duties which were conferred by Statute upon the Secretary for Scotland than has the Home Secretary or anybody else. The object of the Act was to do away with the Lord Advocate, to prevent him from interfering in matters over which he has no real jurisdiction, and to place in the hands of a paid official the whole of the Scottish Business. What the Lord Advocate really does is this. He is reduced to the position of replying to any question put to him by reading from a paper something which, I suppose he has got from Lord Lothian. The consequence is this. If the answer is not satisfactory, he is asked for a further explanation, but the Lord Advocate is absolutely dump. He says that he cannot give any further information, and that the Member who asks the question, must give Notice of it. Surely that is not the way to conduct the Business of this House, and hon. Members have only to compare it with the way in which Irish Business is conducted. The Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant is a Cabinet Minister; he has a seat in this House; but even that is not enough, so he is assisted by someone else—the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Assistant Secretary. No doubt, the Scotch Members are much more lamblike than the Members from Ireland; but they think it is not too much to claim that Scottish Business should be attended to in the House of Commons by some official Secretary or Under Secretary, who is primarily responsible for it. As the 1742 Government have seen fit to depart from the original intention of Parliament in creating the Office of Secretary for Scotland, and as they have not appointed some Minister who has a seat in this House, I propose to reduce the Vote for the salary of the Secretary. Although £2,000 a-year may not have been an unfair or unreasonable salary for the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, when he filled the Office, seeing the work he had to do, that he could at all times be approached by the Scotch Members, and the hours he is compelled to sit here during the day, I think everybody will agree that one-half of that sum is quite ample for the salary of the present holder of the Office. I beg to move, therefore, that the salary of the present Secretary of State for Scotland be reduced by the sum of £1,000.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, for Salaries, be reduced by the sum of £ 1,000."—(Mr. Anderson.)

§ MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)
I think my hon. Friends who have made reference to this matter have forgotten the circumstances under which the Secretary for Scotland was appointed. They say that the Lord Advocate has been denuded of his prestige and powers; but they should remember that the Lord Advocate never had any prestige or power in the House of Commons. I will make hon. Members a present of the word" prestige." and will confine my remarks to the word "power." The Lord Advocate, in former days, was under the Home Secretary, and he had no power to deal with Scottish matters with any degree of authority. How far power and authority were given him by the courtesy of the House and of the Government is another matter, and so far as courtesy is concerned, it will be extended, no doubt, to the right hon. Gentleman now. The Secretary for Scotland was appointed in order that the Scottish Business might receive more attention. I can understand that the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Robertson.) should feel inclined to stick to his own profession. He says that the Lord Advocate ought to be the man to represent Scotland in this House, because he belongs to the Legal Profession, and the hon. and learned Member arrives at that conclusion because he sees that if 1743 it were adopted generally, all the Offices in connection with the management of Scottish affairs would be absorbed by the Legal Profession. But those who are outside that profession have never been of that opinion, and do not think that the whole of the business of Scotland should be in the hands of any single profession, however respectable. But while I disavow some of the sentiments expressed by the hon. and learned Member, which appear to me to have sprung from a misunderstanding, I quite agree with him in believing that the Scotch constituencies are, to a great extent, responsible for the creation of the Office of Secretary for Scotland. The constituents of the hon. Member as well as my own were originally strongly in favour of the new Office. What was asked for at that time was, that there should be such a concentration of Offices in Scotland under one head as would render the Department more efficient and economical, and we were told at the time that, by having the Scottish Department under one head, we should be able to do away with a number of officials who were then necessary. I am bound to say, speaking as an economist, that we ought to draw our attention to much more important matters than the fuss which we have been making over a dinner in Edinburgh. While I object strongly to all the guzzling which goes on, and am ready to admit that the cost of this particular dinner was most extravagant, I would ask what is it compared with the payment of £12,000 a-year for the Secretary for Scotland's Office while we get nothing from it. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Dundee has greatly underrated the importance of the Education Department. I believe that Department is under efficient management.

§ MR. E. ROBERTSON
May I be allowed to explain. I made no such imputation as my hon. Friend seems to suppose. I only asked the Lord Advocate to toll us how much is the additional expenditure brought about by the creation of the new Office, and the transfer of education to that Office.

§ MR. ESSLEMONT
I am glad my hon. Friend rose to make that explanation, because he went on to show that the Secretary for Scotland's Office costs £20,000 a-year, including the cost of Scotch education. I am willing to take 1744 the actual cost at one-half of that sum, but what we spent before on the Education Department is spent now, and cannot well be dispensed with to any appreciable extent, if we had no Secretary for Scotland at all. Nevertheless, a sum of £10,000 a-year is a serious sum to pay for the Office of Secretary for Scotland, and the hon. and learned Member for Dundee has not informed us whether the cost of the Office without taxes, which I believe amounts to £2,800 a-year, is included. In making these remarks let me disavow any personal criticism of the nobleman who at present holds the Office as Secretary for Scotland. I do not know him personally very much. I have only come in contact with him a few times since his appointment, but I am bound to say that in the small intercourse I have had with him the Secretary for Scotland has shown the greatest courtesy, and every desire to do what he can for the people of Scotland. But how can he? He belongs to the Conservative Party, which is in a miserable minority, to say the least, in Scotland. He is not in touch with the constituencies of Scotland—indeed, he is bound not to approach them on account of his noble disabilities. He has no place in the Government, and therefore he cannot influence the Government. He is not in the House of Commons, so he cannot be in touch with the people's Representatives, and he is placed in such a position that he represents nobody. He can do nothing for anybody. The salary is not too much, probably not enough, for the Secretary for Scotland, actually at the head of the whole Scottish Business, but at the present moment the appointment is purely an ornamental one, purely honorary. For that reason I venture to suggest that it should be held as an honorary appointment, with no salary attached, and for that reason I had intended to propose the reduction of the vote by £2,000. I do not, however, mean to say that we are to have a Scottish Secretary who should be paid as much as other Ministers. I certainly do not think £2,000 a-year too much, provided we could give the holder of the Office work to do. I have no desire to enter into a discussion of the Bill which is to come on to-morrow. I would only express a hope that the additional powers proposed to be conferred upon the Secretary for Scotland 1745 by that Bill will render the Office effective. I shall not, therefore, push my Amendment to a Division, or trouble the Committee to discuss it after the discussion which has taken place. But I wish to take the opportunity of saying that this Office has been a disappointment. It has added a great deal of expense without adding any great efficiency. We cannot go on voting £9,000, £10,000, and £12,000 without getting more effective service. I do not blame the Office for this neglect of Scottish Business. That is the blame of the Government. They have squeezed us into a corner so that we have to be content with the mere fragments that fall from the table of the English Members and the Government, who take every hour of the time of the House, and thrust the Scottish Members aside. But I can assure the Lord Advocate that the Scottish Members will not rest content much longer with such a state of matters. If the Office continues inefficient it will be a matter of disgust to the Scotch people that the country is called upon to pay so much for the small amount of work done.

§ MR. DONALD CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)
My chief object in rising is to call further attention to some of those matters of detail referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend (General Sir George Balfour) which I think have an important bearing on the general question of the efficiency of the Department in the discharge of its duties. I desire, in the first place, to say that I think it is premature to go so widely into the question of the present position of the Secretary for Scotland's Office, when we are about to discuss a Bill on the subject to-morrow. I take it that the Office, which is young, and still, no doubt, on its trial, was created with two definite objects. One was to enable Scottish interests to be more directly, more powerfully, and more influentially represented in the Government of the country than has hitherto been the case; and the second object was the necessity or the prospect, real or supposed, that Scottish Business in future would be done with more efficiency and despatch. Unfortunately, the first object has failed. The present Secretary for Scotland is not in the Cabinet, and at the end of the Session, when we see Scottish measures introduced and submitted to Scottish Members, almost at the point of the 1746 bayonet, in the second week in August, we are painfully convinced that any improvement we expected from the institution of the Office in that respect has been in no degree realized. My hon. and gallant Friend (General Sir George Balfour) called the attention of the Committee to the delay in producing the Local Taxation Returns, which are required by Statute to be published, and are of considerable interest. As a supplement to the statement which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made, I may remind the Committee that these Returns are at present actually more than two years in arrear, and that the value of such information entirely depends upon its being supplied within a reasonable time. I should like to compare the practice in the existing Office in this respect with the practice of its Predecessor, with which I had the honour to be connected. The Local Taxation Returns Act, which imposes on local bodies the obligation of making these Returns, was passed in August, 1881, and the first Returns for the year ending the 15th of May, 1881, were presented on the 9th of May, 1882, or in less than 12 months. The Returns for the year ending May 15, 1882, were presented on the 27th of June, 1883, or a little more than 12 months; those for the year ending May 15, 1883, were presented as late as September, 1884—that is to say, 16 months afterwards, and I well remember that the Lord Advocate of the day considered the delay to be very serious, and resolved that it should never occur again. The Lord Advocate ceased to be responsible for these Returns in the following year, and what was the result? I find that for the year ending May 15th, 1884, the Returns were not presented to this House until June 11, 1886, or two years and one month after date. That was the first specimen the new Office gave of increased efficiency and despatch. The Returns for May 15, 1885, were only presented on the 7th of June last. I do not make these criticisms upon the new Office in any unkind spirit; still less upon the present holder of the Office, whom I regard as being very little responsible personally for the delay, and as pointed references have been made to him, I will only say that from the communications which I and other Scotch Members have had with him in regard to Scotch business, I have 1747 every reason to believe that he is anxious to do his best for the interests of Scotland. I think that his extreme courtesy and his attention to the duties of the Office are no small qualifications, and it is not my object to cast any blame upon the Secretary or his staff; but it is quite certain that the Office itself is on its trial, and therefore it may not be untimely to remind those who are responsible for its business that the House of Commons desires it to be done with a great deal more efficiency and despatch in future.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)
I do not quite understand what some of my hon. Friends desire in regard to this Office. I sympathize with them as far as the results of the change are concerned—namely, that the working of the Office has caused disappointment, and has not equalled the expectations that were formed of it. But they must recollect that there has always been a divided responsibility in the Scotch Office. At one time we have had to refer to the Lord Advocate, and at another to the Home Secretary, and it was to get rid of this difficulty that the Scotch Members, and the people of Scotland generally, were anxious for the creation of this Office. I do not think that anything has been done to impair the dignity of the Office of Lord Advocate. The two Offices are distinctly separate, and although in former times the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate divided the whole business between them, I do not think that that was altogether a satisfactory arrangement. It must not be forgotten that the Liberal Government were, to a very large extent, responsible for the way in which the Office has been created and administered. The present ground of complaint is this—that the whole of the Administration of Scotland was not transferred to the Secretary for Scotland when the Office was created. We are told that some improvements are going to be carried out in this direction by the Bill which is to be brought on to-morrow; and if so, I hope the measure will receive the cordial support of Scottish Members. But we have to complain that the interests and the feelings of individuals receive more consideration than the public interests in dealing with Scottish subjects. I think we ought to insist upon the Secretary for Scotland being a Member of this House; and also the Representa- 1748 tive of a Scottish constituency. I think it was very unfortunate that with respect to the last Secretary for Scotland he did not represent a Scottish constituency. I am not particular to the Secretary being a Scotchman; but we are entitled to expect that he should represent a Scottish constituency, because that would give us some guarantee that he was in sympathy with, at least, a portion of the people of Scotland. Holding these views, I hope the Members for Scotland will move in the direction of increasing the responsibility and dignity of the Office of Secretary for Scotland, and not concentrate the business of Scotland in one hand; further, that they will insist upon the Secretary being a Member of the Government of the day and a Member of this House. I hope that the Vote will be accepted without further discussion, so that we may have time for the consideration of other Scottish Votes that are to come before the Committee, and that the Government will not misunderstand the feeling of Scottish Members on this question.

§ DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)
I have no desire to continue the discussion; but it appears to me that we have lost sight of one very important point in connection with this Office. One of the real reasons for the creation of the Office was the hope that it would get rid of the constant changes which took place in the administration of the Office by the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate generally came in quite now to his duties, and with no knowledge of the Rules of the House, and as soon as a vacancy occurred on the Scottish Bench he was removed. The result was that the Parliamentary life of a Lord Advocate rarely exceeded two and a-half years. It was, therefore, desired that a Secretary for Scotland should be appointed, who should be entrusted with the entire administration of Scottish affairs. It was hoped that a somewhat more permanent policy might run throngh the administration. Unfortunately, that expectation has not been fulfilled, for short as was the Parliamentary life of the Lord Advocate, previously, the life of the Secretary for Scotland is apparently much shorter. Since the Office was created, we have had no fewer than five Secretarys for Scotland, and of those no fewer than 1749 three have been in "another place." The result is that we do not know how we stand now even so well as we did under the former system. Formerly we had the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate before us in all matters of importance, and we knew where the administration of the one began and the other ended. Now, it is impossible for us to tell where the jurisdiction of the Lord Advocate ends and that of the Secretary for Scotland begins. The hon. Member for Hawick (Mr. A. L. Brown) the other day addressed some questions to the Lord Advocate with respect to a correspondence between the Secretary for Scotland and the Fishery Board, and the Lord Advocate disavowed any knowledge of or any responsibility for the letters.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
What I said was that I declined to make any comment on the conduct of the Secretary for Scotland. I knew of the circumstance quite well.

§ DR. CAMERON
The right hon. and learned Gentleman no doubt refused to make any comment, and he declined to give the explanations asked for, as it would have been unbecoming in him as a subordinate official of the Secretary for Scotland.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
I never used the word "subordinate." I was careful not to do so. I said a junior official.

§ DR. CAMERON
I deny that the right hon. Gentleman is a junior official. If he is a junior official in anyway, he is the junior official of the Home Secretary. This, however, only illustrates the position in which we stand. We do not know where the responsibility of one official begins and that of another ends. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont) has pointed out, when we asked for an explanation, and expect to receive it, from the Lord Advocate, we are told that we must go to the Secretary for Scotland. My hon. Friend wants to know how we are to get at the Secretary for Scotland. We are compelled in this House to ask all sorts of questions, and we are required to approach all sorts of Ministers on different matters. Probably an appeal may lay to the First Lord of the Treasury, who knows absolutely nothing about Scottish Business, and who gave us some wonderful informa- 1750 tion the other day about the Scottish Sheriff Courts, having arrived at the conclusion, because the word "Sheriff" was made use of, that the matter must be one which affected Scotland. Upon other matters we have been obliged to put questions to the Secretary to the Board of Trade, who has nothing to do with Scottish Business, and is not likely to waste too much time in giving the information we desire. Then, again, matters relating to teinds come under the First Commissioner of Works, and if we want to know anything about Excise questions we have to apply to the Secretary to the Treasury. I remember that when you, Mr. Courtney, were Secretary to the Treasury, we had to apply to you on various points, and I must say that you generally dismissed us with a minimum of information. The other day, when the question of Scottish vaccination was concerned, we had a reply from the President of the Local Government Board, who protested that he could do nothing for Scotland, because he had no control over that field of action. Those are the reasons why the Office has not given the satisfaction which it ought to have given. We want more concentration of Scottish Business in the hands of the Scottish Secretary, and we want, above all things, that the Secretary for Scotland should be a Member of the House of Commons, in which House alone Scotland can be said to be represented.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
If the Amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall certainly vote for it, on the sole ground that the Secretary for Scotland ought to be in the House of Commons. That is the only reason that would induce me to vote for a reduction of the salary of that officer. As a matter of fact, the Secretary for Scotland and his assistants have at this moment a ridiculously small amount of work to do. We have an establishment for Scotland quite apart from the Educational Department, for which we pay the Secretary £2,000 a-year, the Under Secretary £1,500, the Assistant Secretary £950, together with a private secretary and other officers. It is quite patent that the heads of the Office are much overgrown in proportion to the body. I think the remedy is that we should not attempt to get rid of the difficulty by reducing the Office, but by increasing the work. I believe that 1751 that could be done to a very large extent. I entirely disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Robertson) in the view he has expressed that the work of Scotland should be administered by the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate is all very well in his way; but I do not want to see the Business of Scotland placed in the hands of a lawyer. I do not think, however, that this discussion will have been wasted in view of the Bill which is to come before us to-morrow for increas-the power of the Secretary for Scotland. On the contrary, I think that it has been a good thing to clear the air, as it were. Two important changes ought to be effected—one of which is to bring the Secretary for Scotland into this House, and the other to increase the work.

§ MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT (Roxburgh)
I have no wish to anticipate the discussion which is to take place to-morrow; but I believe we are all agreed in thinking that, having got the Secretary for Scotland, we should make the Office as important as possible, and that the Secretary himself should be an important person, having his due weight in the councils of the nation. That, I think, might be done in two ways—first of all, by adding to the responsibility of the duties which he has to perform; and, secondly, in taking care not to limit the class of Members from whom the Office may be filled. I should say that it is desirable to get a distinguished Member of Parliament who is thoroughly recognized by the nation as suitable for a seat in the Cabinet, and a Member who would be well acquainted with the affairs of Scotland, whether he happens to represent a Scottish constituency or not. For that reason, I was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland filling the post. We must remember, however, that Parties in this House are very unequally divided, and in appointing a Minister for Scotland, there are probably not more than half-a-dozen Members to select from, and we ought to be able to draw from a considerable surface if it is desirable to get a man, such as I have indicated, to do the work. I have said that I do not wish to anticipate the discussion which is to come on to-morrow; but there is one question which I should like to put to the Lord Advocate. I wish to know whether there has been 1752 any instance, whatever, of a certificate having been granted by the Inspector who was appointed under the Rivers Pollution Act. I believe that a special Vote of £50 a-year was thrown upon the Estimates by the Act of 1876; but as far as I know the Inspector of Rivers Pollution under that Act has never granted a single certificate. That is one point in the Act of 1876 to which I would draw the attention of the Government. But there is another, and that is that if there is to be a system of inspection at all, it ought to be an effective one. The late Inspector—I do not know whether the person who at present fills the office entertains the same view—maintained that unless the wording of the Act of 1876 was materially strengthened he could not conscientiously give a certificate. He was required to certify that the means used to prevent the pollution of rivers were absolutely the best that could be applied, and as he was not prepared in any instance to say that the best means had been applied on that ground he refused to give any certificate whatever. In the next place, a certificate, if granted, although, as I have said, there has never been an instance in which one was granted, would have been ineffective. That is to say that although a manufacturer at Hawick or Galashiels did the work satisfactorily, any riparian proprietor who considered the steps taken to render the discharge from certain works innocuous, incomplete, and unsatisfactory, can bring his action against the manufacturer and enforce process. Now that is certainly a most unsatisfactory state of things, and if Parliament gives a power of inspection and enables a certificate to be granted the decision of the Inspector, when it has been arrived at, should be respected. Unfortunately the manufacturer, whatever expense he may go to in order to render the discharge from his works into the river absolutely innocuous, is at the mercy of any riparian proprietor lower down who chooses to bring an action against him. That is not a position in which these gentlemen ought to be placed, and I hope the Lord Advocate will give his attention to the matter.

§ MR. A. SUTHERLAND (Sutherland)
Before the Lord Advocate rises to reply, I wish to say that we ought not to rest satisfied with an arrangement which 1753 leaves the Secretary for Scotland a Member of the other House of Parliament. I also object most emphatically to the Lord Advocate being made either in principle or in practice a Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Secretary for Scotland. I look upon the Office of Lord Advocate as one of greater dignity and standing in Scotland than the Office of Secretary for Scotland has proved to be. The Office has been created for the avowed purpose of increasing administrative efficiency in Scottish affairs, and to promote Scottish Business in Parliament; but a sufficient commentary on that is furnished by the fact that it is necessary to meet, at this period of the Session, in order that Scottish Members may be able to make some arrangement for advancing Scottish Bills.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
I have to say, in reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot), that to my knowledge the Inspector under the Rivers Pollution Act has done work, and good work, and has granted certificates; but I quite concur with the hon. Member in thinking that an arrangement by which we have an Inspector for Scotland, who is resident in London, and paid by salary, is not a proper arrangement. How it works I do not know. I have called attention to it in the Department, and I hope some better arrangement will be made in this respect. Then, with regard to the Office of the Secretary for Scotland, and the changes in the Office of the Lord Advocate, I think the only occasions on which during the last seven years there has been any change have been occasions when Her Majesty's Government as a body have changed. For instance, there was no change between 1880 and 1885, and the only reason why there have been three changes during the last two years is, that during the last two years there have been three changes of Government. Since its creation the Office of Secretary for Scotland has been filled by five persons; but it must be remembered that on two occasions the change was in consequence of a change of Government. The Duke of Richmond and Gordon was the first holder of the Office, and I believe that one of the main reasons that influenced Her Majesty's Advisers in that appointment was that in him they had one who would hold a seat in the Cabinet. That example 1754 was followed in the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), and I will leave it to that right hon. Gentleman to say whether the Office was a sinecure Office. As regarded the changes which have since been made, the late Liberal Government appointed a nobleman who was exactly in the same position as the Marquess of Lothian, of not having hitherto held an important or any paid Office under the State, and when the present Government came into Office, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was appointed, and was afterwards admitted to the Cabinet. And now the Marquess of Lothian has been appointed, and, from my own knowledge, the noble Marquess has given a great deal of attention to Scotland, and has been most anxious to do his duty in the Office. As during to-morrow we shall have a further discussion on the subject, I hope hon. Members will meanwhile be satisfied with having raised these points. While there is great unanimity in the direction of increasing the importance of the Secretary for Scotland's Office, we have not had the same unanimity on other matters that have been discussed, and the real point is whether that Office is to be made one of sufficient dignity and strength for the carrying on of Scottish Business. That object, I hope, will be secured by the measure which is to be discussed to-morrow.

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
May I ask if anything can be done in reference to the appeals from the judgment of the Crofters' Commission? That Commission is under the Secretary for Scotland, and I think that something should be done to expedite its movements.

THE CHAIRMAN
I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not desirable to discuss every item of the Vote upon the question now before the Committee.

§ DR. CLARK
I only wished to point out the desirableness of having a decision upon a few test cases.

THE CHAIRMAN
It is quite impossible to discuss that question upon the present Vote. It can be raised, much more appropriately on Vote 3.

§ MR. R. PRESTON BRUCE (Fifeshire, W.)
I should like to ask the Lord Advocate to explain the cause of the unsatisfactory manner in which the local 1755 taxation Returns are presented. The remarkable delay which has occurred in presenting them has been pointed out by the hon. Member for North-East Lanarkshire (Mr. Donald Crawford), and I wish to know from the Lord Advocate whether it is owing to their being compiled by too many different and independent persons, or to there being an insufficient staff at Dover House? If that is the case, I hope some effort will be made to bring them into one single department, so that with greater expedition they may be presented in due time. In connection with this subject, an hon. Member has already referred to the great number of heads of departments at Dover House, and the extraordinary disproportion between the heads of the staff. Now, if there is business enough for all these heads, it is strange that they do not require more clerks. It strikes me that the evils complained of may, on the other hand, have arisen from not having a sufficient staff of clerks.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
The hon. Member has correctly stated the evil, which is the rather inefficient state of the lower staff for the purpose of overtaking matters of detail.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ Original Question again proposed.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
May I ask what is the Question now before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN
It is the Vote of £5,143, to complete the Vote for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Secretary for Scotland.

§ DR. CAMERON
There is one point I wish to call attention to—namely, the fact that Sir Francis Sandford, the permanent Under Secretary, is to have his pension from the Education Department as well as his salary of £1,500 a-year in his new Office. I think that that is introducing a very vicious system.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
I may explain that the salary of the new Office is fixed at £1,500; but of that Sir Francis Sandford only draws £1,000, because he has already £500 for his pension.

§ MR. ANDERSON
May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make a statement in reply to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Robertson) as to the real 1756 cost of the Secretary for Scotland's Department? It has been stated that it costs only £10,000 a-year; but it has been pointed out that it really coats much, more, and I should like to know what the cost really is.

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A Lord of the TREASURY) (Wigtonshire)
It is impossible to answer the question with exact accuracy. I must remind the hon. Member that many of the duties undertaken by this Department were formerly under the Home Department; but if the hon. Member wishes it, I will have a statement prepared, showing exactly the cost of the present Scottish Department, and the saving effected.

§ DR. CAMERON
My point was that if a public servant has work in him, he should not be abolished and pensioned, and then when he has a pension be placed in another lucrative office. If Sir Francis Sandford receives no part of his pension while he is in receipt of a salary, I have not a word to say; but that does not appear to be the case, because, as a matter of fact, he receives £500 in the shape of pension for his former services in connection with the Education Department. Are we to understand that he receives his full pay and a portion of Ms pension as well?

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
His salary is £1,500 a-year, and while he holds office he draws £2,000, but does not draw the rest of his pension.

§ DR. CAMERON
Then he does not draw £500 on account of his pension?

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
No; he draws no pension; he only draws up to what the full salary of his former appointment could have come to.

§ DR. CAMERON
Then may I ask what his pension is?

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
The salary of the Under Secretary for Scotland is fixed at £1,500; but of that he receives only £633, being the difference between his pension of £1,333 6s. 8d. and his former salary of £2,000.

§ DR. CAMERON
Then he does receive one-half of his pension in addition to his salary to make up the difference between the Office he now holds and the one which he held formerly?

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
He could not be employed at a less salary than that which he formerly enjoyed, and in order to make the £ 1,500 equiva- 1757 lent to his old salary, he receives £500 from his pension.

§ DR. CAMERON
I think this is a very objectionable system in principle; and as there has been no Division upon the Vote before, I think I ought to take one as a matter of principle. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) will agree with me that to have a berth of £1,500 a-year filled by an official drawing £2,000 a-year is not a sound principle. I will therefore move the reduction of the Vote is respect of the Under Secretary's salary by £500.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, for Salaries, be reduced by the sum of £500."—(Dr. Cameron.)

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) will not divide the Committee upon this point; because, after all, there is a real saving effected. If the Under Secretary had no work to do, his services might be dispensed with altogether.

§ DR. CAMERON
I have always understood that it was the rule in Government Offices in the Civil Service, that if a person drawing a pension take active service, the pension is stopped and he only receives the salary. I wish to see that principle applied in every case.

§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)
May I explain that when a man in receipt of a pension accepts a new office, his salary for the new office and the pension are not together to exceed the amount of the salary of the office he has vacated. In this case, the pension was £1,300 a-year, and that added to the salary of the new Office would have exceeded the amount of the salary of the office Sir Francis Sandford vacated, and therefore the new salary has been reduced to the amount necessary.

§ DR. CAMERON
That principle is, in my opinion, equally objectionable; because if the pension is high and the remuneration of the now Office low, the officer will be allowed to draw a much larger salary than the Office is considered to be worth. You may be effecting a saving; but it occurs to me that Sir Francis Sandford is not only receiving his salary, but a considerable portion of his pension as well.

1758

§ MR. ESSLEMONT
Are we to understand that the pension is paid on account of the abolition of office?

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
No; there was no abolition of office.

§ MR. ESSLEMONT
Then, I think it is highly objectionable that a public servant should be able to retire on a pension of £1,300 a-year who is perfectly capable of taking a fresh office at £1,500 a-year. The fewer of these retirements we have the better. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) will not press the Amendment, because I think that if we had to pay the pension and the salary as well, we should be paying £2,800 odd. At the same time, I entirely deprecate the mode by which gentlemen are retired at a pension of £1,300, who are still capable of filling situations of this kind.

§ MR. STEPHEN MASON (Lanark, Mid)
Let me point out that, by this arrangement, if Sir Francis Sandford drew his pension of £1,300, and another man held the new post at £1,500, the present cost would be exceeded by £800.

§ MR. CALDWELL
I believe that Sir Francis Sandford's sole object in accepting the new Office was his great desire to benefit by his experience the work of the Scottish Office. He could have retired and saved himself a great deal of trouble; and his only motive, I believe, was one of liking for his work.

§ DR. CAMERON
I am afraid my hon. Friends hardly realize how the Pension List is increasing. However, as it is late in the Session and we are all desirous of getting on, I will not divide the Committee; but I have brought the matter forward, because the principle is a wrong one to retire a person with £1,300 who is still capable of work. The Secretary to the Treasury knows very well how this burden of pensions is anually growing. All I can say is that if Sir Francis Sandford was capable of active work, he ought to have stuck to his post. I do not see why we should give these enormous pensions to gentlemen who are fit to do work when wanted. In my opinion, the only economical rule to follow would be to take the difference between the pension and the pay of the office, and I strongly object to the principle of sanctioning by silence in this House the holding of an office worth only £1,500 a-year, and paying 1759 £2,000 for it. By allowing a public servant to draw in every case an allowance up to his former salary, we are, I am afraid, adopting a very dangerous principle.

§ MR. JACKSON
I must remind the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow that Sir Francis Sandford, according to the Rules of the Service, was entitled to retire, because he had served the full time necessary to entitle him to retire with this pension. The hon. Member says that he ought not to have been allowed to retire while there was any work in him; but Sir Francis Sandford was entitled to claim his retirement and pension. Under the arrangement now made, Sir Francis Sandford will receive the difference between his pension and his former salary of £2,000 a-year—namely, £633 odd, and if another person had been appointed, we should have had to pay the pension of £1,300 odd and the salary of £1,500, making upwards of £2,800. As far as the question of pension is concerned, Sir Francis Sandford was entitled to it by the Rules of the Service; but it has been thought advantageous to make use of his services in another capacity, and by that means a saving has been effected of £800 a-year.

§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Original Question put, and agreed to.

§ (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £4,067, 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 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
May I ask who it is who moves this Vote?

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
I do.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
There are some items in the Vote which appear for the first time; and I want to know distinctly who is responsible for them?

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has given Notice of his intention to move the reduction of this 1760 Vote. I also intend to move certain reductions, which amount to £1,000. In the first place, I propose a reduction of £625 on account of the Lyon King-at-Arms, of £260 on account of the Clerk and Law Agent of the Bible Board, of £97 for Her Majesty's Limner, and of £218 on account of Queen's Plates. I want to know whether Her Majesty's Limner supplies any pictures for the money allowed to him?

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,067, be granted for the said Services."—(Sir George Campbell.)

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
I must press for an answer to the question I put as to whether Her Majesty's Limner supplies any pictures.

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
The hon. Gentleman asks whether Sir Noel Paton, who is the present holder of this office—an office of extreme antiquity—supplies any pictures. My answer is that he does not. The office is entirely an honorary one, and the small salary attached to it is a slight recognition on the part of the State—it used to be on the part of the Monarch—of the measure of eminence attained by a living artist. These recognitions of distinction in the fine arts are not confined to this country, but are made, I believe, in every civilized country in the world. I do not think my hon. Friend can complain that in this case the recognition is too handsome.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
I doubt whether any other country has a Lyon King-at-Arms.

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
My observations referred to Her Majesty's Limner.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) on the protest he has made. This is the first time I ever heard a Scotsman object to anything that was to come out of the Consolidated Fund. I should vote for the reduction of this item; but, unfortunately, I have paired. The office of Lyon King-at-Arms is a sinecure. He does nothing, and the heralds do nothing. The whole business of heraldry is a relic of past ages. I have always opposed the Vote for these Kings-at-Arms, whether in England or in Scotland; and I shall always, when I have not paired, vote against it.

1761

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
The hon. Member says that heraldry is a relic of past ages. In the same way, all history is, to some extent, a relic of past ages.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
Yes; but we do not pay for it.

