§ 1. £6,410, to complete the sum for Secretary for Scotland's Office.
MR. T. SHAW (Hawick)said, he had placed on the Paper a Motion for the reduction of the salary of the Secretary for Scotland by £100, but he had no desire to reduce the right hon. Gentleman's salary, his object being to elicit some information from him with regard to the split in the Deer Forests Commission, which would be reassuring to the mind of the people of Scotland. He had no title to attack the general policy of the appointment of the Commission, but he desired to know what action the right hon. Gentleman was taking with respect to this Commission. His own feeling was distinctly favourable to the appointment of the Commission, and he had nothing but the highest praise for the action of the Government in regard to it. But certain circumstances had arisen within the last few weeks which he desired, in the public interest, and for the peace and good order of the Highlands of Scotland, to call the attention of the Committee to. He thought it was very evident that recently the Commission had not been performing its proper work.
THE CHAIRMANI desire to point out that the hon. Member cannot on this Vote enter upon the performance of the duties of this Commission.
MR. T. SHAWsaid, he had no desire to attack the Commission or the performance of its duties, but he wished to elicit some information from the right hon. Gentleman as to his own conduct in regard to the Commission. What he would say with regard to the Commission was that he trusted the Commis- 1058 sioners would put aside all personal feelings and look to the far wider and more important interests that were at stake rather than take into consideration any question of private wrongs to any one of them. He had the highest regard for the Chairman of the Commission, who was well qualified, both by his legal experiences and the able services he had rendered on the Crofters' Commission, to ably perform the duties attaching to the Office; but he felt bound to say that, whatever might have happened within the Commission, the feeling in Scotland was in the direction of a healing of the trivial squabble that had occurred. He hoped they would have from the Secretary for Scotland something of an assuring character to show that efforts on the part of the Government had not been wanting to heal up the contention, and that the Scottish people should obtain from this Government by the operation of the Commission something that, at all events, would be the basis of legislation so much desired in Scotland to enable crofters beyond the Highland line to have further land on which they might exercise their calling. In respect of that demand he only desired to say that, unless contention in the Commission came speedily to a close, the demand on the subject would grow in intensity; and as the question of social order and the peace of the district was involved, he hoped to hear from the right hon. Gentleman something to assure the Committee that no effort had been wanting on the part of the Government to allay the feeling that had arisen. Perhaps his own connection with this matter was known to the Committee. He was personally acquainted with the Chairman, and was known to some of the others, and he would appeal to them to put aside all sense of private wrongs, and keep in view the fact that the wrong and injustice to the crofter population demanded that all temporary ill-feeling should be put on one side. Unless they put aside their own personal feelings and had a sense of patriotism, a great amount of evil would be wrought in Scotland. There was one other general topic he should like to refer to on this Vote, and it was, that he thought the time had come for Scotchmen to ask themselves whether, after all, the Office of Secretary for Scotland was one that could longer satisfy the needs of Scotch- 1059 men. For the administration from Dover House he had nothing but praise; and if administration were all that was demanded, Scotland would be probably the best governed country in the world. But that was not the sole point of view from which they looked at this Scottish Office. The Office was created not from an administrative standpoint, but to give a more effective means of legislating for Scotland, and from that point of view he must express a sense of great disappointment. So far as legislation was concerned, they thought that a further step would have been gained when the Secretary for Scotland was appointed to Cabinet rank; but they found that Scotland was governed by a bureau, and that would not do for the Scottish mind. Scotland would not be governed by a bureaucracy, however good it might be. Year after year Scotland had seen her legislation dragging wearily behind that of England, and they too readily realised this fact on the questions of Registration and Local Veto. In conclusion, he asked from the Secretary for Scotland some ray of hope that the trivial squabble in the Commission would be healed, and that the right hon. Gentleman had done all in his power to make the Commission a success.
§ THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,) Glasgow, BridgetonI will say nothing as to the latter portion of the remarks of the hon. Member until I have heard what other Members have to state with regard to the subject. As to the Crofters' Commission, in the 7th Class of the Estimates the Committee will be called on to vote a substantial sum of money for the purposes of this Commission.; and I conceive that that will be the occasion on which to discuss the general question. On the other question of the difficulties that have arisen in the Commission, I earnestly entreat those who are friends to the Commission, and those gentlemen of considerable eminence who are serving on the Commission, not to press the Government on the matter at this moment. My own belief is that the difficulties that have arisen will be healed up, and the process by which the question will be healed up will be the influence of those considerations to which my hon. Friend has referred—namely, that personal matters should give way to a sense 1060 of public duty by men carrying out a public work.
§ DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)said, he did not wish to join in any enterprise for the reduction of his right hon. Friend's salary, because he thought he deserved a bigger sum. He was willing to pay a tribute to the success with which his right hon. Friend had fulfilled the duties of his Office. There was one spot on his administration, however. He thought his right hon. Friend would feel disappointed if he did not carry out the pledge he made to bring that subject before the House, because he would probably remember he (Dr. Farquharson) had the honour to introduce a deputation to him to protest against the withdrawal of the Circular of the Board of Supervision prohibiting County Medical Officers of Health from engaging in private practice. By a recent Act it was made compulsory that County Councils should appoint Medical Officers of Health for districts or combinations, and at that time the idea was that Medical Officers of Health, except in special circumstances, should not be allowed to engage in private practice.
§ DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, in that case he would reserve his observations.
§ MR. A. CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershire, E.)had hoped that the hon. Member for Hawick would have referred to a question which concerned more nearly his own constituency, and in which he (Mr. Chamberlain) had some interest. Having been for some time a candidate for a Scotch constituency, he was bound to make himself acquainted with the matter which he wished to bring before the Committee. The hon. Member for Hawick had travelled a long way from his own constituents, who had a grievance at least as great, as serious, and as worthy of attention as any the hon. Member had mentioned. The Secretary for Scotland, in his happier days, was a Member for the Border Burghs, and probably was aware of the question be (Mr. Chamberlain) was going to call attention to. What he wished to ask was whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to take any action to inquire into the grievances connected with the fisheries in the Tweed and neighbouring 1061 rivers and inlets—to do anything to give satisfaction to the inhabitants of those districts? It was alleged that the public rights of fishing enjoyed by people living near the Tweed and other rivers of the district were taken away from them by a side-wind in an Act of Parliament without Parliament knowing what was being done, and without Parliament having any intention of taking them away. The hon. Member for the Border Burghs knew what a hold this subject had on the electors of the district, and how much it had influenced recent elections. It was stated again and again before the last Election, and he believed during the Election, by the supporters of the present Government that this matter would be gone into, that redress would be given, and that the rights which the people alleged had been taken from them would be restored. The Secretary for Scotland had taken no legislative step to restore these rights. The right hon. Gentleman had not even made any kind of inquiry into the grievances which existed. He wished to ask what steps the right hon. Gentleman would now take to fulfil the pledges of his supporters and friends in that district?
MR. T. SHAWconsidered this discussion premature, and said he had intended to raise this question on the Vote for Law and Justice, and he had given notice of a reduction of that Vote in order to bring the matter under the notice of the Committee.
§ MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)said, he joined in the protest of the hon. Member as to the unsatisfactory nature of the way in which Scottish Business had been attended to in the House of Commons, and particularly as to the late hour at which Scottish Business came on.
THE CHAIRMANThis discussion is not appropriate to the Vote, because it is due to the action of the House of Commons.
§ MR. COCHRANEsaid, he wished to endorse what the hon. Member for the Border Burghs had said, that Scotland dragged wearily behind in all those measures which were promoted in their interest. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would pay attention to any endeavour to further Scottish Business. He would receive the support of the Unionist Members as well as the support of those who habitually supported him. He 1062 wished to call attention to the opening of a portion of the Clyde to trawling. The whole of the Clyde was closed to trawling, but under the bye-laws a certain portion of it had been opened.
§ MR. CROMBIE (Kincardineshire)asked whether this was not a matter for the Scottish Fishery Board?
THE CHAIRMANI thought so, but I was waiting to hear what was the argument of the hon. Gentleman. I think this is a matter for the next Vote.
§ MR. COCHRANEThis is a matter for the Secretary for Scotland.
§ MR. COCHRANEVery well; I will call attention to it on that Vote.