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
The Office of Lyon King-at-Arms is not a sinecure. The cost is really cheaper than appears on the Vote, and certainly is much less than the cost of Ulster King-at-Arms.

§ DR. CLARK
How much does he receive under Class III.?

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
the extra fees received by the Lyon King-at-Arms were formerly payable to himself and the heralds and pursuivants of the Scottish College of Arms; but now they are payable to the Treasury.

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)
What does he receive these fees for?

§ An hon. MEMBER: For preparing pedigrees.

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
I wish to take this opportunity to refute a statement made last year by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), to the effect that the Lyon King-at-Arms sent out circulars. It has been found out that the circulars in question were sent out by a lawyer in Glasgow, who has been dead 10 years.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
As far as I can learn the Lyon King-at-Arms had a jackal, because he evidently benefited by these circulars in supplying the coats of arms. He receives fees for granting heraldic devices, if there are any Scotchmen who do not possess them. I consider the whole thing a premium on snobbism of the lowest kind, and I have a strong feeling that the whole of it ought to be done away with.

§ DR. CAMERON
I think that a portion of this officer's salary should be given to the person who touted for him.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
He has been dead for 10 years.

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
He never touted.

§ DR. CAMERON
Some years ago I received one of these circulars; but it so happens that I was not in the position of having assumed any arms, and therefore the circular had no terror for me, 1762 and the threat of having to pay a penalty of £40 fell harmlessly upon me. It is said that the jackal acted without the authority of the Lyon King-at-Arms. He is now dead; but he distinctly stated in a letter to me that he was not acting without the authority of the Lyon King-at-Arms. It is said that the touting has now ceased; but I understand that a circular of the same kind was issued last year. I should like to know, therefore, whether gentlemen of this kind are employed to bring grist to the Treasury mill?

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
I have already tried to explain that this jackal, as he has been called, had no connection whatever with the Office of the Lyon King-at-Arms. He was an impostor, who worked entirely in his own interest.

§ DR. CLARK
I think the Committee ought to have a complete explanation of the remuneration of this officer. I am told that he receives a further allowance under Vote 3, and I want to know what the actual amount of his fees is? I think the Scotch Lord of the Treasury ought to be able to give us the information.

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
I will tell the hon. Member how much the Lyon King-at-Arms receives under Class III. when that class is reached.

§ DR. CLARK
That is an evasion. If the hon. Gentleman will tell me he does not know I can quite understand.

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 157: Majority 79.—(Div. List, No. 368.) [6.50. P.M.]

§ Original Question put, and agreed to.

§ (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £15,925, 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 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland, and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays.

§ MR. MARJORIBANKS (Berwickshire)
I think the discussion of this Vote would be shortened if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) would now state what position the Government intend to take up with regard to the Fishery Board. We do not at all 1763 consider that the Fishery Board is constituted in a satisfactory manner, and we desire to impress on the Government the necessity of saying what they intend to do with regard to it in the future, We contend that the Board ought to contain some man having practical experience in the matter of fisheries, and also acquainted with the fishing grounds on the coasts of Scotland. Then we want to know what is going to be done with reference to the constitution of the Board. It is an open secret that the relations between the members of the Board have been of the most strained character, the result of which has been that they have not worked together, and what has been done has not been done satisfactorily. I trust, therefore, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will give us some information on this subject, because I believe that his doing so will save a good deal of difficulty through our being able to discuss the question with knowledge of what is going to be done.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)
The reply given to-day by the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian) to the representations made to him was satisfactory to those Members who heard it; but the Fishery Board has not come up to the expectations which have been formed of it, and an opportunity will be afforded to the Government in October next of reconstituting the Board on a more satisfactory basis. The fishermen desire to have placed on the Board some person practically acquainted with the system of sea fishing, and they desire preeminently that some member of their own body should be appointed with the necessary experience. There seems to be in the way of that a practical difficulty—namely, that such members of the Board would require some remuneration for their services. But if it is found to be impracticable on that ground the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland ought to find out some persons along the coast who possess the confidence of the fishermen. Reference has been made to the scientific portion of the Board, and there is disappointment among many at the result of the scientific efforts which the Board has made. But I think that on that point the public should observe a greater amount of patience, because scientific facts are col- 1764 lected very slowly, and it is only after the collection of a considerable number of facts that useful conclusions can be drawn. For my own part, I shall be sorry to see any interference with the scientific investigations which are now going on, and I believe it would be a misfortune if we were abruptly to bring them to a close. The present members, I believe, are men of business, and I hope the noble Marquess will see his way to have those investigations continued. But it would be undoubtedly of great advantage to the scientific side of the Board if they had associated with them men of practical experience in fisheries; they would be able to exercise some influence over the investigations, and would, no doubt, open out points on which practical fishermen would desire to have information. Even if there was on the Board a representative of the fishermen themselves—if not a fisherman, a man practically acquainted with the wants of the fishermen—I think it reasonable to believe that the Board will become a useful institution; but hitherto it cannot be said that the Fishery Board has fulfilled the expectations formed of it when it was reconstituted five years ago. I hope, however, the Government are about to replace some of the members with more practical men, which will give the Board a now lease of life.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)
I think hon. Members will agree with me that the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland has said all upon this subject that can be usefully said at this stage—that is to say, that the suggestions made to him with regard to the appointment of practical fishermen on the Board, or of someone who knows the wants and possesses the confidence of the fishermen, will receive his most careful consideration. I may add that there is every desire to meet the views of all hon. Members which are practicable. I am glad that the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) has pointed out that the scientific investigations which are going on are of greater importance than some hon. Members have supposed, and that it requires patience on the part of the community. That is a thing, however, which it is difficult to obtain; but I hope that my hon. Friends who have influence with the fishermen will persuade them 1765 that these scientific investigations will be of extreme value, although they may not be brought so rapidly to a conclusion as practical suggestions can be carried out.

MR. ASHER&c.) (Elgin,
I do not ask to know the names of the persons whom the Government propose to substitute for the members of the Board who will cease to hold office in the course of the ensuing year; but I am glad that the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland has given us an assurance that his own inclination was in the direction of appointing a fisherman to the Board, and I desire to impress on the Government the great necessity there is for that view being carried out. As the Representative of the Elgin Burghs, I come in contact with as large a number of fishermen as any Scotch Member in this House, and during the past few years the fishermen have been directing their attention to the expiry of the term of office of the present Board because they are not in feeling with it, and I must say, individually, that they have, with regard to its constitution, a considerable grievance. It seems to me extremely desirable that the duties entrusted to the Board should be performed by persons having the confidence of the fishermen, and who are acquainted with their wants. I am quite aware that there are difficulties in connection with this matter. One difficulty rests on financial grounds so far as regards a member of the fishing class becoming a member of the Board. It can scarcely be expected that such a man could give the time that would be required of him without his services were paid for. I think the Government would do well to consider whether a portion of the money voted by this House might not be applied for the purpose of enabling a fisherman, or representative of the class, to incur the expense of doing duty on the Board. However that may be, there is no doubt that the fisherman of Scotland desire that some person chosen by themselves should be on the Board, and they have recommended the appointment of a gentleman who possesses their entire confidence. My own opinion is, that it would be satisfactory if the services of a person of the fisherman class could be availed of for doing this duty; but there is no doubt that the gentleman they have selected would 1766 admirably discharge the duties of the post by reason of his knowledge and experience, and I hope the Government will keep this matter distinctly in view. What the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland said to-day has encouraged me in the hope that, on the reconstruction of the Board, the representative element will receive a large share of attention.

§ MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)
I had not the advantage of hearing the remarks of the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland on this subject; but I gather that the Government propose to take the matter into consideration. The hon. and learned Member for Elgin Burghs (Mr. Asher) may consider the statement of the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland satisfactory; but I confess that I do not regard it in the same way. It is a very poor thing to be told that the matter will be taken into consideration, because we know how little comes out of these promises as a rule. As far as the financial part of the case is concerned, I think I can suggest a satisfactory means of finding the money to pay the fishermen who it is desired should be appointed on the Board. There is one matter I do not understand in connection with this Vote, that is the £800 a-year paid to the Chairman. That large sum is paid to a gentleman who has never had anything whatever to do with the fishing industry; it was given to a gentleman who it was thought should have some reward for his political services, and who the fishermen consider is entirely unfitted for the post which he occupies. It is my intention to propose the reduction of this gentleman's salary. I think £300 or £400 a-year would be ample remuneration for him, and I suggest that the balance should go to pay the fishermen who are to be appointed to the Board. That is a proposal which I hope will find approval with hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope the Government will support me in that proposal, and that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate will tell us that they have come to the conclusion not to keep up this enormous salary. I want to avoid dividing the Committee on my Amendment; but I shall be compelled to do so, unless we have a satisfactory statement from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate. There is 1767 another matter of great importance that I desire to refer to. It is to me a great disappointment to find that the Fishery Board have done so little with regard to fishing harbours. To promote and improve the smaller fishing harbours is one of the most important things connected with the fishing industry of Scotland. Perhaps some hon. Members have seen the Report of the Scotch Fishery Board; it has only been in the hands of hon. Members for a few days, and we have not had time to examine it. It is strange that this Report should have been presented to the Secretary for Scotland on the 2nd of May last, and that it has only been laid on the Table of the House within the last week. We have had a valuable Minute recently issued by the Board of Trade. That Minute goes fully into the question of loans for harbours; it refers to the powers of the Scotch Fishery Board, and it does not deal with the question of harbours, because it says that this matter is to be handed over to be dealt with by the Scotch Fishery Board. Now, the Government having considered the questions in this Minute, I think the Committee are entitled to hear from them a distinct pledge as to whether they are prepared to legislate on the lines suggested by this Report of the Scotch Fishery Board, because it is acknowledged in the Minute that some preference must be given in the case of harbours which are in the hands of poor fishermen. I do not think that that is enough. I think we ought to have some legislation which will put it in the power of these fishermen to go to the Public Works Commissioners and borrow money. We know that the owners of small fishing harbours have no means of getting money except, as is pointed out in this Report, through their industry; but that where facilities have been given they have got money together with wonderful quickness. All we want is to have some body or corporation which will give to the fishermen some locus standi, and enable them to borrow money on the security of the rates. I hope to hear from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate or from some other Member of the Government—perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Baron Henry De Worms)—before this Vote is taken, that there is a serious intention on the 1768 part of the Government to take this matter in hand.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That Item A, Salaries, &c, be reduced by £300, in respect of the Salary of the Chairman of the Board."—(Mr. Anderson.)

MR. R. T. REID&c.) (Dumfries,
I have only one question to ask, and that without making any comment on the Vote. Can the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate hold out any hope that the Government will be able to bring in next Session a general fishing law, which will deal with the many questions especially relating to the Solway?

§ MR. BUCHANAN (Edinburgh, W.)
I did not stay long enough at Dover House to hear the whole of the statement of the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian); but if I am right in thinking that it is proposed to put the scientific department in future under some other conditions, I need not say another word on that subject. Technically, Professor Ewart is the only scientific member of the Board, and the £2,000 a-year voted by this House is entirely in his hands, to be disposed of in any way he pleases. I do not think the Committee is aware that there is nothing in the Fishery Act which would allow of the disposal of the money and funds of the Board in this way. As far as I can understand, the only words in the Fishery Act which could in any way be used to justify this expenditure are those which provide that the Board shall take such measures for the improvement of fisheries as the funds admit. It is under these vague and general terms that we continue this payment, without any attempt being made on the part of the Government to distinguish the purposes for which this money is to be employed. Very admirable work has, no doubt, been done; but I am bound to call attention to the fact that you have here a large grant amounting to no less than £2,000 a-year for scientific purposes which is not administered by a scientific Board, but, practically, as I have said, by one individual, who may, to all intents and purposes, disburse it in any way he pleases—that is to say, in any way which he thinks will be for the benefit of the fisheries. I wish distinctly to enter a caveat against the argument that this is a grant of £2,000 for scientific purposes in Scot- 1769 land. I entirely deny that it is for that purpose. I think it would be well if the Government, when the appointments to the new Board are made, would appoint a Board for a shorter term than five years.

§ MR. R. W. DUFF (Banffshire)
As I was Chairman of the Committee which recommended the establishment of this Board I wish to say a few words on the Vote. One of the recommendations was that a certain sum of money should be given for scientific investigation in connection with the Scotch fisheries. During the investigations of that Committee it came to our knowledge that the United States of America and Norway were making large strides in this direction. I believe that the United States are paying £50,000 a-year for the purpose, and that a considerable sum is also paid in Norway. I am glad to hear from the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) that he approves of this expenditure for scientific purposes. I must remind my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) that this Board was the outcome of the Committee, and that the Committee distinctly recommended that the money should be expended on scientific investigation. Although I do not follow the hon. and learned Member, I think they have done some useful work. No doubt the Board has made mistakes, and that as much good as was expected has not been got out of it; but still, as I have said, considering the time it has been in existence, it has done useful work. We know that one question which has occupied the Board is that of trawling, and they are now investigating the results of trawling upon inshore fisheries. Then this Report contains valuable information with regard to mussels and oysters. On the whole, I think that, considering the amount of money expended, we shall get from it a very good return. With regard to the constitution of the Board, it at present consists of nine members; three of those are Sheriffs, appointed, as I understand, ex officio. I am inclined to think that the legal element is somewhat over represented on the Fishery Board; and I think that two Sheriffs would be quite enough. I agree with what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Elgin (Mr. Asher) with regard to the appointment of practical men on the 1770 Board. I quite see that there are difficulties in the way, and I remember talking this matter over with Lord Dalhousie when he was Secretary for Scotland, and he had the idea that we might have local Fishery Boards, who should by some process of selection send a number of representatives to the Board. I think it would be very difficult to get a direct representation of fishermen on the Board; but I think we may get over the difficulty by having District Boards to nominate representatives, and that I think would be more effectual for the purposes intended. Allusion has been made to harbour loans.

THE CHAIRMAN
I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is an Amendment before the Committee to reduce the salary of the Chairman of the Board.

§ MR. R. W. DUFF
Then I will refer to that particular part of the Report another time, and I, of course, bow to your ruling. With regard to the salary paid to the Chairman, I do not think it is too high, having regard to the salaries of Commissioners in Ireland and others who hold analogous appointments, and I do not think you would get anyone to do the duties for a smaller sum.

§ MR. HALDANE (Haddington)
I must say that, notwithstanding any reform in the constitution of the Board, I shall be glad to see another £2,000 added to the Vote for scientific investigation. No doubt it is true that the whole constitution of the Board requires overhauling, and it is a very satisfactory thing that the Government say that this question is under their consideration. I agree with the hon. Member for Banff-shire (Mr. R. W. Duff) that the official legal element is too largely represented, and that it would be better to have a different arrangement. No doubt if practical fishermen could not be got, at all events curers, perhaps, might be got to bring valuable experience to the deliberations of the Board. We are placed in a state of things in which everyone acknowledges that it is impossible to take a single step in advance. Now £2,000 is, in my opinion, not sufficient. I have made inquiries, and I find that the investigations are prosecuted inefficiently for want of money, and I hope the Government will see their way, at all events, of having the constitution of the Board overhauled. In the meanwhile, 1771 with regard to the reduction of the Chairman's salary. I do not see my way to support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson). No doubt when Sir James Boyd was appointed he was not an expert in fishery matters; but he has now gained experience, and I do not think that £800 is too large a salary.

§ MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) says that £800 a-year is not too large a salary for the Chairman of the Fishery Board. That is quite true if he devotes his whole time to the work he has before him; but it is my opinion that the money would be better distributed by giving £500 a-year to the Chairman of the Board, who, I believe, does not devote a very great deal of his time to this particular department, and £300 to get practical men from different parts of Scotland whose attendance on the Board would necessarily entail upon them a considerable expense. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Haldane) has spoken of the scientific portion of the Vote. I am aware that there has been a misunderstanding between the scientific members of the Board and other members, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) is quite right in saying that there should be more definite instructions laid down, so that the expenditure of the money should be under the control, not of scientific professional men, but that of the whole Board. I am aware that Sir James Boyd was appointed with very little practical knowledge of the fishing industry; but since he has received that appointment he has given five years of careful consideration to the subject, and he must therefore have acquired a great deal of information which will be useful. Although I shall vote for the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Anderson) who proposes to reduce this Vote, I should like to give it as my opinion that, under all circumstances, the present Chairman is not the very best man to occupy that position. I am sure that the fishermen in Scotland will look with very great interest to the re-appointment of the Board. There are still live appointments to make, and if out of these there are no practical representatives of the fishermen it will cause great 1772 disappointment. I can assure the Committee that practical fishermen do not at present look upon the Board with much satisfaction; but if you have other men who are their own representatives to give their side of the question, I think they may come to believe that scientific investigations are much more valuable than they now suppose them to be. I believe that a larger sum would be well expended if we can satisfy ourselves that it is expended properly.

§ DR. R. MACDONALD (Ross and Cromarty)
There is a subject connected with this Board which I brought before the House not long ago, and to which I desire again to call attention; it is the inefficiency of this Board in doing its work. The Committee will remember that there was a grant of £2,000 made to the Fishery Board for the purposes of supplying boats and gear to poor fishermen in parts where the Acts of Parliament were to apply. I find there have been 300 applications made to the Fishery Board for boats and nets by crofters, and that not one of these has been granted. The Board has not distributed the money at its disposal; but it is a fact that they have been engaged for 12 months in drawing up rules and regulations as to distribution, among which it is provided that the crofters must pay down 25 per cent of the value before they can get anything at all. Some of my hon. Friends who represent these constituencies, and I, myself, have had some informal communications with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, and we are anxious to know whether any change is going to be made in the terms on which loans are obtainable. We suggested terms which we thought would be reasonable, and we want to know whether those terms will be accepted, or whether this House, having granted money for these purposes, the Board is, like a dog in a manger, to keep and do nothing with it. The fishermen, as I have stated, have waited in the expectation of getting the boats, and, now the fishing season is over, they have no means of getting them. There is nothing to justify the driving of such hard terms with these fishermen. It has been said in favour of the system that it is necessary to be very careful, because what has happened in Ireland will happen in Scotland—that is to say, if I the fishermen could not repay the loans, 1773 and the Government were to proceed and sell the boats, the sales would be Boycotted, and they would get no money back. But I reply that Boycotting has not yet begun in Scotland, and that the argument has no weight. I hope we shall have an assurance from the Government that a change will be made in the terms, and that the fishermen will be able to get the money without difficulty, and in accordance with the intention of the Legislature.

MR. ANSTRUTHER&c.) (St. Andrew's,
As far as my experience goes, the fishermen are not satisfied with the representation they have upon the Fishery Board; and although I cannot support an Amendment to imply any censure on the past action of the Board or Chairman, who I think has discharged his duties in a satisfactory way, at the same time I take it that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Anderson) is intended to assert the principle that we desire to be carried out—namely, that of having some popular representation on the Board. I shall, therefore, be open to support the Amendment, because I am convinced that the fishermen are desirous of having on the Board gentlemen who are in their confidence, and whoso views are in accordance with their own, and who are capable of giving effect to those views.

MR. MACDONALD CAMERON&c.) (Wick,
A great many representations have been made to me with regard to the constitution of the Fishery Board. The feeling is that the Chairman of the Board, no matter how excellent a gentleman he may be, has not the knowledge of fishing which entitles him to his position. Remarks have been made with regard to the experiments that have been and are being conducted on the coast. I have had some experience in scientific investigation, and I do not think that the view of the subject taken by my hon. and learned Friend, that these experiments are not likely to produce as much good as is expected from them, is a correct one. The agricultural interest of this country has received very considerable assistance from scientific investigation, and has developed a good deal in consequence. The fishing industry is the only one which has not had the aid of science, and I am looking for a great benefit to be derived 1774 by the fishermen on our coasts from the experiments which are being conducted. Although we may not be able to reduce this Vote, I hope, in the end, we shall produce such an impression on the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that he will take care, when these appointments are made in November next, that a more capable and practical man will be put on the Board as Chairman, and that we shall have the benefit from the man in that position which we have a right to expect.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
I sincerely hope my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Anderson) will not press this Amendment on the Committee, for the simple reason, that the whole effect of it must be to cast a slur upon the present Chairman of the Fishery Board. I quite understand the object which my hon. and learned Friend has in view, and that he thinks £500 a-year would be quite sufficient salary for the Chairman if the duties which he has to perform are insufficient to occupy the whole of his time. That is a fair way of stating the case; but I understand that there is a further object in view—namely, to set free a sum of money for the purpose of enabling practical fishermen to occupy seats on the Board without loss to themselves. That is a most proper object, and one which might possibly turn out to be the best and most efficient way of improving the Board itself. But that cannot be effected by the Amendment now before the Committee, the only effect of which would be to prevent the money being handed to the Chairman, while it would not enable the Government to devote it to any other purpose whatever. For that reason I hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press the question to a Division. With regard to the future, as I have slated already, these matters are occupying the attention of the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland (the Marquess of Lothian) and others; but I submit to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid) that it is impossible that we should be able to make up our minds as to what will be done next Session. If I were to pledge myself on behalf of the Secretary for Scotland to what has been suggested this evening, I should be pledging myself to a large number of suggestions of a contradictory kind. 1775 The advantage to be gained from a discussion of this character is the bringing forward the views of hon. Gentlemen and their constituents, in order that from their views and those of their opponents some likely and sensible scheme may be worked out; but it is quite impossible for Members of the Government to pledge themselves, while giving satisfaction to the country, to endeavour to please everybody. I therefore hope my hon. and learned Friend will be satisfied with what I have said, and with the assurance that none of the matters which have been brought forward to-night will be lest sight of; and, further, that the noble Marquess the Secretary for Scotland has very much exercised his mind already upon this matter.

§ MR. MARJORIBANKS
I, also, hope my hon. and learned Friend will not press this Motion to a Division. Whatever may be the defects of the Board, I know that a great deal of work is got through, and I do not think the Committee ought to cast a slur on the Chairman of the Board by reducing the Vote for his salary. I cannot agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) that we could afford to give him the Recess in this matter.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
Give us until October; it will be only a short, time.

§ MR. MARJORIBANKS
I should not like to trust to the amount of consideration that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be likely to give to the matter during the month of September. He will be more likely to be giving consideration to other matters during that month.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
We shall be here.

§ MR. MARJORIBANKS
Though we do not ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give us the names of persons, yet I should like to press him to say whether the Scotch Office have not already formed some sort of idea as to the conditions which are going to be applied to the Fishery Board which is to be re-appointed in a very few weeks now. I do not think we have a right to be met in this House upon this point by a demand for time when only a few weeks intervene between now and the date of the re-appointment of the Fishery Board. I think we ought to have given 1776 to us some idea of the policy to be pursued as to the re-appointment of that Board. It is not sufficient to tell us that the suggestions made in this Committee will receive consideration. The time has come for something more than that. There is a system adopted with regard to Boards of Conservators in England in which the fishermen can elect members to represent them on those Boards. That, it seems to me, might possibly be a very good system to be adopted in Scotland. I do not say that the elected members should take their places at every meeting of the Board, which would be three or four times a week; but when certain questions of great importance to fishermen are being discussed, or when proposals for new legislation are being considered, that is the time that the elected representatives of the fishermen should take their places upon the Board, and should give the official members of it the benefit of their knowledge and experience in regard to the requirements of the fishermen. These men are much more likely to know what would be beneficial to them than any other gentlemen, however willing and desirous they might be to advance the interests of the fishing industry and to do good to the fishermen. I do press for a more definite answer from the Government.

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
I think the present condition of affairs very unsatisfactory. I see the right hon. Gentleman who used to be Secretary for Scotland—now the Chief Secretary for Ireland—six months ago was considering and investigating this matter. His Successor has been considering it; and the result of this joint consideration of these two right hon. Gentlemen is that we are now told that there is to be still further consideration, and that they want until October. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) ought to be aware that in September, under the Act of Parliament, the present six Members of the Scotch Fishery Board will cease to be members, and that he will require to replace them. He will find that the first meeting of the new Board will be held early in October. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious to discuss the matter, and we can get some information from him, I shall be glad to sit down and give place to him. If 1777 he does not wish to get up and give us some information, I would impress upon him that next month these Members will require to be appointed, and I wish to say that before we grant this money we require to know something with regard to the constitution of the new Board. Every hon. Member who represents a fishing constituency is entirely dissatisfied with the old Board, and I will tell you why we are dissatisfied with it. We are dissatisfied with it because we think that its powers and functions have been used in a very unsatisfactory fashion. I will point out how the Board have acted. There was a question put to my hon. Friend the Member for the Ross Division of Herefordshire (Mr. Biddulph) with regard to the measures to be taken to prevent destitution in the Islands of Scotland. This House was going to lend money to the crofters to enable them to buy boats and nets, these poor people being practically paupers, or in the first stage of pauperism. This Fishery Board, by the Act of Parliament, had to lay the conditions under which the money was to be lent to the crofters. They require, of course, the sanction of the Secretary of State. The matter was referred to him, and he signed the requisition, and then the conditions were laid down by the Fishery Board. Well, unless those conditions are changed and modified you will never lend a single penny to the crofters for the purchase of boats and nets, because the people from whom you are asking £80 or £100 would scarcely be able to raise 80 or 100 pence. The banks have been in the custom of lending money to these people hitherto before they got ruined by the state of the herring market on the Continent. The Treasury have been lending money on worse conditions than private firms, and they have made those terms because they will not give the fishermen the fishing rights, for the reason that hon. Gentlemen wanted them for sporting and other purposes. The Government have not given a single farthing; they have laid down impossible conditions, and it is this Fishery Board I maintain that is responsible for it, together with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Eastern Division of Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour). I should like the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the question of the hon. Member for Ross before we vote this 1778 money. I trust he will tell us whether he still intends in another year to prevent the intention of Parliament being carried out, and to prevent these fishermen from getting their boats and nets on such conditions as have hitherto enabled the fisheries of Scotland to be developed. These men have power to grant loans for the construction of small harbours. We lose numbers of fishermen along our coast every year because we have not sufficient harbours of refuge. We have numbers of widows and orphans among our fishing community because the Fishery Board has not carried out the functions which Parliament conferred upon them. They had a surplus of £20,000 from the herring brand, and we have compelled them to give something out of this amount for harbours. But what have they done? They have not given contributions to several small harbours as the fishermen have desired; but they have given £10,000 to one harbour. It was not the intention of Parliament that this money should be given for the construction of large harbours; but the idea was to make a number of small ones all along the coast. A surplus of £5,000 or £6,000 was obtained last year from the herring brand. Let the Committee remember what that is—at is, in reality, a tax upon the fishermen. If you were to use that to develop and promote the fishing industry you would be using it properly, but they have not done so; and now, when towards the end of their career they have to disgorge something like £20,000, they are spending it in the way I describe. With regard to the mussel beds the Fishery Board, instead of looking after them in the interests of the fishermen, are doing their best to get the Board of Trade to grant the foreshores to private individuals. We desire these foreshores to be developed by the Fishery Board in the interests of the Scotch fishermen, so that the latter may not be put to the inconvenience and expense of going to Ireland for bait, where their advent is a source of much disquietude among the Irish fishermen. As a matter of fact, everything the Scotch Fishery Board has done it has done badly, and I certainly shall go into the Lobby if a Division is taken as a protest against the way in which they have done their work. The Chairman of the Board is a very good business man no doubt. As Lord Pro- 1779 vost of Edinburgh, and as Director of various Companies, he, no doubt, discharges his functions admirably; but, in addition to this, he is quite prepared to be one of the members of this Fishery Board, and to do the business of a member of that Board. I hold, however, that the sum which is paid this gentleman is a totally unnecessary expenditure, and that you do not want a paid Chairman at all. What you want is a paid Secretary. The Secretary is at present very much underpaid; as a matter of fact, he is not paid as much as his own clerk. You give his Inspector £200 more than you give himself. Why is that? I have nothing to say against the Secretary. The only thing I have to say about him is that he is a gallant gentleman who deserves well of his country, and that it is time the House should give him a pension and appoint a man 20 or 30 years younger to do the work and act as Secretary to the Fishery Board, and to do some of the work now performed by the Chairman. The position of affairs is simply this—the old Board was very unsatisfactory because of its composition. Its members were, generally speaking, ignorant of their work, and Parliament has since conferred upon them special executive powers which they have put in force. Under these circumstances, we have the right to ask the Government whether they are going to adopt the principle of having men on the Board who will represent two things? The first thing you want them to represent is the district. You have hundreds of miles of sea coast, some places English-speaking and some places Gaelic-speaking. We desire that both descriptions of population shall be represented on the Board. And, secondly, we want practical men, fishermen and fish curers, to be put on the Board—men who know something about the wants of the districts, and can advise the Board as to the carrying out of their general duties. Notwithstanding that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who was formerly Secretary for Scotland, and the noble Lord who now occupies that position have investigated this subject, still these are the facts which are given to us, and probably when we meet again next year we shall have the same points to discuss. We may be able to pass an Act next year. I trust we shall, as I think we 1780 shall never be able to settle this matter without legislation. I think we have a right to ask three questions—in the first place, why do the Fishery Board lay down these absurd conditions, and prevent loans being granted to the crofters? Secondly, will the Government take stops to see that the districts are properly represented on the Board? And, thirdly, will they also see that experienced men, either fishermen or fish curers, are appointed on the Board on its reconstruction?

§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)
I think that possibly the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that legislation may be required before this question is finally disposed of; but whatever plan is ultimately adopted I can safely prophesy that no kind of plan, however good and ingenious, will prevent the kind of criticism which the hon. Gentleman passes on the action of the Fishery Board. What is the Fishery Board, to do? They have to administer a certain amount of money, practically public money, for the benefit of fishing communities, differing, some of them, in the language they speak, in the character of their industry, and in the localities in which they live. How can you possibly obtain from any Board, constitute it as you will, a method of carrying on its work which will give equal satisfaction to all the persons interested? The hon. Gentleman has thrown out a suggestion with regard to representation. I am inclined to think we ought to look in the direction of representation for the amelioration of the Fishery Board; but how prodigious are the difficulties in the way of any scheme of that kind. If we go by the population of the districts represented, is it not clear that the localities where the population is greatest will monopolize the benefits, and that the poorer districts in which the hon. Member is so deeply interested will suffer in consequence? The hon. Gentleman is the spokesman for the poorer towns and fishing villages in the North of Scotland, or of some of them, and I would ask him to reflect upon this—that I am by no means sure that those people he represents are those who would gain most by the form of representation he proposes. The representation would have to be impartially distributed amongst the parties con- 1781 cerned, and power would naturally flow in the direction where the voting power was greatest. Then the hon. Gentleman says we ought to have men on the Board practically experienced in the fishing industry of Scotland. Again, I agree that we ought to look in that direction for remedying the condition of the Board; but we must not lose sight of the difficulties that would meet us in that direction. If we represent the West of Scotland what would the East say, and if we were to represent the North what would the South say? If you were to represent all the districts so as to prevent jealousy your Board would be of such a size that unless you broke it up it would not be able to carry on its work. These are some of the difficulties that meet you when you try to deal with this question. The hon. Gentleman spoke as if the Government took up a non possumus attitude on this question; but that is not so. The Government are not adhering to any one particular plan against the plans which hon. Members have proposed. No plan has been agreed upon by the Scotch Representatives. We are all agreed that something should be done; but seemingly no one can make up his mind as to what shall be substituted for that which now exists. We can all deal in generalities; we can all say that we wish for a representation of the districts; but when you sit down to devise a plan that will satisfy every interest concerned, I believe all who hear me will agree with me that the difficulties are so great as to be practically insuperable, and to preclude any idea of coming down to this House and putting before it such a worked-out scheme. I hope the Committee will feel that the Government, in saying that they desire to deal with this question in the direction which has been indicated by hon. Members opposite, desire to carry out the wishes of the Committee; but to give a more definite statement we consider would be little short of madness. With regard to the question of loans to fishermen, the system hon. Members ask for would not be assisted by giving further representations on the Fishery Board, because the question is really a Treasury one. The Fishery Board are anxious to keep as much money as they can to give away to the fishermen. The difficulty does not lie there. The difficulty, as I say, is altogether a Treasury diffi- 1782 culty. You cannot ask the taxpayers of this country to give money to a special industry, however deserving the industry may be, unless adequate security is offered. If the security is in excess of what is demanded, then the subject of granting the loan will, no doubt, be favourably considered. I am sure the Treasury would agree to that; but it is impossible that you should expect that the Treasury should lend money on bad security.

§ MR. ANDERSON
I was appealed to by the Lord Advocate and the right hon. Member for Berwickshire not to press this matter to a Division; and I have been told that if I do press it to a Division it will be casting a slur upon Sir Thomas Boyd, the Chairman of the Board. Now, I do protest that I have no intention in the world of casting any slur upon the Chairman of the Board; and I protest most emphatically against being told, if a Member gets up and emphasizes the position he has taken, on the matter under discussion, that he cannot do it without casting a slur upon the Chairman of the Fishery Board. This is a monstrous position to assume. It is sufficient for me to say that every hon. Gentleman who votes with me in this particular Division casts no slur upon the Chairman of the Board. I do not know the gentleman; but, so far as I have been able to ascertain, I believe him to be a most estimable person in every way. But that lie is the proper person to be appointed Chairman of this Board at a salary of £800 a-year I consider very questionable. I think that when you are establishing a Fishery Board and a Chairman comes upon it, who may be a very good Director of a Company, but who has no practical knowledge of fishing matters, there is every reason for a change of system. The Chairman may be worth £800 a-year or a great deal more for some purposes; but that is not the question hero. He has no practical knowledge of the fishery industry. This gentleman carried on, and I believe Bill carries on, a very lucrative business in Edinburgh.; An hon. MEMBER: No; he has retired.] But he is a Director of several Companies, so that the Chairmanship of this Board is not his only source of revenue. It is impossible to suppose, under the circumstances, that very much of his time 1783 is taken up by the work of the Fishery Board. My main proposition is this—I say that for a Chairman of this gentleman's position £500 a-year is sufficient. And I emphasize this by saying that the £300 which would be so saved could be spent on other purposes by the Board in the interests of the fishing trade. I wish to press this matter to a Division—I intend to do so. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenat has made some statements which make us still more determined to take that course, because he has said to us—"Why do you come without apian? What plan do you Scotch Members submit on this subject?" I should have thought the proper persons to bring forward a plan would have been the Government. I have asked several Questions this Session of the Lord Advocate and of the First Lord of the Treasury, months ago, and other hon. Members have done the same; and I have been told over and over again that the matter was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and that a plan would be proposed. But here we are at the end of the Session, and within a very short time of the expiration of the Board, and yet neither the ex-Secretary for Scotland nor the Lord Advocate can tell us how the matter stands. I think we have a right to complain of the manner in which we have been treated by the Scotch Office; and if anything could make me more determined than I am to bring this matter to a Division, it would be the generally off-handed way in which the right hon. Gentleman has asked us to give a plan.

MR.MACDONALD CAMERON&c.) (Wick,
There is one thing which we Members who represent fishing constituencies are agreed on, and that is that we shall reflect the opinions of our constituents on this subject. We are distinctly agreed upon one point, and that is that our constituents on the reconstruction of the Fishery Board wish to have practical men put upon it. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will promise me or the Committee that when the appointments are to be made next month he will put practical men on the Fishery Board, I, for one, shall be perfectly satisfied—I make that statement boldly and freely to the Committee. But if the right hon. and learned Gen- 1784 tleman only wants time to consider what the construction of the next Board shall be in order that he may re-appoint it for five years, and so shelve the difficulty, then I should be prepared to act with the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. I say I shall be prepared to act with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and so I should were it not that I have paired for the rest of the Session. The Lord Advocate must not think that we Scotch Members are not agreed upon this point. We are agreed on this—that our constituents say to us distinctly that the Board is unsatisfactory, and that it must be so reconstituted as to include upon it practical fishermen.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
We are agreed that some change should be made; but the only question is how that change is to be effected.

§ MR. MACDONALD CAMERON
It was the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant who said that we Scotch Members were not agreed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. H. A. Macdonald) is perfectly accurate in his statement, and I withdraw whatever observation I made imputing to him the declaration that we are not agreed. I should be sorry to accuse the right hon. and learned Gentleman of anything, because we all know his genial manner in the House, and we must all appreciate the effort he always makes to be agreeable. It was the Chief Secretary who said that there was a diversity of opinion amongst the Scotch Members, and that if the Government prepared a scheme it would please nobody. As a matter of fact, that is not the case—we are agreed upon this matter. We reflect the feeling of the people we represent, and we desire to see practical men put upon this Fishery Board.

§ MR. A. SUTHERLAND (Sutherland)
With regard to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, he seemed to raise considerable objection to the scheme which has been foreshadowed on these Benches being carried out. I think all these objections are illusory. I beg to ask the Committee how could the Scotch Fishery Board possibly be more unsatisfactory than it is at present? The Government have given no answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) as to the loans which 1785 the Fishery Board is empowered by Act of Parliament to grant to fishermen. My hon. Friend has pointed out that although the Act has been passed for a year, and although power has been given to grant those loans, not one penny has been advanced, nor has the Government yet told us whether the conditions for the granting of those loans will be modified. It has been proved that the conditions at present imposed are prohibitory; and what we wish to know is whether those conditions are to be removed? It is well known that if the crofter fishermen were in a position to raise 25 per cent of the amount they require, it would not be necessary for them to come to Parliament at all, as they could then get the money from the local banks. The conditions which are at present imposed, I think, ought to be removed; and the fishermen should be allowed to borrow money on conditions that they could accept. I beg to call attention to an answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to the hon. and learned Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) on March 31. The hon. and learned Member asked— Whether the Government intend to reconstitute the Scotch fishery Board by placing thereon some persons practically acquainted with the fishing industry; or whether, on the termination of the tenure of office of the existing Board, it is intended to re-appoint the existing members of the Board; and when the Annual Report of the Scotch Fishery Board will be laid upon the Table of the House? The hon. and learned Member also asked, whether any changes were contemplated with regard to the scientific advisers of the Board? The First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), in reply, said— I cannot answer the last Question without Notice. The question of the reconstitution of the Fishery Board is receiving the attention of the Government, and will be duly considered prior to October next, when the term of office of six members of the Board expires. It is hoped that the Annual Report of the Board will be laid upon the Table of the House about the end of May. A preparation of the Report, which will this year contain, besides the usual elaborate statistics of various fisheries, details of the experiments made in the waters closed against beam trawling, necessarily involves the expenditure of much time and labour."—(3 Hansard, [313] 84.) Now, I wish the Committee to bear this in mind—that on March 31 the First Lord of the Treasury declared that the question of the reconstitution of the 1786 Fishery Board was receiving the attention of the Government. Surely, then, they ought to be now in a position, to tell us what they actually mean to do. They have had ample time to come to a conclusion; and I trust that before this Division is taken, or if they want to avoid a Division, they will state exactly what has been done in the matter, and answer the question put to them by the right hon. Member for Berwickshire.

§ MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)
I understand perfectly the answer of the Government. I understood that the Lord Advocate says that practical men will be placed on the Board.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
I did not say that. I said the Government would consider the matter, and that I thought practical men should be placed upon the Board.

§ MR. ESSLEMONT
I think from what the Government have said we are warranted in going that length.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
We did not go that length.

§ MR. ESSLEMONT
Really this is not treating us fairly. We understood the Government to go that length.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
We did not say that.

§ MR. ESSLEMONT
Then do you intend to place practical men upon the Board?

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
Yes.

§ MR. ESSLEMONT
Then it is so intended. Let me remind the Lord Advocate that when I put a Question to him the other day upon this important subject the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave me a chaffing answer.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
I remember the occasion referred to. I answered the hon. Member's first Question; but as there was considerable noise in the House at the time I only heard a part of the second Question; and I did give the hon. Member a chaffing answer, but it was in perfect good humour.

§ MR. ESSLEMONT
I do not dispute the good humour; but he certainly gave me a chaffing answer, and that was not what I had expected on such a subject. What I would say is this—that I think we ought to be satisfied with the answer we have now received. I would, however, resent the action of the Chief Secretary, who, I understand, is speaking for the Secretary for Scotland, in telling 1787 the Scotch Members that they have not made up their minds. The Report we have received on the subject of the Scotch fishers is of immense importance. We did not have it in our hands until the other day, and Her Majesty's Government have not allowed us an opportunity of discussing it, and of coming to a conclusion upon the matter. It must go out to the public, therefore, that if the Scotch Members have not made up their minds on the subject it is because Her Majesty's Government have not given them the opportunity of discussing the matter. I think now that we have received an explicit answer from the Government that we ought to remain satisfied.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)
There are two courses open to us. The first is to make the appointment of the Fishery Board for one year——

§ DR. CLARK
You must appoint it for five years under the Act.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
I am stating the desire of the Government to meet the wishes of those who represent the people of Scotland, especially those who represent the fishing industry of that country. The aim of the Government is to constitute a Board in a manner which will entirely meet the object which hon. Members have in view. It must not be supposed that the Government desire either to continue the gentlemen on the Board who are inadequate or unfitted to perform the duties, or have any secret purpose to defeat the object for which the Board ought to exist—that is to say, to advance the interests of the fishing industry and of the fishermen. Therefore, the Government desire, in seeking to gather the views of hon. Members from Scotland, particularly those acquainted with the fishing industry, to take the steps which will best enable them to constitute a Board in the way which will most fitly represent the men whose interests are to be defended. We are asked to appoint practical men. It may not be possible to get practical men.

§ DR. CLARK
Yes; it is.

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order !

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
Well, if it be possible, we will do so; only we do not wish to enter into any engagement in regard to which it may be said later on that we have been guilty of bad faith, 1788 or of "taking in" hon. Members opposite by holding out expectations that we could not fulfil. But I say the Government desire to constitute a Board without any reservation whatever, so as to make it a practically useful Board, and if we can put on it men acquainted with the fishing industry we shall do so. Hon. Gentlemen, however, are aware that a practical fisherman is not a person who, as a general rule, is able to give much time to matters of this kind. Still, if we find practical fishermen, or men who have sufficient acquaintance with the matters involved, we will endeavour to obtain the advantage of their knowledge and experience on the composition of the Board for the benefit of fishermen. My only desire is to dispel from the minds of hon. Gentlemen any idea that there is any motive on the part of Her Majesty's Government to prevent any practical individual being put upon the Board, or to get practical interests neglected. We will do our best to get practical men on the Board. We want the Board to be a practical one, and will do all we can to make it so. Then, an hon. Member made a remark upon the question of boats. What we have to consider in connection with this matter is, whether there is sufficient security for the money asked; short of that there is no difficulty thrown in the way at all. Hon. Gentlemen, however, must be aware that fishing-boats and gear are things that deteriorate in value every year—that commence deteriorating from the very moment they are put to use. Therefore, we are bound to protect the Exchequer; in doing that, however, we do not wish to impose any conditions which are not absolutely necessary. I can assure hon. Members that the whole question is looked at from that point of view, and that only such conditions will be imposed as are necessary to secure the Revenue from the loss of the money advanced.

§ MR. R. W. DUFF (Banffshire)
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee an assurance that there will be a representation of fishermen on the Board. The right hon. Gentleman has not said whether the representation, whatever it may be, will be direct or indirect, although he promises the House that there shall be a representation of some kind.

1789

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
The representation is something that involves a formal system of election, and all that kind of thing. Now, I do not enter into any engagement of that sort, as it would involve an Act of Parliament, and arrangements of a difficult character. But the Government will endeavour to secure that there will be representation of the experience and knowledge of practical fishermen.

§ MR. R. W. DUFF
That is what I desired to elicit from the Government, whether there will be practical representation. I think, after the assurance we have had from the First Lord of the Treasury, my hon. Friend will do well not to press his Amendment to a Division. I understood the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to say that you might appoint this Board for only one year; I do not think that it is possible. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will forgive me if I am wrong; but I think the Act says that the Board must be appointed for five years. However, so far as I am concerned, I am quite content with the assurance we have received that practical fishermen will be represented on the Board.

§ MR. ANDERSON
I do not wish to differ from any hon. Gentleman on this side of the House, and certainly not with the hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. R. W. Duff), who is thoroughly familiar with the subject we are now discussing; but I am certainly not satisfied, for my part, with the assurances we have received from the Government. It seems to me to be that they will "endeavour" to secure the practical representation of fishermen. That, to my mind, is a statement which may lead to this in the future—"We have endeavoured to do this thing, but have not been successful." I can quite understand a matter of superhuman difficulty; but then everybody knows that it is quite possible to get fishermen practically acquainted with the trade to act on the Board. I could mention half-a-dozen practical fishermen who would be able to serve on the Board; and I dare say any of my hon. Friends around me could do the same. I am not, therefore, satisfied with the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury; and I ask that we should have a 1790 distinct assurance that practical men will be put upon the Board.

§ MR. MACDONALD CAMERON
We do not wish to worry the Government for the sake of worrying them; but we want a distinct promise on this matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury promise, or will the Lord Advocate promise, that when the time comes for the re-appointment or reconstitution of this Fishery Board next September, he will communicate with the Scotch Members representing fishing constituencies, and ask for their assistance or aid in the matter of finding practical men to act upon the Board?

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
I cannot go beyond the engagement that I have given. I have made a distinct engagement that I will endeavour to carry out, in a reasonable and proper way, the wishes of Scotch Members upon this matter. That engagement I shall perform. I think, however, that the hon. Member will see that the Government must be responsible for the appointments they make, and that, though they are always glad to receive suggestions from the Scotch Members, it will hardly be possible, in making these appointments, to ask the advice of those Members.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR (Kincardine)
I have thorough confidence in the First Lord of the Treasury, for I knowing good faith. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if the Government find it impossible to carry out their promise, whether they will make the appointment for a short time—say, for a couple of months?

§ MR. A. SUTHERLAND
Seeing that the conditions upon which the loans for boats are granted are practically prohibitory, will Her Majesty's Government take into consideration whether those conditions cannot be altered; and whether loans cannot be granted upon a smaller scale?

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
The hon. Member must see the necessity for there being that security which the Government deemed to be adequate. How-ever, we will inquire into the question, and see in what way we can meet the necessities of the case. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kin- 1791 cardine (Sir George Balfour), I must again say that we cannot go further than we have gone. I am sanguine that we shall be able to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen; but we are obliged to comply with the provisions of the Act of Parliament.

§ DR. CLARK
The Government cannot comply with the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because they are bound to appoint the Commissioners for a full period. Next month you will be appointing the Board, and you will be reconsidering its powers; and I hope the Government will take this matter into consideration. I hope that practical men, and not sugar brokers and timber merchants, will be appointed upon the Board.

§ MR. ANDERSON
I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily; but I wish to say I think this discussion has been effective in inducing the First Lord of the Treasury to take an interest in Scotch questions, and to give some attention to them. I should be acting wrongly if I did not accept his assurance that the Government intend to carry out the general wishes of the Scotch Members on this subject.