§ SIR W. WEDDERBURN (Banffshire)would like to draw the attention of the Committee to a matter that very strongly affected his constituents in Banffshire. He had put down an Instruction to the Committee on the Scotch Fishery Bill on the subject, but the Speaker ruled that a matter which related to the use of the foreshores did not come within the scope of the Bill. He now desired to ask whether the Secretary for Scotland would be willing to take some measure to mitigate the difficulties from which fishermen suffered in regard to the use of the foreshore? For a very long period the fishermen had enjoyed the use of the foreshore. They needed it in order to dry their nets, and for other purposes. They had enjoyed this right by Common Law, and he thought he might say by common-sense as well. But, in addition, there were Statutes under Queen Anne (before the Union), and under George II. and George III., giving them the use of the foreshore and of 100 yards beyond. But the difficulties from which the men suffered now were that they were not able to get the full use of the foreshore for this purpose, and that there was a great want of house accommodation in those very localities where it was necessary for fishermen to carry on their industry. There was no doubt about the right of the fishermen, both under Statute and Common Law, to the use of the foreshores; and what he would ask was that the right hon. Gentleman should take steps in order to place in the hands of some authority the duty 1063 of enforcing this right, and of seeing that the men got the use of their foreshores, which was essential to their industry. They hoped that the County Councils would give access to the mountains; but that was a matter of pleasure. He hoped that the Fishery Board and the District Committee would have power to secure for the fishermen access to the shores, a matter on which a very important industry depended.
§ MR. H. SMITH (Falkirk, &c)said, that no Member of the House was in a better position to speak as to the enormous wickedness of the Tweed Laws than he was himself, because he happened to be one who had suffered from the arbitrary and inequitable character of these laws. He was probably the only Member of the House who had ever been tried and sentenced in his absence by any legally constituted Court. That had been his fate under the Tweed Fishery Laws.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, he did not know that there was any other Vote on which the Tweed Fishing Laws could be alluded to more advantageously than the Vote for the Secretary for Scotland.
§ MR. H. SMITH, proceeding, said, if anything of the kind had occurred in any of the other portions of Her Majesty's dominions it would not have been necessary to draw attention twice in that House to the wickedness of the system which permitted such acts of tyranny. He agreed with the hon. Member for the Border Burghs when he said that, much as they valued the administrative services of the Secretary for Scotland, and highly as they appreciated his constant sympathy with all legitimate Scottish grievances, still they did not think that was sufficient to satisfy the just Scottish demands upon the House. He was perfectly certain that if, instead of having a Department in Dover House—excellent as it might be—they had had a body of men sitting in Edinburgh or Glasgow who were themselves allowed to deal with matters of that kind, the Tweed Fishery Laws would have been swept off the Statute Book at least 20 years ago.
1064MR. GRAHAM MURRAY (Buteshire)said, with regard to the action of the Deer Forests Commission, he would remind the hon. Member for the Border Burghs that the remit from the House of Commons to that Commission was carefully worded, and that the Commission was in no sense executive, but was merely a Commission to inquire and report. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member in his wish that the labours of the Commission would not be rendered nugatory by a very trivial point. At the same time, he could not endorse the idea that either the object or the necessary outcome of the Commission's labours should be in the direction which the hon. Member indicated. They would do well to suspend their judgment upon these matters until they saw the Commission's Report, and saw what really practically could be done. In regard to the Tweed Fishery Laws, he hoped if the Secretary for Scotland was going to say anything about them he would rather say it upon this Vote than upon the matter of Police. If the Tweed Fishery Laws were wrong, let them be amended; it would not do simply to talk about the wickedness, and relate an interesting family incident in the life of the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs, who it seemed had on one occasion been tried and sentenced, but who in another place had himself been engaged in the work of trying and sentencing other people. He was afraid that on this occasion the hon. Member was voicing the complaint of a good many people who would wish to abolish property in fishing altogether. [Mr. H. SMITH: No, no!] That was undoubtedly the popular tide at Galashiels. What they wanted was to be allowed to fish for salmon without interference. That would be a violation of a very valuable right, and he protested against the idea of dealing with a valuable right by way of paralysing the police arrangements of the country. He wished to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether there had been any change in the attitude of the Government in regard to the Minute on Secondary Education, or whether they had heard the last word upon the matter?
MR. T. SHAWsaid that, in view of the course of the discussion, he would on the present Vote refer to the question of 1065 the administration of the Tweed Fishery Laws. In the course of the present Session he obtained a Return dealing with all cases in the Tweedside counties for the 10 years ending 1892. He found from that Return that in that period the fines from all ordinary criminal cases in the Counties of Roxburgh, Peebles, and Selkirk amounted to £1,042. That figure demonstrated that the community in these districts was of the most law-abiding character. But would it be believed that in the same counties for the same period the fines, under the Tweed Fisheries Acts alone, amounted to no less a sum than £3,954? Such a contrast of figures showed that the existing state of the law in those counties was nothing less than a social and public scandal, and there was a case for immediate and stringent inquiry into the operation of these laws. There was a third heading in the Return, "Offences under the Game Laws," and the fines under that head amounted for the same period to £1,141. So that if they added the fines under the Game Laws and the Fishery Laws together they had this startling contrast: that these fines for Statute-made crime were five times the amount of the fines for all other Common Law offences in these counties. The figures under the one heading were £5,095, and under the other £1,042. He did not think that any Minister could look upon that state of things as satisfactory, and he thought the time had arrived for a most stringent inquiry into the matter. He believed that the Sheriffs of these three counties view the administration of those laws, not with discredit only, but with absolute disgust. Two-thirds of their time was occupied in trying poaching offences. The position was simply this: that no one was thought the less of by his fellows in the community for a breach of the Tweed Fishery Laws, whereas anyone who offended against the ordinary Criminal Law was at once looked down upon. The hon. Member for Bute (Mr. Graham Murray) said that it was desired to abolish property in salmon. They did not desire to abolish property in salmon, but they did desire to see that Crown property in salmon should be given not to individuals, but for the public use and enjoyment. Until that state of matters was brought about, they might tinker at a remedy for years and 1066 years, but they would never bring the community at large into a state of sympathy with the law. The Return he had given proved that there was no more law-abiding class of men than the men in his constituency. But why should they be turned into criminals?
THE CHAIRMANYou cannot discuss the law. As I understood, you desired to put a question for an inquiry.
MR. T. SHAWsaid, he had only been replying to the view of the hon. Member for Bute, who seemed to suggest that he (Mr. Shaw) and others had sympathy with breach of the law. Their desire, on the contrary, was to bring the law into line with the feelings of the community at large; and he hoped a Commission would be appointed to inquire into the whole subject. The Secretary for Scotland knew the facts as well as any man in the House, and Scotland had a right to look to him for special and speedy action. They demanded it in the interests of social peace; and for himself he would never be content until he saw those law-abiding counties put in the position of having the Statutory Law applicable to the Tweed fisheries brought, into line with the sentiments of the-people.
MR. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid, he had no desire at all to go counter to any wish for an inquiry, because he thought that those who represented proprietary rights had nothing to dread from-a full and ample inquiry. At the same time, he did not think the figures which his hon. Friend had quoted quite bore out the conclusion at which he arrived. He would remind his hon. Friend that, as a matter of fact, in the ordinary criminal work of the Sheriff Court the punishment of a fine was practically reserved to the offence of being drunk and disorderly. All other forms of criminal offence, such as assaults and so forth, were, as a rule, punished in another way. Therefore, it did not do to take the mere amount of the pecuniary fines, and think that they had got a means of comparison of the various kinds of crime. He thought that an inquiry would show that all those whom his hon. Friend represented did not entirely share the opinions he had expressed, and that the acquision of these rights for the benefit of the public could only be done with justice by paying those who at present 1067 possessed them. Even then, unless the manners and customs of certain persons altered, it would be necessary, in the interests of the public, that there should be a close time, because some of the offences were the taking of salmon out of season, and also for capturing salmon by unsportsmanlike methods.
§ MR. A. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that undoubtedly at present the mass of public opinion—for instance, in Galashiels, and that district—was against the present law, and, therefore, the wise course would be to inquire and see whether there were real and genuine grievances underlying this feeling, and whether, without doing injustice to anyone, those grievances could be redressed. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the right of fishing in all those waters was vested in individuals, and that those individuals had indefeasible rights which could only be bought out. For himself, he contended that while a large part of those waters was properly private property, a large portion was really Crown property, which in these days was as much as saying public property; and the private rights acquired in those Crown waters had been acquired without the knowledge and, as they believed, against the will of Parliament, owing to an oversight in the drafting of an Act which passed some years ago. That was one reason why there should be an inquiry.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANThe questions that have been raised, and that could have been raised legitimately on this Vote, narrow themselves down to a small compass in point of number, though I will not say of importance. The Member for Banffshire (Sir W. Wedderburn) has referred to the question of foreshores with reference to their being used by fishermen for the purposes of their craft. My hon. Friend will recognise that now that the Scottish Fishery Bill has, by the wonderful forbearance, among other qualities, of Members of this House, become law, as far as this House is concerned—and I trust is on its way to become law in the other House—that there will be now in all districts a Fishery Committee representing the fishermen, who will be able to put in the most powerful manner the grievances and aspirations of their constituents before Parliament and the Government. But I 1068 will not wait for that. If my hon. Friend will come to the Scottish Office, I have the assurance of the Lord Advocate that he will go very carefully into the legal position of this very vexed question, and ascertain how the matter stands at present, so as to enable the doubts regarding it to be cleared up. The Member for Buteshire asked a question with regard to the Secondary Education Minute. The second Minute, which was laid on the Table, and which was approved by an immense majority of this House, is the final decision of the Government on the matter, with the single exception of the alteration to take place next year, which is that £200 will be paid over to each County Committee and each Burgh Committee, as a sort of instalment before the main dividend is paid in accordance with the number of the population. I now come to the only other subject before us; but it is one of great importance, and that is the question of the Tweed. I thoroughly agree with Members who have spoken as to the great gravity of the situation. For 20 years past the sympathies of the people of the countryside have been entirely opposed to the law, and the manner in which it is enforced. I will give a few sample statistics. They are 20 years old, but I have very carefully watched the Returns since then, and I find that the same proportion still generally holds good. In the years 1873 and 1874 there were 580 people brought up on criminal charges in the district that borders on the Tweed, and the fines amounted to £580 and costs. In those two years 22,000 salmon were caught in the river by those who had right to the fisheries. That is to say, for every 37 salmon taken, one person was brought up on a criminal charge, and £1 was paid in fine and costs. In the County of Peebles one person in 100 in those two years was brought up on a criminal charges connected with the Tweed Fisheries; and I observe that in the last 10 years the same proportion obtains. That is a state of things which can only be accounted for in one of two ways—either that the population is exceptionally lawless, or that the law is exceptionally bad. The population is not exceptionally lawless. I have lived among them for 20 years, and I know that they require the least equipment of police to keep 1069 them from breaking the law, and to keep the peace in ordinary matters. I have seen them under great excitement at several contested elections, and have never seen a population which is more able to keep the peace for themselves without extraneous interference. Therefore, the fault lies in the law, which is different from the law of England in these matters. An hon. Member asked me whether I will grant an inquiry. My own opinion is that except on the special question of the Charters we do not require inquiry. We have all the facts before us at the Scottish Office.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANYes; that is so. But the Government have the facts in their possession. The state of things is well known at the Scottish Office, and also so is the feeling of the population. The law is exceptional in the highest degree. If it were placed under the general Salmon Fisheries Acts of Scotland, that alone would be a very great improvement. But it might be said that the South bank of the Tweed is in England, and, therefore, that we could not make that alteration. But I have had a most important deputation from the English side, who informed me that they would be perfectly satisfied that the whole of the Tweed should be placed under the general law of Scotland, and not only so, but that that law should be altered in several particulars, which I will not enter into now, but which would greatly ameliorate the relations of the fishermen to the law. As to the question of Salmon Charters, that is a purely administrative matter, and upon that I am not afraid to face Parliament. Very much more has been done during the last year or so to assert the rights of the public as against the rights of individuals, or the straining of the rights of the Crown, than ever has been done before. The Committee which sat on the subject recommended that no further salmon leases should be given without the sanction of the Secretary for Scotland, and also that licences in the case of fresh grants should be given to the public. Last November I induced the Treasury to consent that no lease at all should henceforth he given without the consent of the Secretary for Scotland. That consent has in no case 1070 been obtained from that day to this, and I have given it to be thoroughly understood that no fresh lease will be made except to the general fishermen of the district on the payment of a reasonable licence. That unfortunately, however, concerns a very small part of the Scottish Salmon Fisheries, and when we come to deal with the main question we shall have to see that as leases fall out they shall be brought under the same regulations. I have stated on two or three occasions this Session that until the Scottish Sea Fisheries Bill was out of the way we could not deal with the question of salmon, and I have promised that next Session I will lay the Bill on the Table. That promise I now repeat. I had hoped that something might have been done in regard to the Salmon Law in the Scottish Fisheries Bill. That is impossible at this time of the Session. If, however, as I earnestly hope, the Bill meets no difficulties in another place—and it is a Bill which will not bear retrenching, because it is the least we could give to the Scottish fishermen—then next year I hope to deal with the question of salmon fishing, and to deal with it in no ungenerous spirit, but in a spirit that will be advantageous to the public, and not unjust to individuals.
§ SIR W. WEDDERBURNsuggested that any inquiry that was instituted with regard to salmon should be extended to trout fishing, which in some parts of Scotland was quite as much a burning question as salmon fishing was in other parts. In the Spey and its tributaries it was a matter which interested his constituents almost more than any other local question. He wished to ask a question on another point. There was a strong feeling in the North-East of Scotland that the Crofters Act should be extended to the small holders in these parts. It was not because his constituents had any complaint against the landlords personally. His county was particularly fortunate in its landlords, and it was against the system that complaint was made, and his constituents were extremely anxious that this protection of the fruits of their industry should be extended to a class which were in exactly the same industrial position as the crofters in the Western or Northern parts of Scotland. All the Members for the North-East of Scotland joined in an appeal 1071 to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject. He therefore asked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take any steps in this direction?
§ DR. FARQUHARSONendorsed what his hon. Friend had said as to the desire for the extension of the Crofters Act. He did not know any other question on which his constituents had urged him so much.
§ VISCOUNT WOLMER (Edinburgh, W.)said, he wished to ask the Secretary for Scotland as to how certain matters stood regarding which the right hon. Gentleman had heard several times from the Trades Council of Edinburgh and district? That body had approached the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the professional waiters in Edinburgh, and the grievance they had laid before him was that they allowed certain public servants under the control of the Secretary for Scotland unfairly to compete with them in their professional duties during the hours for which they were paid to serve the public, and that sometimes special holidays were given them to enable them so to compete. He (Viscount Wolmer) had had no opportunity of testing personally whether the case was correctly stated; but it seemed to him it was a subject on which the Trades Council were perfectly within their rights in approaching the right hon. Gentleman, and he wished to ask whether the grievance was a substantial one; find, if so, what steps were to be taken to remedy it? The second point he wished to raise was what showed to him the very unfair disadvantage under which the Scottish Police laboured in the matter of superannuation compared with their English colleagues. He would give only one instance of the great disproportion.
§ VISCOUNT WOLMER, on the point of Order, wished to point out that there was no Vote for the Scottish Police. It was paid for out of an Imperial account; but the Secretary for Scotland was responsible for its distribution, and this was the only Vote on which it would be possible to bring the question forward. The English Police were allowed 30–60ths of their pay as a pension after 25 years' approved service, but the Scottish Police got only 28–60ths after 1072 28 years' approved service. There was no such corresponding disadvantage between Scotland and England in regard to pensions in the Customs or Post Office, and he would ask the Secretary for Scotland whether this subject had engaged his attention, and whether he did not admit the unfairness of the arrangement? He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman if, before the next Estimates were framed, he would approach two of his Colleagues on matters of great interest to Edinburgh? A large sum had been paid to the Crown as compensation for property taken by the North British Railway Company in Edinburgh. That money was claimed by the Lord Provost and Town Council of Edinburgh as due to Edinburgh for the improvement of the Castle, part of the laud of which had been taken, and for which this money was paid. He did not think any Member of this Committee would deny that money so paid to the public for a piece of the Castle rock actually taken by the Railway Company should be appropriated to no other purpose than that which would be to the interests of the City. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to see if the wishes of the Town Council of Edinburgh could not be carried out. Lastly, he would ask whether before next year the Secretary for Scotland would endeavour to induce the First Commissioner of Works to make provision for the proper maintenance of Holyrood Palace?
§ MR. H. SMITHsaid, as resident in Edinburgh, he supported the appeal of the noble Lord (Lord Wolmer) with regard to the sum paid for that part of Princes Street Gardens which had been taken from the Crown. There had been a great deal of litigation about the matter. The Bills in Parliament were opposed by the Town Council, and the main subject of interest to the inhabitants of Edinburgh was the question whether the contemplated alteration in the railway would alter for the worse the appearance of Princes Street Gardens. They were unsuccessful in their opposition, and the Railway Company got power, not only to take off a part of the Gardens which belonged to the city, but to detach a point of the rock upon which Edinburgh Castle was built. It was perfectly plain that the operations of the Railway Company had not inflicted any injury upon 1073 the nation at large, but had inflicted serious injury upon the inhabitants of the City of Edinburgh. That being so, the sum of £2,000 ought not to go into the general coffers of the State, but ought to be given to the Corporation of the city. Then, he wished to say a word in reference to another complaint by the noble Lord. He (Mr. H. Smith) had also been made aware of the grievance of the professional waiters in the City of Edinburgh. They were called upon to compete on very unfavourable terms with those public servants who were somewhat numerous in Edinburgh, and who were employed and paid by the State as attendants at the Picture Galleries and in the Courts of Law, and elsewhere. He thought the Secretary for Scotland might well be called upon to inquire into that grievance, with a view to its being remedied.
MR. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid, he would point out that the ground in Princes Street Gardens referred to had been given by the Crown to the city for an indefinite period. There was every reason, in his opinion, that the money should go to the City of Edinburgh.