§ MR. MARJORIBANKS
I would ask what is the future policy of the Scottish Office and the Fishery Board as to the question of trawling? I was a Member of the Trawling Commission, and if one thing was clear in the evidence we took to all who read the Report it was this—that without doubt, in all the inshore waters, a very great amount of damage was done to fishing by the practice of beam trawling; and we recommended that the Scotch Fishery Board should have power to limit trawling within the Scottish territorial waters. The Fishery Board have interpreted the power they received as though it was only conferred upon them for experimental purposes. That I entirely deny. They have, no doubt, power to close waters for experimental purposes where they like; but they also have power and consent to close the whole territorial waters around the Scotch Coast against trawling altogether. What I ask is that they should exercise that power, and that not in a halfhearted manner, but vigorously. There has recently been a very interesting Report on the subject of trawling on 1792 the French Coast. There have been great complaints with regard to this method of fishing, and the Minister of Marine in that country ordered a Report to be made. In this Report it is stated that in consequence of trawling the breeding grounds are ruined, and the waters are void of life—in fact, that the whole of the fishing coast of France is in a complete state of decadence. In another portion of the Report it is stated that the various methods of trawling pursued and the increase in the number of trawlers has led to most disastrous results; and again it is said, with regard to the methods of alleviating the damage done, that there must be either a temporary or permanent suspension of trawling. So long as the use of heavy and powerful trawlers is permitted, the condition of French fishing is not likely to improve. In fact, the gentleman who drew up the Report is of opinion that trawling should be suppressed altogether in France. I am bound to say, for my own part, that I hold the opinion very strenuously that the whole system of trawling requires revision. With regard to territorial waters, I am perfectly confident that the only course to take in them is to suppress trawling altogether, and I hope to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate that that is the view the Scottish Office take, and the view they will impress upon the Scottish Fishery Board.

§ MR. ESSLEMONT
Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman replies to the question addressed to him, I should like to be allowed to thank the hon. Member who has just sat down for bringing this matter forward. I had some time ago a correspondence with the Scottish Fishery Board upon this very question. Aberdeen Bay was closed against trawling for a considerable part of last year, and I had universal testimony from fishermen in Kincardine and Aberdeen, and along the whole of the coast, that as a result the ordinary fishermen are returning to those waters, and are making an excellent living. The general statement made was, however, from the fishermen along that coast, that since the Bay had been again opened up to trawling the fishermen were placed in such circumstances that they look forward to serious destitution, if they are not altogether 1793 deprived of their living. The complaint is not only of the taking of the fish, but the fact is that the steam trawlers conduct their enterprise of trawling in such a way as to make it perfectly impossible to prosecute the white fishing. The trawlers come with the aid of steam, and encroach upon the forbidden waters; they run through the nets of the white fishermen, those men being perfectly helpless to follow them or to find out the damage they have done to their nets. Did I believe that there is good economic reason that steam or beam trawling should be conducted in order to increase the protection of those waters, I should be the last to forbid it; but I think we have no evidence whatever that that is the case. On the contrary, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick has just stated, we have evidence of quite a different kind. Now, Sir, I complain very strongly of the Scotch Fishery Board in this matter. They were making an experiment there; no one was finding any fault with it, but in a moment everyone was surprised and disappointed to find that Aberdeen Bay was opened up on account of a representation from one gentleman in St. Andrew's, and another in Granton. The course the Fishery Board took was against the strongest representation of the Aberdeen fishermen; it was done, forsooth, on the representation of persons, two-thirds of whom, at least, were altogether unacquainted with the fishing in the Bay. The Committee will excuse me for feeling some irritation that a step of such vital importance should have been taken by the Fishery Board without consulting those who represent the people, and by a mere caprice of the Board. The living of hundreds of families has been spoiled by this course. The Board said this water was too little for their purpose, but they must have had more water if necessary. What we complain of is that the law should be uncertain on this matter, and that people should be deprived of their living. I should like to see if there is anything in this Report to justify the action taken by the Fishery Board in regard to the opening up of Aberdeen Bay. The right hon. Member for Berwick suggested as the only satisfactory protection in this matter that beam trawling should be prohibited altogether in territorial waters. I perfectly agree with that, and I think that, 1794 if something of the kind is not done, we are very likely before long to have something like an open rebellion.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
There is one point of my hon. Friend's statement to which I would draw attention. It was with great surprise that I learned that Aberdeen Bay was opened up again to trawling. The first intimation I had of it was the statement made of the wrong being done. I do complain of the manner in which the Fishery Board have carried on their business, and I hope we shall hear some satisfactory explanation of this matter.

§ MR. ANDERSON
I am glad to say that beam trawling has been prohibited in the Moray Firth, by an order which has just come in force. It is said that the Fishery Board have only power to close territorial waters for the purpose of making experiments; if that is the view of the Fishery Board, I take it to be a very mistaken one. The Fishery Board say they opened up Aberdeen Bay because it was not large enough for the experiments they were making.

§ MR. ESSLEMONT
I was informed by the Fishery Board that they had not the power to keep the Bay closed for any other than an experimental purpose.

§ MR. ANDERSON
That is what I understood. This is a most important question. If the Act of Parliament is examined—no doubt the Lord Advocate has it before him—it will be seen that though experiments are mentioned it does not at all follow that when an order is made closing a part of the coast against trawling, that that only is to take place for the purpose of making an experiment. If the fact is as is contended by the Fishery Board, the sooner the Lord Advocate brings in a Bill to omit the original Act the better. There was a Division in the Committee of which the right hon. Member for Berwick was a Member, but the opinion then formed, which is manifest in the Report of the Board on page 74, was that beam trawling lessens the number of the fish, and injures the inshore trawling. This year they say the evidence already collected seems to indicate that by restricting trawling to the territorial waters, those waters would in course of time yield more mature fish, and serve as nurseries and feeding grounds during certain months of the 1795 year for shoals of herring, and cod, and of other valuable fish. It is a most extraordinary state of things if we are to be told after this statement in their own Report that trawling is to be re-established in Aberdeen Bay because they consider that it is not large enough for making experiments. Now, on this question, fortified as public opinion is by this Report, I shall hear with some surprise that the Act bears the construction which the Fishery Board have placed upon it, and I hope that the Government will at once take steps to have the construction corrected. There is plenty of time this Session to have it done. In a fortnight's time you could have the whole thing put right, and it is of such importance to the fishing industry that there ought to be no mistake at all about it. Not only does the trawling injure the fish, but the question of trawling is of the utmost importance to the older fishermen who cannot go to sea. The steam trawls cut and injure the lines as we have heard, and it is the older men who use those appliances, because they cannot go to sea. I hope the Lord Advocate will tell us what his view is on the question, so that there may be no mistake about it.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
There can be no question whatever that under the Act of 1885, the Fishery Board have power to put a stop to any particular mode of fishing they hold to be injurious to any part of the territorial waters, but they also have the power under that Act to close any part for the purpose of making experiments; and I think all Members of the Committee will agree with me that the very fact that authority is given to close certain parts of the territorial waters as may be required for the purpose of making experiments, indicates plainly that at first they must have an experimental stage in order to satisfy those who are enquiring what is the real effect of steam trawling, or whatever other mode of fishing they are dealing with upon the fishing in that quarter. Certainly it would be a very extraordinary step indeed, if, while experiments are going on, and the results of the experiments are not yet fully ascertained, trawling were prevented in the territorial waters all round Scotland. There is no question at all that, if it is proved by experi- 1796 ments that beam trawling cannot be carried on without inflicting injury to fishery everywhere, then everywhere beam trawling must be put down under this Act. There is no question about that, but everybody must agree that this is a matter that ought not to be decided without exhaustive experiments. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Esslemont) has said that the experiments in Aberdeen Bay have been most unfavourable at the time to the fishermen. I understand that another place has been selected for another experiment, and that the result may turn out to be the same as the result in Aberdeen Bay. While they are at the experimental stage, the Fishery Board cannot be blamed for selecting such places as they think best for experiments, and if they find a place is not suited for carrying on experiments, they cannot be blamed for changing the ground of experiment. As to the question of injury done to fishermen along the coast by the way in which beam trawling is conducted, let me say that there is great difficulty in their carrying out what we may call the sea police, for the purpose of preventing real injury being done to the fishermen by the manner and the way in which beam trawlers carry out their operations, even though these operations may be perfectly proper as regards fishing itself. This is a matter which requires consideration, and I am afraid the Act of 1885 has not been thoroughly operative in enabling the fishermen to obtain redress against those who commit depredations upon their fishing grounds. I think it is perfectly certain that if we find beam trawlers as a body are prepared to conduct themselves in such an outrageous manner as to do real injury to the nets of the other fishermen, that may be quite sufficient ground for such legislation as may prevent them coming within certain limits. If it turns out that you cannot, by the exercise of such sea police as we can organize, really put down what is a grievous wrong, then undoubtedly the Legislature must step in and. deal with the matter in a satisfactory manner.

§ DR. CLARK
I think the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is very satisfactory, and I shall take care that what he has said shall go North to the people who feel very 1797 strongly in regard to this matter. If the Fishery Board were to live any longer I might impress upon them the desirability of having proper boundaries. By the boundaries they have determined upon in the Moray Firth they have still left a large section of the Bay open to trawlers. It has been alleged that the trawlers drive the fish up the Bay, and that in this way the fishermen of the locality are benefited. Judging from the reception which trawlers receive when they enter the Bay I should say that the local fishermen do not believe that this is the case. Trawlers are stoned and the law otherwise broken. If the learned Sheriff, who is a member of the Fishery Board, had been present upon any occasion when a trawler made its appearance he would know that the fishermen do not want steam trawlers and do not benefit by their presence.

§ MR. ASHER (Elgin, &c.)
I entirely agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) that this much debated question of trawling will never be settled until the whole of the territorial waters have been closed to trawlers; but, at the same time, I must express my concurrence with the interpretation of the Act given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. The Act undoubtedly empowers the Fishery Board to close the territorial waters to any system of fishing which they are satisfied is injurious, and also to close territorial waters for experimental purposes. The reason why the Act took that form was that the Act followed upon the Report of Lord Dalhousie's Commission. That Commission reported that after taking a great deal of evidence they could not make up their minds whether trawling was injurious or not, and they practically, therefore, devolved upon the Fishery Board the duty of discovering whether trawling was injurious or not before territorial waters had to be closed. I confess I always thought it was a very unfortunate thing that the Dalhousie Commission did not take up much higher ground, and report as the result of the evidence laid before them whether, in their opinion, the whole of the territorial waters ought to be closed against trawlers. In face of the Report of the Commission it is impossible to 1798 carry legislation further than has been done in this Act. The practical question is how soon under the Act as it stands can trawling be put a stop to within territorial waters? Now, in the Report which the Fishery Board have issued they have taken a decided step in the direction of coming to a conclusion that trawling is injurious to the fishing within the territorial waters, and it seems extremely desirable that they should press on their experiments as quickly as possible, because there is no doubt that there is incidental to the system of partially closing waters for experimental purposes a great deal of injury to fishermen along the coast. Suppose the Scotch Fishery Board close the territorial waters of a particular district for experimental purposes, the immediate effect is to send all the trawlers to the adjoining district, and consequently the line fishermen in the district not closed have to submit to the injury of double trawling on their ground. This is not a theoretical objection. It is a very serious grievance to the fishermen to have trawling increased on their ground, because an adjoining ground has been closed for experimental purposes. There is no doubt that a certain period for experiments must be allowed, but it seems to me that it is extremely desirable that the Fishery Board should make up their minds as quickly as possible that trawling is an injurious mode of fishing in territorial waters, and that they should close territorial waters once for all; for, I am perfectly convinced, that this question will never be satisfactorily settled until this is done.

§ MR. R. W. DUFF
I do not want to say anything more about trawling; but simply to say that the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) fell into an error in regard to the harbour which is being constructed in my constituency. He said that this harbour was to cost £10,000. As a matter of fact, the Fishery Board are only to contribute £3,500, and the whole cost of the harbour is only to be £7,234. I also desire to say that I have not received an answer from the Lord Advocate in regard to the increase of the charge upon the Herring Brand.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
I will give the hon. Gentleman an answer at some future time.

1799

§ MR. ANDERSON
I now desire to call the attention of the Lord Advocate to a very important question which I raised some time ago, and which he promised should have his attention. The question relates to the action the Scotch Fishery Board has taken in the past, and may take in the future, with regard to the small fishing harbours. It is a matter of the greatest possible difficulty for fishermen living in villages to keep their harbours of sufficient depth to allow the present fishing boats to enter at all states of the tide. The consequence is that in these harbours—I know several, but I speak more especially of two which are situated in the constituency I represent—this state of things prevails. The harbours were made some time ago when the draft of the boats was less than it is now. By drifting and so on the entrances to the harbours become shallow, and they can only be entered for a few hours each day. What the fishermen want is some power to raise money to put and keep those harbours in proper condition. It is a matter of no difficulty to accomplish, if the Government will take the thing in hand, it may be most effectually carried out by very simple legislation. The Scotch Fishery Board have in their hands certain funds they devote to harbours, but I regret to think they have not been very discriminating as to the harbours to which they have devoted their funds. I am sorry the Lord Advocate is not now in his place, because I should like some reply from the Government upon this point. I beg pardon, I see the Scotch Lord of the Treasury (Sir Herbert Maxwell) is here. On page 24 of the Report of the Board it will be seen that no less than 29 harbours have applied for assistance in this respect, and that the Fishery Board have not given any assistance to them. The fishery Board did for the first time hold out a ray of hope to the fishermen using these harbours for, if the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) will follow me, he will find that on page 24 of their Report the Board say— We have come to the conclusion that a general measuse, not very extensive in its scope and purely permissive in its character, ought to be passed for the purpose of enabling fishermen to organize, under the name of District Fishery Board, a local authority, which should be empowered to manage harbours. And then the Report goes on to give no less than eight provisions which they 1800 think ought to be contained in such a measure They suggest, among other things, that this Local Authority should have power to levy rates, and that the area of the jurisdiction of the power they suggest should not be confined simply to the harbour itself.

THE CHAIRMAN
I am of opinion that that subject is quite outside the power of the Fishery Board at present. It is a question of legislation to be discussed independently of this Vote.

§ MR. ANDERSON
On the point of Order, Sir, I should have thought that the suggestion of the Fishery Board in their Report is a matter which comes under this Vote. At any rate, I presume I am entitled to consider the action of the Fishery Board in not having given assistance to those small harbours, and what I desire to ask the Government is what steps are going to be taken by them for the purpose of putting the Fishery Board in a better position to give assistance to these fishery harbours, and, if necessary, to place the Fishery Board in possession of larger funds which would enable them to give greater assistance? I think this is a fair question to put to the Government, though I doubt very much whether I shall receive a satisfactory reply. Complete ignorance is shown upon these matters by the Government, and I am afraid the hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) will not be able to give me the assurance I desire. The Report from which I have quoted was prepared in May, and it certainly ought to have been dealt with by the Government long ago. We ought not have been left in the dark for so long a lime, and then have the matter left in the hands of the Junior Lord of the Treasury, who, I imagine, has had no opportunity of considering it, and who, I dare say, never expected to be called upon to make a statement upon this subject. [At this point the Lord Advocate entered the House.] I hope to hear some statement from the Government which will reassure those who have to make their living in these small harbours that the Scotch Office and the Board of Trade between them will do something in respect of these small harbours. I have referred to the harbour loans, perhaps the Lord Advocate——

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. and learned Member must see he is travelling back to the question I ruled outside this 1801 Vote. The only question to be discussed is the administration of the fund at the disposal of the Fishery Board.

§ MR. ANDERSON
I must confess, Sir, I was rather disturbed by the entrance of the Lord Advocate.