§ MR. W. WHITELAW (Perth)said, with regard to the Secondary Education Minute, that in the discussion which took place last May a complaint was made that, generally speaking, the burghs were insufficiently represented on the Committees, and the Secretary for Scotland promised that an inquiry would be made, and that, if necessary, he would bring in a Supplementary Minute. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman had made the promised inquiry? He should be glad to think they had heard the last of this matter, and whether the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to tell them that the matter would have further attention.
§ MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)said, having taken some interest in the restoration of the Castle and Palace mentioned by the noble Lord (Lord Wolmer) he supported his view. With regard to the Princes Street Gardens, no money would have been paid at all but for the action of the Edinburgh Town Council. The Corporation fought the matter and bore all the expenses, and then the Crown, as usual, came in and collared the money. He 1074 thought it should be returned. Then, with regard to the Fatal Accidents Inquiry Bill, which had been dropped, he regretted that the Government had withdrawn the measure, and asked when it was proposed to re-introduce it? Legislation on this matter was urgently asked for by the working men of Scotland, and he hoped the Secretary for Scotland would give them an assurance that the Bill would be re-introduced.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he was not going to discuss the question, but a Bill, introduced six months ago, had been withdrawn, and he wanted to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of having another brought in as soon as possible.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he thought he had a right to complain on the Vote for the right hon. Gentleman's salary that he had not gone on with the Bill, and to ask him when he was going to produce another measure of a similar character. This was a question that commanded a great deal of attention in Scotland. He knew there was some objection to the measure, especially as to the jury; but he hoped the Government would re-introduce it, with a provision for the jury system, and pass it into law. He was aware that the dropped Bill did not contain all that was desired; but it would have been a great advance on the present state of the law. Under its provisions friends of the parties could appear at the inquiry, or they could be represented by counsel. The inquiry would be immediate and automatic. There would be sworn evidence, copies of all the papers and documents could be had by the parties interested, and there would be the great advantage of publicity and an open Court. He would ask the Government to hold out some hope that a measure of the kind would be re-introduced and pressed forward. Generally speaking, he thought it would have the support on both sides of the House, and he had no doubt its operation, when passed, would remedy some of the grievances complained of in Scotland. The request was a reasonable one, and he hoped to hear that the right hon. 1075 Gentleman was prepared to give a reply that would satisfy working-men and their families in Scotland.
§ MR. PAUL (Edinburgh, S.)said, be agreed with the hon. Gentleman in urging the desirability of the Government introducing another Fatal Accidents Bill early next Session. But he would point out that the last Bill under went, after it passed through the Standing Committee, at the instance of the Government, a considerable change. As it was introduced, it provided for an inquiry before the Sheriff without a jury. He was sure it would be the desire of the great majority of the working classes in his constituency that the Bill, if introduced again, should provide for an inquiry before the Sheriff with a jury. As the Lord Advocate had so far recognised that as to put upon the Paper an Amendment providing the machinery for inquiry by jury, he hoped they might take that as an earnest that the Government would, at the earliest possible opportunity, insure that the working classes of Scotland should have, in the case of all fatal accidents occurring to any of them in the course of their employment, not only a full inquiry with the publicity which was desirable, but also such a tribunal as would command their general confidence and respect. He wished also to refer to the points which had been so ably raised by his noble Friend and Colleague (Lord Wolmer), especially as regarded the sum of £2,000 which he claimed on behalf of the city. He (Mr. Paul) submitted that the city was entitled, not to ask this from the Treasury as a favour, but to claim it as a right. The money properly belonged to them, and if there was any doubt about their getting it, it was merely because of the want of legal machinery. He understood it to be the view of the Treasury that the only way in which this money could be paid over was by placing an item upon the Estimates, and he hoped they would have from the Secretary for Scotland a positive assurance that this sum would appear upon the Scottish Estimates for next year. He desired also to support every word which his noble Friend had said about the superannuation of the Scottish police. He thought his noble Friend had said this was the only case of unequal payments in the two countries.
§ VISCOUNT WOLMERNo, no!
§ MR. PAULsaid, he was glad to hear that, as he knew there were other cases of a like kind. Then, with regard to the question of the professional waiters, he had received a communication from the Trades Council of Edinburgh. He understood their strongest ground of complaint was that persons in the employment of the Government were allowed to pursue the avocation of waiters in the time which belonged to the Government.
§ SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)asked permission to say that while he had confidence in the management of the Scotch Education Department, he would like to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that no money granted for elementary education would be given for secondary education until the exact state of the law was ascertained. This was a matter of consequence, not only because of the practice in England, but because of questions arising in England. He merely put the question, saying nothing with regard to the Scotch Department for Education.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANSir, the first question, in which we are told a grievance is felt, is that of the professional waiters against the messengers in the Government Offices. That is a question I have gone into very completely, and I have laid down, so far as it is in my power, very positive orders about it. I conceive that my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh strains the privilege of Government very strongly when he says that a Government servant owes the Government his whole time. What a Government servant owes to the public is the number of hours which are required to carry out the duties which the Government impose upon him. That is the principle which has been carried into every branch of the Public Service. A man is allowed to do with the time which is his own what he likes. It is really just as hard to prevent a messenger from waiting after office hours or from waiting at a Highland gathering during the fortnight which constitutes his leave as it would have been to prevent Sir Henry Taylor or Anthony Trollope from writing books out of office hours. I have inquired at every office in which there are any messengers who wait, and in all cases I find that either in the cases where they have done so they waited 1077 after office hours at dinner parties, or that, when they waited in the daytime, the day in which they so waited for private profit was strictly deducted from their fortnight's leave. The Regulation appears to be perfectly just, and to that Regulation the messengers will be strictly kept. The next question is that of superannuation of the police. I do not think it will be possible for me to enter into that. Police superannuation is governed by an Act which was passed in the last Parliament, and is not a matter which can be properly discussed on the Vote for the Salary of the Secretary for Scotland. The hon. Member for Perthshire wants to know whether burghs might have a larger representation on the County Committees. I cannot say that any burghs have applied in such a manner as to bring their claims very seriously before the Office. If they do so, and if I find that there is a real desire on the part of any important burghs to be specially represented, I shall not have the slightest hesitation in laying an additional Minute upon the Table if it is desired. Then comes the question of my speaking to other Members of the Government on the money matter referred to by my noble Friend. I do not know whether it is strictly regular for one Member of the Government to speak to another upon a matter concerning the latter's Department, but I may say that the Scotch Office has found the Treasury exceedingly generous within the last 12 months. On two occasions large sums of money—thousands of pounds—have fallen to the Treasury under the intestacy custom in connection with the burgh of Ayr; and in consequence of the urgent representations of the hon. Member for Ayr to the Scotch Office, and from the Scotch Office to the Treasury, I am glad to say that in both cases the entire sum of money was made over to the Corporation for the public purposes of the town. Therefore, I think the Scotch Office is not unwilling to put in a good word in that quarter. That is, perhaps, all I can say. As regards inquiry into fatal accidents, it was absolutely necessary to withdraw the last Bill on the subject in consequence of the understanding arrived at between the two sides of the House. It always was a contentious Bill. It was blocked by an hon. Member who most certainly would 1078 have made good his objections to it. Since then very great pressure has been put upon the Government by, as far as I can make out, every body of people who asked for the Bill, and my right hon. Friend was told in the most 'decided language—with great vehemence in some instances—by hon. Members and representatives of Trade Bodies that the Bill would be valueless and would be opposed if Jury Clauses were not put in. The Government have always thought that the objection to the Jury Clauses was that they would weight the Bill. We were prepared to introduce Jury Clauses, but that would have made the Bill more contentious than it already was. Now, Sir, I think I have answered the questions brought forward upon my salary, and I hope I may appeal to the Committee to pass the Vote so that we may proceed to others.
§ SIR W. WEDDERBURNsaid, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman of his questions with regard to trout fishing and the extension of the Crofters Act to the north-eastern Counties.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, that these were questions relating to future legislation. They were certainly both before the Government, but he could not speak at any length, or give any definite promise on them on this Vote.
§ VISCOUNT WOLMERasked whether he was to understand that the Scotch Office would approach the Treasury with regard to the Princes Street Gardens? He would, at the same time, ask him to bear in mind the question of superannuation.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, the first step in regard to the question of the money would be that the Edinburgh Corporation should approach him.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONasked when the Government would reintroduce the Fatal Accidents Inquiry Bill?
§ SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, the Bill would be reintroduced. It was a measure they had very much at heart. He could not say more.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 2. £15,858, to complete the sum for Fishery Board, Scotland.
§ MR. CROMBIE (Kincardineshire)said, at present the sea police force, which was under the command of the Fishery 1079 Board, was very inadequate for the purpose for which it existed. The force was now the same as it was in 1885, but since 1885 the Fishery Board had been allowed to shut certain areas against trawling; and farther, the number of trawlers had increased something like four-fold. Therefore it was perfectly obvious that if the police force in 1885 was inadequate, it must be sadly inadequate now. Then there was a small gunboat, the Jackal, and for only one season of the year there were three gunboats put at the disposal of the Fishery Board by the Admiralty. When they looked at the speed at which these boats went they would find that the average speed was five to seven knots an hour. Those boats were intended to catch steam trawlers, some of which went at the rate of nine knots an hours. He need hardly point out, therefore, that it was no use setting a boat which went at the rate of five or seven knots an hour to catch one which went at the rate of nine knots. He wished that the speed of the gunboats could be increased in order that the trawlers might be more closely watched. Another subject which he wished to speak on was harbour accommodation on the coast of Scotland. Since the passing of the Sea Fisheries Bill they were somewhat better off than they were before in this respect. The sum of £3,000 a year was given by the old Act of Parliament. That had not always been entirely spent on harbours, and it was perfectly impossible to carry out a complete scheme of harbour extension with such a sum. But under the new Act they were allowed to use a sum as a basis for borrowing a larger amount, and he hoped this arrangement would prove sufficient. He wished, however, to point out that the money which was accumulated from the herring brand surplus should, as in the case of the Ayr Burghs, go in aid of Scottish harbours, because the Committee which sat on this subject reported in favour of such an arrangement. The sum of £31,000 accrued from this source, and he hoped the Treasury would follow the same generous policy they had pursued towards the Ayr Burghs, and give back the money to help in the improvement of harbours round the coast. In connection with the money coming from these herring brands, he did not think that the 1080 sum given back was fairly spent. Some 90 per cent. of the money was raised on the East Coast, and the remaining portion on the West Coast; but he regretted to say that almost all of the money given back was spent on the West Coast in telegraphic communication. He hoped that in future a fairer arrangement would he observed, and that the East Coast would benefit proportionally to the money it contributed.
§ MR. BEITH (Inverness, &c.)said, that the Finance Clause of the Sea Fisheries Bill having been dropped, the Scottish Fishery Board would be in a very weak position financially for the carrying out of the measure. He wished to ask the Secretary for Scotland what steps he intended to take to place at the disposal of the Fishery Board a larger sum of money than was provided by the Vote. There were two objects which urgently required a larger sum of money. One was the improvement of piers and harbours, and he would instance the case of Nairn Harbour, on which the local community had spent no less a sum than £38,000, but which had become inadequate for the accommodation of the larger boats that were now used in the carrying on of the sea fisheries. They had recently a liability of £2,500 for making the harbour safe for the protection of such boats. The Fishery Board recognised the importance of this harbour and the justice of its claim; but the answer to-day made was "No funds." They said—
They stand second or third on the list of those we mean to give a grant to when we have funds, but no funds being in existence, the position is very awkward and difficult.'The obligation he had referred to rested on the town of Nairn, and the people naturally felt extremely anxious that the Fishery Board, by the command of funds, should be enabled to carry out what they admitted was required, and give a grant to the town in order that the harbour might be put in a satisfactory state. In regard to the question of sea police, the Fishery Board, owing to the inefficiency of the vessels at its command, was unable to enforce its bye-laws. Moray Firth had been closed to trawling by an order of the Fishery Board. In consequence of the want of a sufficient police to see the order given effect to, trawling was carried on night and day in the Moray Firth just 1081 as if no order had been made on the subject. This was a condition of things which ought not for the credit of the country to be allowed to continue. He hoped that the Secretary for Scotland would be able to see his way to make a demand on the Treasury, and that the Treasury would accede to it.
§ MR. WASON (Ayrshire, S.)said, he wished to join in the appeals which had been made to the Secretary for Scotland to see that proper police protection was given to the line fishermen in those waters in which trawling was prohibited. The Firth of Clyde was closed to beam trawling, except in a small portion of it, and he hoped before long the whole of these waters would be closed to seine trawlers as well as beam trawlers. In that case it would become very necessary that there should be an effective policing of the Firth of Clyde, so that the orders of the Fishery Board might be carried into effect. He had had some complaints of great damage done by trawlers to the crammel nets of the fishermen at Ballantrae, and in many cases the men who had caused that damage had not been brought to justice. With regard to the question of harbours, he believed that, so far as the South West of Scotland was concerned, practically there were next to no harbours at all, and he did not think a shilling of Government money had been spent upon them for many years past. If they wished really to see a harbour which was in a disgraceful state, he would advise hon. Members to go to one of the most charming little places in the whole of the South West of Scotland—namely, Portpatrick. The harbour was originally constructed for the short sea passage between Scotland and Ireland, and an enormous sum of money—something like £100,000—was spent upon it by the Government. The harbour was now in a worse condition than before that enormous sum was spent upon it, and he hoped that the South West of Scotland would not be forgotten in this matter by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. COCHRANEwished to call attention to a point which had already been alluded to with reference to the opening of certain portions of the Clyde to trawlers. He believed that every hon. Member who was acquainted with the dis- 1082 trict sympathised with the line fishermen in this matter. Last year a very influential and important deputation waited upon the Secretary for Scotland on the subject. Under the Act of 1889 the whole of the Clyde was closed to trawlers, but permission was given to the Fishery Board by a bye-law to throw open any portion they liked to a certain class of trawlers. Soon after the Act was passed the Fishery Board made a bye-law throwing open a part of the river which was essentially the part which they should have kept closed, as it was of all others the place where the fish bred. It was within territorial waters, and was the very narrowest part of the Clyde. The result of opening it was that the line fishermen of the Clyde had been subjected to great hardship. There were 18 trawlers now fishing in the part of the Clyde which had been open to them. They used originally to trawl in the whole of the Clyde, but were now confined to the narrow portion of the river he spoke of. There they trawled day and night, raking up all the fish, and also the spawning beds. The consequence was that the line fishermen were unable to get their lines out, and that if they did get them out they were unable to catch many fish. It was alleged that the trawlers did not exceed eight tons in burden, but the fishermen declared that they did exceed that burden, and they had been known to carry as much as 50 tons of gravel from one part of the Clyde to another. The deputation asked the right hon. Gentleman to produce the Report of the officer who had inquired into the subject, and the right hon. Gentleman promised that the Report should be forthcoming; but he (Mr. Cochrane) had never seen or heard of it since. The Secretary for Scotland also promised a new inquiry. Sir Thomas Boyd and another member of the Fishery Board had held an inquiry. The investigation was not, however, considered sufficient by the fishermen. It was held in Greenock and Rothesay. Inasmuch as nearly the whole of the 18 trawlers belonged to Greenock, it was considered that the opinion of people in Greenock ought not to influence the Fishery Board in the matter. The Secretary for Scotland had promised a new inquiry, but he (Mr. Cochrane) thought the right hon. Gentleman had not ful- 1083 filled the letter, and that he had hardly fulfilled the spirit of that undertaking. In reply to a question put to him in the House, the right hon. Gentleman said an inquiry had been made by Mr. Anderson Smith, a member of the Scottish Fishery Board, into the allegation of the Clyde fishermen that the boats exceeded the limit of eight tons, and he considered that the allegation was not proved. He (Mr. Cochrane) should like to know whether the gentlemen who made the inquiry had the boats measured, and also what the measurements were. He had now to raise a rather difficult and delicate question, because it affected the Chairman of the Fishery Board, who was formerly a Member of the House of Commons, and who, he believed, had a great many personal friends in the House. A considerable question of principle was involved in the matter in reference to Government officials interfering in political contests, and it was also desirable to clear up a charge that was made on a former occasion by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) against Colonel Russell, who was Parliamentary candidate for Aberdeenshire at the time that Mr. Esslemont was made Chairman of the Fishery Board.
§ MR. BEITH, rising to Order, asked whether the question referred to by the hon. Member could be discussed on the Vote before the Committee?
§ MR. COCHRANEremarked, that the question distinctly affected the character of the Chairman of the Scottish Fishery Board.
THE CHAIRMANAs I understand, the Chairman of the Fishery Board is upon this Vote, and if that is so, although I think it is somewhat doubtful how far the hon. Gentleman is justified in going into matters apart from the duties of the Chairman of the Board, I do not think at the present moment I can stop him.