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY) (Wigtonshire)
It is quite impossible for me to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman what the Government intend to do in regard to the recommendation made only a week ago; but I can tell him what the Board has done in the direction of the reconstitution of these harbours since its reconstruction in 1882. Previous to that time it had improved 28 harbours and piers, and since that time it has improved five harbours and piers in Banffshire. As to what the Government can do and will do, it depends of course very much upon what funds they have at their disposal. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Junior Lord of the Treasury is not very competent to answer on the subject of Scotch harbours.

§ MR. ANDERSON
I do not say that, but I suggested that the hon. Baronet had not of necessity had his attention called to the question.

§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELL
I know there are two sides to Scotland, the West and the East Coast. The Government have considered the claims of the West as well as the those of the East Coast. The funds at the disposal of the Fishery Board are limited, and the Board have done their best in the past to distribute the funds among those cases which seemed to them most pressing. I assure the hon. and learned Member that any moral influence which I have in the Government will be directed towards obtaining a fair and candid consideration of all the conflicting claims of the many harbours round the coast of Scotland.

§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Original Question put, and agreed to.

§ (4.) £3,982, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, Scotland.

§ (5.) £3,895, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Scotland.

§ (6.) £21,317, to complete the sum for the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, and for Public Health, Scotland.

1802

§ (7.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £37,955, 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 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and others, connected with Criminal Proceedings in Scotland, including certain allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83.

§ DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)
One very unsatisfactory feature of these Scotch Votes is the large number of notes referring to payments granted to officials. In this Vote, for instance, we find the sum of £850 for a Legal Secretary to the Lord Advocate, and then there is a note to the effect that the Legal Secretary to the Lord Advocate receives occasional fees for preparing Bills, &c. There is another point I wish to turn to, and that is the amount received by the Secretary to the Lord Advocate for the preparation of Bills under the authority of the Lord Advocate. I find that that sum amounts to £800. My reason for calling attention to this item in the Vote is that some years ago there was a Secretary to the Lord Advocate who received a moderate salary, I forget exactly the amount, and there was also attached to the Scotch Office a draftsman, a gentleman of very great ability and a very excellent draftsman. I believe that there was some unpleasantness, at all events, there was a re-arrangement. Mr. M'Lellan received a certain salary as draftsman, and received certain allowances for expenses. When the re-arrangement took place the usual plea was urged—namely, that it was in the interests of economy. Mr. M'Lellan was dismissed, and his emoluments were to a considerable extent added to the emoluments of the Lord Advocate's salary. I do not think that was a very satisfactory arrangement. It did not attract much attention at the time, but it is almost impossible for a gentleman to discharge adequately the duties of the Lord Advocate's Secretary and to do all the drafting of Bills. I should like the Lord Advocate to say whether the whole drafting is done by his Legal Secretary, or whether it is done to a large extent outside.

THE CHAIRMAN
The item for drafting comes in the next Vote.

1803

§ DR. CAMERON
What I wish to point out is that a portion of the salary and emoluments received by individuals is not mentioned in the chief head under which it comes. That is a practice which was greatly adverted to when the Committee was sitting upstairs, and I wish to direct special attention to it now. There are a number of other points in this Vote to which I think it right to call attention. I find, for instance, that the Crown Agent receives £1,200 per annum. and I should like to know from the Lord Advocate whether the Crown Agent is engaged in any private business; is he a land agent or does he practice privately?

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
The Crown Agent has invariably been a Writer to the Signet in Edinburgh, and the present Crown Agent is a member of the firm of Tods, Murray and Jamieson. It is obvious that a gentleman in such a position cannot be asked to give up his other means of livelihood.

§ DR. CAMERON
I asked that question because it forms a portion of another and a greater question. I beg to move the reduction of this Vote in connection with the administration of the criminal business in Scotland. Probably the best way of doing that will be to move to reduce the Vote by £500 in respect of the expenses for criminal prosecutions under the authority of the Lord Advocate. In the course of last autumn a number of proceedings were taken to which attention was called at the time in the Island of Skye and elsewhere. I am not going to enter into the details of these proceedings, but I wish to draw attention to two or three cases which I think justify my contention that we should be chary of granting too much money for this purpose. There were several arrests made in a most arbitrary fashion, in a most expensive fashion, and in a fashion for which there is no earthly reason. There was a clergyman—an Established Church clergyman—in the Isle of Skye, who had been present at a meeting, and a report of which appeared in the newspapers. That report, however, gave an erroneous account of some resolution adopted at the meeting and, a month after the meeting had taken place—a month after this resolution had been passed—proceedings were taken against this clergyman, and against another person who had been present at the 1804 meeting. The authorities alleged that the resolution in question was criminal. They had no evidence whatever of its being passed, except the statement in the newspaper to that effect. Without taking the smallest trouble to ascertain the correctness of the report, they laid hold of this clergyman. They sent an expedition to his house, they had him surrounded by Marines, marched off to prison, and kept in prison some days before he was released on bail. Mr. J, M'Pherson, the gentleman who induced the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) to take an interest in crofter matters, and acted as the right hon. Gentleman's guide when he travelled through the Highlands, was the gentleman who was arrested along with Mr. Macallum. Mr. M'Pherson's house was surrounded, and he was arrested and carried many miles to gaol, and kept in gaol for seven days, being released about 10 o'clock on a Saturday night, when he had to walk some 35 miles to his home, which he reached about midday on the Sunday. When these gentlemen had been arrested, the Crown took steps to procure evidence against them. They hunted the whole island for persons who were present at the meeting, and they procured the attendance of their witnesses in a very high handed manner. I am credibly informed that fishermen, engaged in their occupation, were seized and told they must go at once to the Procurator Fiscal and give in their depositions. There is not the smallest reason why the Rev. Mr. Macallum should not have been brought before the Sheriff, neither is there any reason to suppose that Mr. M'Pherson would have taken himself off if he had been summoned. On a previous occasion, when he came in contact with the law, he pledged himself to give himself up to the Government, and, as a matter of fact, he travelled at his own expense to Greenock for the purpose of complying with his promise. There is not the smallest reason to believe that Mr. M'Pherson would not have given himself up in this case. There is no reason why he should not have been summoned; there is no earthly reason why so unnecessary an expense should have been gone to in the way of making a military demonstration for the arrest of this man for what was 1805 really a political offence, if it was anything at all—namely, complicity in the drawing up of a resolution which turned out afterward not to have been correctly reported. There was no reason for arresting these men before evidence had been got against them; but, as a matter of fact, the hunt for evidence did not take place until these men had been clapped in gaol. When one of them threatened proceedings, a fresh hunt for evidence was made, and an Inverness newspaper office was completely ran-sacked for evidence. For months afterwards the magistrates hunted for evidence. These were not right or creditable proceedings, and I think the Committee should, by diminishing the Crown expenses connected with them, mark their sense of the injustice perpetrated. Furthermore, I maintain that, in respect to conviction cases, the law of Scotland is strained to its utmost limits, the whole resources of civilization appear to be turned against the population for the purpose of securing convictions. A man in Skye wrote a letter to the Secretary for Scotland, in which he denounced the conduct of the official who was in charge of the expedition as that of a judicial monster. Having sent the letter to the Secretary for Scotland, he thought proper to print it, and a copy of it was circulated in the Highlands. He was seized and cast into prison. Now, I do not defend his action in using the term "judicial monster" towards Sheriff Ivory; but I maintain that, if he were made accountable at all, he should have been made accountable for his words in a Civil Court, and should not have been summarily seized and put into prison on a charge for which the Crown Authorities did not, when they came to investigate the matter, even think of prosecuting. I got a letter this morning relating to an eviction. It was from Mr. Donald McKie. There was an eviction riot in Argyllshire, and some men were arrested in connection with it. Among them was this Mr. McKie. He denied he was near the place until after all the disturbance had occurred, but he was prosecuted, and he was sentenced to 30 days' imprisonment, although he had witnesses to prove he was not at the place during the progress of the riot. He appealed, but, owing to some technical mistake, the hearing of his appeal was put off for 19 days, and he was 1806 kept 19 days in prison. When at length the appeal was heard he was liberated. Such a thing may happen under all circumstances; but it is an extraordinary fact that it is in the Highlands where you find mistakes against prisoners occurring with the greatest frequency. When this man's innocence was proved before the Appeal Court he naturally complained of his treatment, and wished the authorities to prosecute the witness who had testified he was present at the time of the riot, and who had got him imprisoned. Now, you see the point of my question—whether the Crown Agent acts as land agent? This man assorts that the Crown Agent is the agent for an estate in the neighbourhood of the place where the riot occurred, and that the witness on whose false testimony he was convicted is a tenant on that estate. I do not say that the Crown Agent was influenced by this fact, but I maintain that the injured person naturally attributes the refusal of the Crown authorities to take any action against the man whose false evidence had sent him to prison, to the fact of the Crown Agent being agent for the estate on which this man was tenant. Now, there is another side to the question, and that is the lethargy which marks the action of: the Crown Office in other matters. Some time ago, I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman a Question concerning a fraudulent bankruptcy case in Glasgow. A man named Ferrier bought a number of articles of jewellery, and pledged them within four months of his sequestration. In the second place, he entered the money he received on the pledged goods as having been received from his bank; and in the third place, he obtained other articles of jewellery on false pretences, having, according to his own contention, obtained the articles on the plea that some customer was waiting to buy them from him. These are all offences under the Debtors (Scotland) Act. The man was reported to the Sheriff by the trustee in the ordinary way, and the Sheriff reported him to the Lord Advocate for prosecution. Nothing was done then, the case lingered for many months—the sequestration occurred in September—and he was brought up in the month of April following, charged not under the Act expressly passed for dealing with this class of offence, but charged with fraudulent imposition. The man pleaded 1807 guilty, but Advocate Depute refused to move for sentence. Now, I do not wish for vindictive administration of the law, but I do certainly say that when Parliament takes the trouble to pass an Act that Act should be enforced. I think the law should have been vindicated by this man being brought up and receiving some sentence. The mercantile community should have been shown that the pledging of goods obtained on credit within four months of sequestration, and the falsification of accounts, and the obtaining of goods by false pretences, constitute crime under the Debtors Act. The Lord Advocate replying to my Question on the subject told me the case did not occur within four months of sequestration. That is quite wrong. I have it on good authority that there are four instances in which all these three breaches of the Debtors Act occurred within four months of sequestration. Take another case in connection with the administration of law in the Highlands, as showing the invidious-ness with which justice is administered. Some men made themselves very notorious in connection with the Skye expedition. For instance, a namesake of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate—but I believe no connection of his—Mr. Macdonald the Sheriff's officer, made himself very notorious. Among other charges, charges of assault were brought against this man; of course the Fiscal would not act. Very shortly before the expedition Macdonald had burned down a house. He evicted the tenant, and having done so was seen to burn down the house. He had no authority whatever to do that; he was guilty of firing neither more nor less. An investigation of the matter was made and he was reprimanded. He was reprimanded by the Lord Advocate through the Sheriff of the county. I venture to say that if it was right to strain the law to such, an extent as to seize a man who called a Judge a "judicial monster," and put him in prison; if it was necessary to strain the law in the case of the clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Macallum; if it was necessary to drag fishermen from their work to give evidence against Mr. Macallum, it was necessary to administer the law in a more stringent manner than was done in the case of this Mr. Macdonald. When this man burnt down a house 1808 without the slightest authority to do so, when he did so to the detriment of the dwellers in the house who afterwards were obliged to vindicate their rights in a Civil Court, I think the authorities were bound to give greater consideration to the matter than they did in order to show that they were actuated by a desire to administer even-handed justice. I have pointed out the reason why I have moved the reduction of this Vote; in the first place, the useless expense, offensively and unnecessarily gone to, gone to in a manner the Lord Advocate tells us he himself disapproved of in connection with the arrest of the Rev. Mr. Macallum, and Mr. M'Pherson; the unnecessary expense to which the county was put by the putting in prison of the man who called Sheriff Ivory a "judicial monster," without seeking a remedy—if any remedy was necessary—in the Civil Court; the laxity, on the other hand, of the administration of the law in other cases to which I have drawn attention, especially in the case of Ferrier; and the laxity in another set of cases of which I have quoted that of Mr. Macdonald as a type, and furthermore the prevalence of the system of the Procurator Fiscal and others engaged in the administration of justice acting as land agents and in other private capacities. This is a practice which, as I have shown to-night, exists not only in the case of Procurator Fiscals, but in the case of the Crown Agent, greatly to the detriment of the popular belief in the impartiality of the administration of justice in Scotland. I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by £500.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That Item C, Criminal Prosecutions under the authority of the Lord Advocate, be reduced by the sum of £500."—(Dr. Cameron.)

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
I have very great pleasure in supporting the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron); all the points that he has called in question I feel very strongly upon. Now, as to the Crown Agent, I have been able to get from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate the information that this most important of all Scotch Law Officers next to the right, hon. and learned Gentleman himself, is a member of a firm who attend to the estates of Scotch landlords, and that on these estates there is 1809 occasional trouble. The fact that the Crown Agent acts in a double capacity has caused a great dual of suspicion in some portions of Scotland regarding his impartiality, The Crown Agent is one of those curious men like the Lyon Kin g-of-Arms, who holds a number of offices.

THE CHAIRMAN
I must remind the hon. Gentleman that this Amendment only refers to criminal prosecutions.

§ DR. CLARK
This man ran as a Conservative candidate for one Division of——

THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order!

§ DR. CLARK
Well, he is one of the leading Conservative electioneering agents, and I think that a gentleman who occupies the very important position of Crown Agent ought to give his entire services to the Crown, and ought not to be a member of a practising firm of solicitors. Then, with reference to the other point raised on Sub-head D—"Sheriffs' Accounts, Procurators Fiscal, not paid by salaries, &c." It has reference to the Procurator Fiscal at Portree. This gentleman is not paid by salary, but by fees, and probably the prosecutions that we complain of will add to his income. The action of the Fiscal in the case of the Rev. Mr. Macallum and Mr. M'Pherson wag entirely unwarranted. The rev. gentleman, Mr. Macallum, was going to preach for one of his friends some distance away, and just as he was starting they seized him and rushed him into prison upon some vague report that, a month or live weeks previously, he had used inflammatory language at a meeting. The report was discovered to be entirely incorrect. he had never used inflammatory language at all; but the Procurator Fiscal thought it proper to prevent a congregation hearing the eloquent sermon of this rev. gentleman; for, instead of allowing him to preach to them, he ordered him to spend his Sunday in prison, and all because some stupid report had appeared regarding a speech Mr. Macallum was supposed to have made. All that was required was that a summons should have been served upon the rev. gentleman, to which he would certainly have attended. Instead of that he was imprisoned. the same thing occurred in the case of Mr. M'Pherson. You took this poor crofter 1810 by sending a gun-boat to arrest him, also for a mythical crime, and then the Procurator Fiscal kept him in prison for seven days, refused to allow anyone access to him, and only turned him out of prison late on Saturday night. He was then 40 miles away from his home, and he was obliged, in order to reach it, to walk all night. Previous to this M'Pherson had been interdicted by the Superior Court of Ireland. He was required to deliver himself up in Edinburgh, and he went to Greenock and hunted about to find someone to arrest him. It was difficult for him to do this, as he could anly be arrested by an officer of the Supreme Court. In this case, also, the Procurator Fiscal ought to have summoned him. There is another case which comes under Sub-head E., and which also ought to be considered—a case respecting the same Procurator Fiscal. I am not going to say anything about Sheriff Ivory, because we hare had him in Quarter Session, where he was found guilty and punished; but I mean to say a word respecting the Orkney Fiscal, whose salary, I think, ought to be reduced. This is one of the Fiscals who first begun the absurd practice of using gun-boats in the prosecution of trivial matters. A lad of 14 years of age was supposed to have sent a threatening letter to a gallant gentleman in the Army; this was the first offence the lad had committed, but it was thought necessary that a gunboat should be sent to intimidate him. The next complaint we have to make against this Procurator Fiscal and Factor, for this man represented both the Crown and the landlord, is an organized attempt on his part to intimidate the people. There was a rev. gentleman, a Minister of the Free Church, and a member of the School Board, who lent to a Conservative candidate the use of a school free, and who oven went further and gave the candidate the gratuitous use of his own lamps to light the school, in order to enable the candidate to address the people there. All the clergyman wanted was the ordinary right of a Scotch elector to heckle the candidate, and he asked two questions—namely, whether the candidate intended to support the landlords, and whether he intended to support Lord Randolph Churchill and his obstructive Party in the House of Commons. The Procura- 1811 tor Fiscal created a new crime upon this occasion, which was, that the rev. gentleman would not sit down when the Chairman rose, but persisted in asking impertinent questions. the result was that this Procurator Fiscal—this Tory agent—notwithstanding all that the poor minister had done to oblige the Conservative candidate, actually dragged the minister up upon this frivolous charge, and got him sentenced to four days' imprisonment. We got the Quarter Sessions to suspend the sentence, and, upon hearing the appeal, the Quarter Sessions unanimously resolved that this was a frivolous prosecution, that no crime had. been, committee!, and they therefore ordered the immediate liberation of the rev. gentleman. A good deal of money was spent upon the prosecution, and the other ministers of the Island have been wanting to know how much was spent. Until now the Lord Advocate has been supporting the Sheriff and the County Authority in refusing to give any particulars to the ratepayers, especially to the ministers, as to the amount spent by the county in trying to constitute the heckling of a Conservative candidate a new crime. Seeing that the Court unanimously decided that heckling is no crime, seeing' that the senior lord of the Court, in giving the decision, said he could not characterize the charge, I think this House should curb officials like the Orkney Procurator Fiscal—should take a little oft' his salary for such work as I have described. I do not think that other Procurators Fiscal at Portree and Orkney should receive the salaries asked for them because of the way they have misused the power placed in their hands. I cannot help thinking that we have frightened some of the Procurators Fiscal, and that they will not trouble us again in the same fashion. I strongly support the reduction of the Vote proposed by my hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron).