§ MR. COCHRANEwent on to say that he had put a question to the Secretary for Scotland as to the conduct of the Chairman of the Fishery Board in addressing a public meeting in September, 1892, in support of a Parliamentary candidate for East Aberdeenshire, and had inquired whether the interference of officials of the Government in Parliamentary elections was in accordance with the Regulations. The right hon. 1084 Gentleman made a somewhat lengthy reply, and quoted the speech which Mr. Esslemont delivered. The right hon. Gentleman stated that Mr. Esslemont went to the meeting in order to reply to personal attacks upon him. The question arose, of course, whether these attacks were such as made it necessary that Mr. Esslemont should break through the Regulations of the Office by addressing an election meeting. After the right hon. Gentleman's answer the hon. Member for North Aberdeenshire (Mr. Hunter) asked the following question:—
Is it not a fact that the sole topic Mr. Esslemont dealt with was to contradict a lie?He (Mr. Cochrane) thought this was a very serious statement to make when Colonel Russell was not in the House to defend himself. He had carefully examined the extracts from Mr. Esslemont's speech, read to the House by the Secretary for Scotland, and as far as he could make out, the only attack that had been made upon that gentleman by Colonel Russell consisted of a statement that as a Member of the House of Commons he had spoken against the Vote for the Fishery Board in 1888. Having referred to Hansard, he (Mr. Cochrane) found that Mr. Esslemont did speak against that Vote in 1888, and expressed the opinion that £800 a year was too large a salary to give to the Chairman of the Fishery Board, when nothing was given to the non-official members.
THE CHAIRMANI do not think this is material to the Vote. What the Chairman of the Fishery Board said on some other occasion has nothing to do with the Vote. The answer given by the Secretary for Scotland was that the Chairman of the Board went to the meeting to defend himself from the attacks that had been made upon him.
§ MR. COCHRANEsaid, he only wanted to show that these attacks were unfounded, and were not of such a character as called for Mr. Esslemont's interference in the election.
§ MR. C. CAMERON (Glasgow, College), on a point of Order, asked whether it was competent for the hon. Gentleman to refer to matters that occurred during a period not embraced by this year's Estimates?
THE CHAIRMANI have already pointed out that to refer to what the Chairman of the Board did before he 1085 was appointed Chairman is out of Order, but with regard to his conduct on this particular occasion I cannot interfere. What he did as Chairman may be brought under the notice of the Committee.
§ SIR C. CAMERONMy point is that what he did as Chairman at a period anterior to that embraced by this Vote cannot be dealt with.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must remember that the answer given was that the Chairman went there to defend himself from attacks, and if those attacks were made before the period covered by the Vote, that is a matter which the Committee could consider. To go into details, moreover, as to what he said and did is out of Order.
§ MR. COCHRANEsaid, he would merely add that at the political meeting Mr. Esslemont said—
You know the duty before you well, and I am not going to ask any man here to give a vote for one candidate more than another.This was obviously a very considerable hint as to what he was present at the meeting for. The Secretary for Scotland had stated that Mr. Esslemont received from the Scotch Office a statement as to what the official custom was before he went to the meeting. He was, therefore, aware of the dangers he ran and, in view of the fact that he was a Member of the House of Commons when a similar case was dealt with, and the present Member for. South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) was deprived of his office of Inspector of Fisheries in Ireland for similar conduct, the warning given to Mr. Esslemont ought to have been sufficient to deter him from going to the meeting. But there was a further question connected with the honour and good faith of the Fishery Board. Colonel Russell called attention to this: that he had been told that day, on what seemed very good authority, that one of the first things the Chairman of the Fishery Board proposed to do was to open the Moray Firth for four months in the year to trawlers. At the end of the meeting a gentleman got up and read a telegram from Mr. Esslemont—Moray Firth rumour or statement absolutely false. Neither suggested nor proposed anything of the sort. Contradict this at public meeting.That was a very distinct and clear statement by Mr. Esslemont. He would not go into all the correspondence which 1086 passed on the matter. He would merely call attention to the fact that this statement of Mr. Esslemont had been characterised by the leading paper in Scotland as being a falsehood. [Cries of "What paper?"] The Scotsman. This gentleman, Mr. Esslemont, who was so tender about his honour that he was compelled to go several miles on a snowy night to attend a political meeting in order to refute these very mild attacks made upon him, had not found it necessary to his honour and dignity, or to the honour and dignity of the Fishery Board, of which he was Chairman, to make any reply whatever to the distinct statements in The Scotsman. He would quote an extract from The Scotsman which appeared in The Daily Free Press on December 23.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I beg to ask your ruling, Sir, on a point of Order. I wish to ask whether, in bringing a charge against the Chairman of the Scottish Fishery Board for attending a particular political meeting, the hon. Member is justified in quoting from a leading article in The Scotsman?
THE CHAIRMANI cannot say that in this particular instance the hon. Member is out of Order, although he is somewhat near the line. The particular charge, I understand, against the Chairman of the Board was attending a political meeting and making a statement there. I do not think the hon. Member should go into other matters.
§ MR. COCHRANEsaid, that the second charge he was bringing under the notice of the Secretary for Scotland was that Mr. Esslemont sent this telegram to be read at a public meeting; that he invited the receiver of it to read it; and that in it he made a statement which had been declared in a public print to be not a true one. He considered that in that regard the honour of the Chairman of the Fishery Board was distinctly at stake as to whether this telegram was true or false. It was maintained that the telegram was sent for political purposes.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANIt did not contain a falsehood.
§ MR. COCHRANEThe telegram did not contain the truth.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANDo you say it is untrue?
§ MR. COCHRANEsaid, he was not in a position to say whether it was or was not. He was not sufficiently acquainted with the facts. But what he said was, that it was stated to be a falsehood by The Scotsman, and that statement had never, so far as he was aware, been refuted by Mr. Esslemont. The quotation was—
Never was a man in a more unenviable position than Mr. Esslemont. He has, in the service of his Party, descended to the dirtiest of dirty work—
§ [Cries of "Order!"]
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! It is irregular to bring a charge against a gentleman in this way, supported merely by some matter in a newspaper which may or may not be accurate. If the hon. Member makes a charge he ought to support the charge by material evidence, and if he does not I must rule him out of Order.
§ MR. COCHRANEsaid, he was not sufficiently acquainted with the facts to make the charge himself; nor did he wish to make a personal attack on Mr. Esslemont. But what he did wish to do was to call the attention of the Committee to the difference of the treatment meted out to this gentleman and the treatment meted out to the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston)—
THE CHAIRMANBut then the Secretary for Scotland is not accountable for that. That was done by a former Government. The Secretary for Scotland and the Government are only accountable for their own acts.
§ MR. COCHRANEsaid, that what he wished to ask was, what were the principles on which such questions were dealt with? The hon. Member for South Belfast was dismissed for taking part in a political meeting, which was a meeting of the Church Synod in Ireland, and it was on that account that he received his dismissal; and he wanted to know how it was that, after that warning, the Chairman of the Fishery Board had been permitted to take part in these political meetings?
§ MR. DALZIELAre they meetings or a meeting?
§ MR. COCHRANEsaid, that after the example of Mr. Johnston—
§ MR. DALZIELI rise to Order. I wish to ask whether it was one, or more than one, meeting?
§ MR. COCHRANEsaid, that Mr. Esslemont sent a telegram to one meeting and personally attended another. He did not wish to make a personal attack on Mr. Esslemont. He had never met him, and there was nothing personal in this matter. He merely wished to clear up the ground, and to say that it was a great hardship that one gentleman should be dismissed from the Public Service for the part he took in political meetings, while another who did so should not. He did not see why the same fate should not be meted out in both cases.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, that the hon. Member had said quite sufficient to show that if his views were accepted, to take a place in the Public Service would become intolerable to any man of delicacy and honour. What were the charges brought against Mr. Esslemont and the Government? The serious part of the charge was that a gentleman in an official position had gone to assist the candidature of a political candidate at a political election. That was the only matter which concerned the Government, and the ground on which he would have to defend the Government. What course could the Government adopt in this matter? Were they to censure Mr. Esslemont for what he did? Were they to follow the example of the course taken in the case of Mr. Johnston, under very different circumstances, and dismiss him from the Public Service? He would read what Mr. Esslemont did do, and would ask any single Member to say whether it merited such a step. Mr. Esslemont took absolutely no part whatever in the election that was then going on, until certain charges were made against him. These charges had been stated by the hon. Member. They were personal charges against Mr. Esslemont—charges that he proposed to reduce the expenditure of the Fishery Board, and afterwards took a salary upon that Board. But whatever these charges were, Mr. Esslemont in his speech never went outside them in any particular, except in the passage which, after the speech the hon. Member had just made, he was absolutely bound to read to the House. Mr. Esslemont was the first speaker at the meeting. He said that it should be understood that, in the position he now occupied, not being a candidate, and not seeking the suffrages of the 1089 electors, he should not be attacked by any of the candidates before them. He then went straight, and in moderate language, into the specific charges which had been made against him, and then they came to the latter portion of his speech, in which he protested that he should have been spared any misrepresentation, and should have been left alone in the position which he had undertaken. He added—
You know the duty before you well; and I am not going to ask any man here to give a rote for one candidate more than another.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWas the candidate there?
§ SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, he could not speak as to that. In the report he had the candidate was not mentioned as being there.