MR. MACDONALD CAMERON&c.) (Wick,
I have pleasure in supporting what has been said by my hon. Friends the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark). I will not detain the Committee by going over the ground that has been traversed by those hon. Gentlemen, but I think it would conduce to the well-being of the country 1812 if the Law Officers of the Crown were not in any way to engage in private practice. This House knows, and I think the House gives the Scotch people credit for the fact, that the Scotch people are a law-abiding people. If, however, the fountains of justice are poisoned, you cannot expect that the people will continue to be law-abiding. I assure the Committee that recently the people have been very sorely tried in respect to the administration of justice, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, as the official Representative of Scotland in this House, will take care that in case of vacancies arising in the Law Offices the gentlemen appointed will devote their whole attention to the duties of their office. I do not for a moment suppose that this House will ever deny a fair day's wage for a fair day's work.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)
I think it will be granted that in prosecutions, as in the management of other Public Business on a large scale, things will occur which are not satisfactory. Some arrests were made which were not wise, and in eases in regard to which another mode of procedure would have effected what was wanted perfectly well. What has happened in consequence of these cases, however, will perhaps prevent such occurring in the future. In regard to the Crown Agent I must take this opportunity of saying to the Committee that so long as the Crown Agent is an official who has to pack up all his things and go off whenever the Government changes it cannot be expected that any gentleman holding a good position will give up that position and take the office upon a salary, with the possibility that at the end of three months or six months, or at the end of three or four years he may be turned out. Up to the present time the Crown Agent has always been a man holding a very high position, and I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that in all cases of criminal prosecutions the present Crown Agent, with whom alone I have had to do, has taken no part in any of them. I have further to inform hon. Members that as regards criminal prosecutions in cases which come up to the Crown Office in Edinburgh the Crown Agent has no discretion whatever, he is merely the official who manages the business of the office, 1813 who sees that the correspondence is properly carried on, that the proceedings are properly brought up and sent on to the Crown Counsel, and they are sent to the Crown Counsel without any advice whatever on his part, and without his interference in any way with the papers which come up from the Procurators Fiscal in the county. I am sure I shall be borne out by my right hon. and hon. and learned Friends on the Front Opposition Bench when I say that the Crown Agent does give the Lord Advocate most useful advice in regard to matters of a civil nature. He spares himself in no way to give him advice upon civil matters, but he has nothing whatever to do with actual criminal prosecutions. I hope that what I have now said will allay the feeling which seems to exist as to the Crown Agent's supposed interference in criminal prosecutions. As regards Procurators Fiscal it is perfectly true that in many cases they have not confined their attention to the duties of their office, and that they do not receive salaries sufficiently adequate to justify their being called upon to so restrict their attention. I think that the present is not a desirable state of things, and if we could by any possibility cure it I should be the very first to do so. As far as we have boon able to, we have in many cases, both in the time of my Predecessor and myself, made arrangements whereby in the future a Procurator Fiscal shall be limited to the duties of his office. But, Sir, so long as Procurators Fiscal are only local officials in a particular county, and are not members of the Public Service, liable to be moved and entitled to be moved in the way of promotion from one place to another, I do not think we can absolutely get rid of the present difficulty. It is quite impossible to expect that in outside places like Portree, Orkney, and Loch Maddy you can ever get efficient men for such work as that of Procurators Fiscal for a small sum. It is quite impossible to expect a man to sit down in such places as these upon an inadequate salary, without the slightest prospect of an improvement in his position.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,
Why not?

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
If you get a clever and able man he will naturally aim at becoming something better than a Procurator Fiscal on a 1814 desolate island on a salary of £250 a-year.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
Why should he not be promoted to a superior position?

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
Because at present Procurators Fiscal are not members of the Public Service, but are the local servants of the Sheriffs of the counties in which they servo. If we could have Procurators Fiscal put upon the Public Service, so that we could do as we do now with Sheriffs' substitutes—move good men from outlying places to better places, where they will have more society and better salaries—I believe it would be a great benefit. If the Members of the House of Commons who have the control of the public purse are willing that Procurators Fiscal should be put upon the Public Service at an enormously increased cost to the public, I think that a great improvement in this direction might be effected. But so long as things are in the present position there will be great difficulties in the way of an improved Service. Personally, I have made every effort, and I know that my right hon. and learned Predecessor the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) did the same, in every case where it was possible, to secure an efficient person, and to improve the salary, and, as far as possible, exclude the official from engaging in other business. In many cases, however, it is extremely difficult to make such a regulation.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
I should like to receive some further explanation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Are we to understand that the Procurators Fiscal still hold office during the pleasure of the Sheriffs, and are liable to be turned out at the pleasure of the Sheriffs? if that is not so, I do not in the least understand why it should not be possible to promote a Procurator Fiscal who has shown himself an efficient man.

§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD
The Procurator Fiscal for a county is nominated by the Sheriff subject to the approval of the Secretary of State; but he cannot be transferred to another county if he prove himself efficient, because the Sheriff of the other county has his own nomination.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR (Kincardine)
But we think important 1815 public officials of this kind ought not to be the nominees of the Sheriffs. It is for the Lord Advocate to introduce a change. I wish a Procurator Fiscal, whatever his salary, to be nominated by the responsible officer of the Government, and not to be a mere nominee of the Sheriff. It scorns to me that that is an extremely necessary change to make; and I also think that we should be able to promote Procurators Fiscal, and that we might do this without any very large increase of the public charge. I believe that your ruling, Sir, will not enable us to go beyond the question of criminal prosecutions and Procurators Fiscal; but, if we could, I should like to say that it is impossible for us to arrive at any conclusion as to the emoluments of public servants, whether they are Crown Agents, Procurators Fiscal, or anything else. I understand that the system by which public officials are paid is by fees and salaries; but in Scotland you pay officials salaries while, at the same time, they receive fees. There are many notes to this Vote showing that such and such officials also receive certain, fees. You really have a general system under which it is impossible for a Member of Parliament or anybody else to get at I what the real emoluments of these legal officers are.

§ MR. MACDONALD CAMERON
I quite admit what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has just said in regard to the difficulty of dealing with Procurators Fiscal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says we cannot get a thoroughly good man, under the present circumstances, to consent to be located in one of the Western Islands of Scotland. If, however, you will put Procurators Fiscal on similar terms to Inland Revenue and Custom officials, to Post Office officials, or constitute them a separate and distinct department, the members of which are bound to go anywhere, you will be able to overcome the difficulty. Men will go to the most outlandish places because they are ordered. If some such system as I suggest were adopted, there is no doubt that the source of justice would be greatly purified. I do hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to advise the Government to put these particular officials upon a footing which will be satisfactory.

1816

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 173: Majority 101.—(Div. List, No. 389.)

§ Original Question again proposed.

§ MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)
I rise, Sir, to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will give me the credit of moving' this from a sense of public duty, and from no personal feeling in regard to the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. I observe that in connection——

THE CHAIRMAN
The Amendment the hon. Member has given Notice of is to reduce the item A. He cannot do so after the Division which has just occurred, He may move it on item C.

§ MR. ESSLEMONT
I rose in my place, Sir, to move my Amendment some time ago, but you called upon the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron).

§ MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)
Go against the whole Vote.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,
Several of us, Sir, who are anxious to draw attention to the matter in question, have been deprived of an opportunity of doing so. The hon. Member for Glasgow began by making remarks upon the whole Vote, and he gradually went on to move the reduction of a particular item before any of us knew that anything was going to happen.

§ DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)
The hon. Gentleman may move the reduction of the whole Vote.

§ MR. ESSLEMONT
I will not occupy the attention of the Committee for any length of time, but the circumstances of the case I wish to bring under the notice of hon. Members are these. We have been promised a reorganization of the Scotch Office, and, as I said before regarding the Secretary for Scotland, we were to relieve the Lord Advocate of his political functions. I am not now speaking of the very important functions that the Lord Advocate performs in connection with the administration of the Criminal Law of Scotland; but what I ask is, that since we are voting £2,000 for the Secretary for Scotland to be our political Representative, why should we 1817 continue to pay exactly the same sum to the Lord Advocate, who has not these duties to perform? Now, if the Committee will look into this Vote, they will find that there is a sum of £2,388 a-year paid to the Lord Advocate, and that there is also a sum of £850 a-year paid in lieu of fees abolished by Act of Parliament in 1852. The reason that I have moved the reduction of the Vote-by £738 is that I think the salary paid to the Lord Advocate should be £2,000, and that his receipts in lieu of fees abolished should be only £500, making altogether a sum of £2,500. Now the reason for my moving this reduction is, that we are placing the Lord Advocate in respect of his political Office in a higher position than we place the Secretary of State for Scotland; and if it were not that comparisons are odious, I might say that in return for a less amount than that which you pay the Lord Advocate you have the duties of the Chairman of Ways and Means—most important and responsible duties—performed. In regard to the fees abolished; I quite admit that during the time that some past occupants of the situation filled the Office the Lord Advocate now holds, it was quite right to give a Vote in lieu of the foes abolished, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Lord Advocate has ample opportunities for devoting his great talents to professional duties for which he is paid, so far as I can see, a sum equal to £5,000. Now, we are taunted by some English Members that we are always willing to take large sums of money when we can appropriate them to ourselves in Scotland—that we are always ready to receive money if it comes out of the Treasury. But here is a distinct case to the contrary; here is a case in which we do not want our officials to be paid too highly. I have another reason for asking for the reduction of this Vote. I think, as has been indicated by Questions put in this House, that the Lord Advocate might be relieved altogether of his political position in this House. He is superseded by the Secretary for Scotland, and he is superseded by the Home Secretary, and he has no real position or authority, and I do not see why his should not be a terminable situation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has said with regard to these Votes, that we must pay these officers well, for the reason that they 1818 are subjected to the exigencies of Party, and are liable to be turned out of Office when there is a change of Government—that they take temporary Offices under Government which they might lose in the course of two or three months, and that, therefore, they cannot be expected to relinquish their professional emoluments for the Office. My answer to that is that the Lord Advocate need not necessarily be placed in that position at all. If you remove from the Office of the Lord Advocate his political position, then for that reason the Lord Advocate for Scotland need not necessarily be in this House, and may remain in the enjoyment of his official emoluments for a longer period than the existence of a single Government. There is a Gentleman in this House who is very much underpaid—that is to say the Solicitor General for Scotland—and my suggestion is that there should be a redistribution of the emoluments of these Offices. I am not at all sure what these professional Members of the Government from Scotland do, because it seems to me, if we look at the general Votes of the House, that salaries are paid to other officers for doing the work. I suppose we may look upon some of these high officials as merely superintending. I suppose it is necessary that someone should advise the Government as to Scotch law, and I think that that function falls very naturally upon the Gentleman who fills the Office of Solicitor General for Scotland. He does not seem to be provided with professional clerks to do this work, and I certainly think he is very much underpaid, receiving only £900 or £1,000 a-year, while the Lord Advocate has £3,238 a-year, besides a great amount of assistance in the performance of his duties. I should, of course-, excuse the right hon. and learned Gentleman for defending his own position and emoluments, but I am very sorry to see the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson) is not in his place——

§ An hon. MEMBERS: He is here.

§ MR. ESSLEMONT
Then I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. I have no doubt he will rise in his place and defend the emoluments of the Lord Advocate. I hope, however, he will take into consideration the important fact, that I do not, in any way, desire to 1819 deprive Scotland of it fees, but merely desire that a Gentleman who represents one of the counties of Scotland should have a fair salary, as compared with, that received by a Gentleman who merely represents the Professions, -who sits for the Professions holding a place which I think to be untenable. Notwithstanding the very aristocratic constituency of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate——

THE. CHAIRMAN
Order, order!

§ MR. ESSLEMONT
I was going to say that notwithstanding the aristocratic constituency that sends the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to this House, I think that anyone who takes a political position here should be in touch with his constituency. Hence my reason, though I may be quite out of Order—and, as a matter of fact, I believe I am out of Order—in questioning in any way how any hon. Gentleman finds his way to this House—for moving this Amendment, as I think it is not fair play that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate should receive such rich emoluments whilst the right hon. and learned Solicitor General for Scotland receives such poor remuneration for his services, which are so well acknowledged: I will not, under the circumstances, put the Committee to the trouble of dividing upon this Amendment. I know that my Friends who are supporting me will be very much disappointed, because I know that they desire very much to effect this economy. But we are promised a new Bill with regard to the Secretaryship for Scotland, and we are promised much better services, generally speaking, than we have had hitherto. My complaint is, that with ail our paid officials we have got no Scotch Business done, and have been entirely neglected. We will not pay the money unless we get better services; and this Motion, therefore, will be a warning to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.

THE CHAIRMAN
Does the hon. Member move the reduction?

§ MR. ESSLEMONT
Yes, I will move it.

§ Motion made, and Question, "That £37,217 be granted for the said Services,"—(Mr..Esslemont,)—put, and negatived.

§ Original Question put, and agreed to.

1820

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £43,465, 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 or March 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland, and other Legal Charges.

§ DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)
rose to speak to the Question.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)
I had hoped that it would have been possible to complete these Votes this evening; but we are under an engagement to take the Technical Instruction Bill now, and if, therefore, there is likely to be any discussion upon any of these Votes, we shall be compelled to postpone them.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
I want to say, by way of caution, that we Scotch Members must not be supposed to approve of all these Votes contain. It is only through the necessities of the case that we refrain from opposing them.

§ DR. CAMERON
It would be impossible to allow all these Votes to go without, discussion.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
Well, I move to report Progress.

§ DR. CAMERON
When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to proceed with the Scotch Votes—when next we go into Committee?

§ Mr. W. H. SMITH
No; when next we go into Committee we shall proceed first with the English Votes.

§ MR. R. W. DUFF (Banffshire)
When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take the Scotch Votes again?

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
In their proper order.

§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. W. H. Smith,)—put, and agreed to.

§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

§ Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.