§ MR. HOZIERI do not think he was.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, he had read these words, which were the words which had been quoted as showing that Mr. Esslemont was taking the part of a partisan in the election. They were the words which the hon. Member had picked | out for that purpose. But he had noticed that there was not a single cheer to show that anyone in this House put that construction upon them. Mr. Esslemont had sought to justify himself in the face of neighbours on whose good opinion he set great value. He went to that meeting, although he had been warned by the Scottish Office of the official custom that members of the permanent Civil Service ought not to take part in a contested election, and that was the part which Mr. Esslemont took. He would ask any gentleman in the House whether for that indiscretion—if it was an indiscretion—and under the circumstances, the strong measure should have been taken of dismissing Mr. Esslemont from the Service? He thought it was absolutely impossible that such a course could for a moment have been followed, and, therefore, he thought that on that point he had justified his own action.
§ MR. HOZIERDid the Government tell him not to do it again?
§ SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, that he had written to Mr. Esslemont several times, but he could not remember the words, and he considered that the preliminary warning was enough. Mr. Esslemont went and made his speech, and he was 1090 bound to say that he did not feel inclined subsequently to censure Mr. Esslemont for what he said on that occasion. But the hon. Member said that Mr. Esslemont took part in another meeting, and he founded that charge upon the telegram in which Mr. Esslemont referred to the charge of what he had said within the precincts of the Boardroom. He was really surprised that that question, at any rate, had again been brought before the House. What was Mr. Esslemont's position? He was a member of a Board concerned with the discharge of public business. But that Board, for all administrative purposes, was the same as one man. What passed at that Board was never known outside. If there was one axiom in public life it was that proceedings at Boards of the nature of the Admiralty and the Fishery Board were absolutely confidential. On a disputed point within the Board, no member was entitled to go outside and give his own version of what had passed in private at the Board; and a man who betrayed the confidence of the Board laid himself open to flat contradiction, and deserved no other contradiction. No person who was attacked by a colleague on account of what had passed behind the scenes and around the table was bound to discuss the matter at all. But then came the question whether the gentleman attacked ought to leave the matter absolutely alone, or simply say, in the plainest terms, that the statement put before the public was not the true one. A man who had been so shamefully used as Mr. Esslemont by a colleague bringing forward matters which passed in the strictest confidence had a right to take either of these courses—to treat it with contempt, or to say that the charge did not convey a just impression to the public. He was sorry that question had been brought up a second time before this House. But as to entering into it because The Scotsman newspaper had used violent language against Mr. Esslemont, he was surprised that the hon. Member, if he had any real charge to make against Mr. Esslemont—any charge of falsehood—he forgot the exact terms of the | passage the hon. Member quoted—he should have been prepared to make that charge himself. It was easy to blacken the character of a public man by reading an offensive and scurrilous passage out 1091 of a newspaper in that House. Was there a man in that House who had not such things written about him in some paper or other? But were they to be read aloud in that House along with the allegation that if he did not answer them in a Court of Law, or take some steps to have his character vindicated, he was suffering under grave imputations? Who would stand such an ordeal as that? Absolutely not one. He did not want to enter into the case of Mr. Johnston. That question was all discussed not long ago in Mr. Johnston's presence, and that hon. Gentleman took such a kindly, pleasant, and honourable part in the discussion that he (Sir G. Trevelyan) disliked extremely to say a word about it in his absence. The difference, however, in Mr. Johnston's case was that he used pretty strong Party language over and over again after the Government had earnestly and pathetically warned, entreated, and urged him not to do so. But he did not want to make charges against Mr. Johnston. He was exceedingly sorry that this question had been brought a second time before the House of Commons, and he could not think that there were any hon. Member who would take a strong view of it.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not think anybody will blame the right hon. Gentleman for defending in warm language any official whom he had appointed, and who, even before he was an official, was no doubt on friendly terms with him, nor will I say a single word against Mr. Esslemont, whom in common with all the other Members of the House I respect for the manner in which he discharged his Parliamentary duties. But I do not think the question raised by my hon. Friend is quite so simple as the right hon. Gentleman appears to suppose. In the first place, the attack on this subject was not an attack upon the Government. If it had been the case, the proper time would have been on the salary of the right hon. Gentleman and not upon the Fisheries Vote. The criticisms my hon. Friend made were not passed upon the Government, but upon the course which Mr. Esslemont thought it is duty to pursue in the face of certain statements or attacks made with regard to his conduct on the Fishery Board. I shall not enter into the question of how far it is or is not 1092 honourable for one member of the Fishery Board to make a statement to the public with regard to the action taken by another member of the Board in regard to matters which should remain confidential. I do not think there could be anything more disastrous to the Public Service than that a habit should spring up of members of the same Board, first discussing questions of public importance in private, and then going about the country giving their own version of what their colleagues on the Board had done. I agree with the general view that what passes at a Board should be as confidential between members of the Board or Department as if they were secrets discussed between Cabinet Ministers with closed doors; and, although Mr. Esslemont might have received provocation on the occasion referred to, I think it would be as disastrous to the Public Service that members of the Board should go and make public explanations at contested elections as that they should discuss in public what had been gone over between themselves in private. To take a parallel case. When I was Irish Secretary, and when the right hon. Gentleman was Irish Secretary, it was constantly the practice for attacks to be made in and out of this House by Nationalist Members from Ireland upon permanent officials in Ireland. Suppose those permanent officials had taken the view that it was their duty to go before their old constituents or their neighbours and publicly relieve themselves of the odium heaped upon them, because they were alleged to have done this or that in private. The whole government of the country, if such a course were pursued, would fall into complete dissolution, the whole Civil Service of the country would be dragged into the vortex of Party controversy, and it would be absolutely impossible to prevent this country from sinking into the abyss into which other democratic countries have dropped, I do not think the contention would bear examination for a moment, and do think it is a very serious responsibility for any gentleman to attack the conduct of a permanent official of the Crown. I do not say it ought never to be done; we all know it is constantly done, but the responsibility of doing so is great. But when it is done, if it were said to the permanent officials who had been attacked in their 1093 administrative work, or whose characters had been impugned—"You may rush into print, or go upon a public platform, or take part in a contested election in order to justify yourselves," the thing will be found impossible. I do not wish to attack Mr. Esslemont, or even to weigh the amount of provocation he has received, which, for anything I know, may have been great; but still I think it is the duty of the Government of the day at the time to lay down clearly and publicly the principles on which alone the Civil Service can be carried on, and under which it is absolutely impossible to allow gentlemen in the position of Mr. Esslemont to take part in these public meetings at any time, and least of all at a time when a contested election is going on in the very constituency for which within a few days he had himself been Member. It will be impossible for any man to say that Mr. Esslemont's appearance on a public platform in his old constituency did not have, and was not known to have, a great political significance. He ended his speech by saying every man knew how to do his duty, and he was not going to tell them. Those words, coining from an ex-Member, and spoken at a meeting convened, I presume, in the interests of one candidate, had, and must have had, political weight. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, while defending warmly, as he had a right to do, both the character and the conduct of Mr. Esslemont, does not take this occasion for laying down what I believe must be the right hon. Gentleman's view, the true principles and policy of this matter, as I am sure they are in the view of the Committee—the true principles of public policy—namely, that the Civil servants of the Crown holding permanent appointments must on no provocation be induced to take part in public meetings which had, and were intended to have, political influence and political weight in the struggle that goes on between two Parties.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)said, he was sure the Committee had heard with satisfaction the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and so far as he and his friends were concerned the matter might-be allowed to rest. He wished he could think that this attack on Mr. Esslemont had been brought forward purely in the interests of public policy and in the in- 1094 terests of the purity of the Civil Service. If the hon. Member who had raised the subject had known Mr. Esslemont he would not have made the charge he had made. He could only express his surprise that the hon. Member had not shown the zeal he had displayed in this connection in other quarters. Did the hon. Member know that the Deputy Chairman of the Fishery Board, who was Sheriff Guthrie Smith, was an active supporter of the noble Lord the Member for West Edinburgh during his electioneering campaign. ["No."] Well, he was Chairman of the Liberal Unionist Association before the election.
§ VISCOUNT WOLMER (Edinburgh, W.)He was once.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid, that if he were not mistaken, Sheriff Guthrie Smith gave his moral support to the noble Lord before the election, and showed his zeal in the contest by acting as his host during that election.
§ VISCOUNT WOLMERwas understood to dissent.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid, at any rate, he was not wrong in saying that Sheriff Guthrie Smith was a supporter of the noble Lord. Why, then, was this charge made against Mr. Esslemont if Sheriff Guthrie Smith, who was Deputy Chairman of the Fishery Board, was to be allowed to attend political meetings?
§ MR. COCHRANEasked whether the Deputy Chairman received a salary?
§ MR. DALZIELsaid, he was inclined to believe he did not; but that made no difference. What they had to do was to deal with Sheriff Guthrie Smith in his official capacity. Moreover, if this charge had been made in the interest of the purity of the Civil Service, notice would have been taken of the action of the Sheriffs in Scotland. He knew one Sheriff who went from door to door canvassing on behalf of a particular candidate, and that Sheriff might, a fortnight afterwards, have had to try cases in connection with the election. So long as that continued, a charge such as that now brought against Mr. Esslemont was ridiculous and absurd.
§ VISCOUNT WOLMERIt is the invariable custom that Sheriffs do take part in politics. As regards the position of Sheriff Guthrie Smith on the Fishery Board, I maintain that the hon. Member has made out no case whatever. The 1095 only Member of the Fishery Board who is paid a salary by the State is the Chairman. The others are, without exception, gentlemen who give their services gratuitously.
§ DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, that it was evident that the Tories of Aberdeenshire were still smarting from the defeat which Mr. Esslemont inflicted on them at the General Election. He had no doubt Members would be pleased to learn that this mean and ignominious attack had the effect of greatly increasing Mr. Esslemont's reputation in the constituency. Mr. Esslemont's character had been attacked, and he should have thought that the first place he would go to to make a reply was before a meeting of his own friends. His information was that Mr. Esslemont did not go down to that meeting and speak until he had got from the authorities in London distinct permission to do so, to the extent of clearing his own character. Before he made the speech Mr. Esslemont had got a distinct authority to make a personal explanation on a public platform, and on the basis of that permission he went down and did so. Mr. Esslemont's remarks upon that occasion were entirely restricted to the defence of his own personal character from charges and accusations which he thought were a great detriment to that character. He did not utter a single political word, and when he had finished he left the platform and sat among the general body of the meeting. What Mr. Esslemont did he was perfectly entitled to do; and he (Dr. Farquharson) was glad to hear the manly and straightforward defence made for him by the Secretary for Scotland.
§ SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)said, that after the speech of the hon. Gentleman, this ceased to be an altogether Scottish question. It was now one that concerned the order and discipline of the Civil Service. He understood that the attack made upon Mr. Esslemont had been a, slight one. It was not an attack upon his honour, but merely upon his discretion, and now he gathered from the speech of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire that it was at the instigation of the Government that Mr. Esslemont went North. This gentleman was not to observe the universal rule of the Civil Service, and to leave his defence to the head of his 1096 Department, but the Government itself suggested that he should go to a public election meeting, and at that meeting, presumably in the interest of the political candidate of his own Party, make a statement which might or might not be an accurate one, but which was obviously most improper to make at that time and in those circumstances. He really thought that the Committee had a right to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the statement of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire was correct or not. If it was correct, he should like him to explain how he reconciled the conduct of the Government with proper discipline in the Civil Service.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANI should have thought that after my speech, and after the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, the rule in this matter had been clearly laid down. The only thing I know about it is that before Mr. Esslemont went to this meeting he had received a telegram from the Scotch Office warning him that the public servants were not allowed to take part in public meetings.
§ MR. HOZIER (Lanarkshire, S.)said, that was quite different from the statement of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire, who said that the Scottish Office authorised Mr. Esslemont to go to the meeting.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANThere was no mention of the Scottish Office in what the hon. Member said.
§ MR. HOZIERDoes the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire say so?
§ DR. FARQUHARSONI believe the Scottish Office had nothing whatever to do with this matter.
§ MR. HOZIERThen from whom did Mr. Esslemont receive the telegram authorising him to attend the meeting and make a statement? Might I ask that of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire?
§ DR. FARQUHARSONI believe the Scottish Office had nothing to do with it.
§ MR. HOZIERsaid, he could now understand why the Scottish Secretary was embarrassed when he asked whether the Scottish Office told Mr. Esslemont not to do this again.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANI have said that the only part I took, or was cognisant 1097 of, was that the Scotch Office warned Mr. Esslemont beforehand that public servants ought not to take part in elections. Then the hon. Member says I was embarrassed—which can only mean that I did allow Mr. Esslemont to go.
§ MR. HOZIERsaid, he did not mean that at all. He did not mean to impute any untruth to the right hon. Gentleman. That would be the last thing in the world he would think of doing.
MR. GRAHAM MURRAYThe hon. Member for Kirkcaldy has spoken about the part which Sheriffs take in elections. He spoke of their having to try political offences, but it is the case that no Sheriff ever takes part in any political election connected with his own Sheriffdom. That makes the whole difference. It has been the universal custom of Sheriffs not to disassociate themselves from political life. Even among the few Sheriffs who belong to the political Party opposite, there are those who take part in political meetings.
§ MR. CROMBIEI rise to Order. May I ask if this is relative to the subject of the Fishery Board?
MR. GRAHAM MURRAYI shall simply add that the Prime Minister has had frequently on his platforms the Sheriffs of Scotland, few in number, who agree with his general policy.
§ MR. H. SMITHthought it would be for the convenience of the House and the country if the rule which was laid down on all sides as a proper rule to regulate the conduct of the Chairman of the Fishery Board was also to be laid down to regulate the conduct of the Deputy Chairman of the Board. The Deputy Chairman was not paid as such, but he held his position on that Board because he happened to be one of the Sheriffs who was obliged to occupy membership upon it in virtue of his office. He got £1,000 as Sheriff, and it was therefore a mere quibble to say that he was not paid for discharging the duty of Deputy Chairman of the Board. The sooner the practice of Sheriffs taking active part in political elections was put an end to the better, and they could not in this respect do better than begin with the Deputy Chairman of the Fishery Board.
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)suggested that the Parliamentary Secretary might be able to tell the Committee something about this mysterious telegram. He had no doubt the hon. Gentleman could, if he wished, throw a great deal of light upon it. He quite agreed, as an old Member of the Civil Service, that there should be a general rule regulating the attendance of Civil servants at political meetings, and that that rule should be applied to both political Parties alike. He had been in the Civil Service for some 20 years. When, some eight years ago, he was adopted as the candidate for a constituency by a public meeting which he had attended, thereupon he was requested, though a Conservative Government was in Office, to resign his position, and he did so. He thought that rule should be applied to all Parties alike.
§ SIR C. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)reminded the House that this was the 13th of September, and that what they had been discussing was purely ancient history. He thought the hon. Member who had just sat down was justified in his brief interposition, but this was the Vote for the Scotch Fishery Board, and as the Scottish Members had the reputation of being practical men, he thought they could better devote the time that remained to them in discussing other questions. He was not going to rake up an old story, but he would point out that one of the Sheriffs in his own constituency attached his name to a handbill issued against him (Sir C. Cameron) during the Election of 1886. The right hon. Gentleman was then Secretary for Scotland, but nothing could be done in the matter. These things occurred constantly, and there was no use in going back to them.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)considered that it would be out of Order now to discuss at length the existing system under which Sheriffs took part in public meetings. Any Englishman listening to the speech of the hon. Member would be under the impression that the Sheriff had taken an active part in local politics.
§ SIR C. CAMERONThat was what I referred to, although I did not say so.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURwas quite aware that Sheriffs in Scotland did take part in political demonstrations, but he 1099 never heard of a Sheriff within the jurisdiction of his own Sheriffdom taking the active part which the hon. Gentleman appeared to suppose was taken in 1886, and unless the facts were brought before him by the hon. Gentleman he should continue to believe he was labouring under a mistake. At all events, he would go so far as to say that if such a course was pursued by any Sheriff he thought it was unfortunate. Whether Sheriffs were or were not entitled to take part in political matters, they ought not within their sphere of jurisdiction to do anything to bring into question their absolute impartiality. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Marjoribanks) would give the House all the information he possessed with regard to the telegram.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MARJORIBANKS,) Berwickshiresaid, he would only be too happy to offer himself as a corpus vile to be gibbetted as the sender of the telegram if it would at all produce harmony in the Committee or expedite proceedings. As a matter of fact, Mr. Esslemont telegraphed to him, when these statements were made with regard to him, asking whether he thought he might reply. He (Mr. Marjoribanks) said, "Certainly, I think you might." And Mr. Esslemont did so. He did not understand that Mr. Esslemont took part in the political meeting. He went simply to reply to the charges made against him. If any blame was attachable to any Party at all it was to him (Mr. Marjoribanks), and he hoped he would be allowed to offer himself as a sacrifice on Mr. Esslemont's behalf.
§ MR. HOZIERsaid, it now turned out that the telegram was sent by the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury—that was, by the political official who worked the political organisation of a political Party. In his opinion, and he was sure in the opinion of the Committee, the explanation just given made the transaction ten thousand times worse.
§ SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)said, that as a Member of the Deep Sea Fisheries Committee, he should like to express his view of the vital importance of the scientific investigations carried on by the Scotch Fishery Board. This Board dealt with, perhaps, one of the most important industries of the country, 1100 and he desired to emphasise his sense of the value of the work of the Board in the scientific investigation of the fisheries, and to point out how valuable an example the Scotch Fishery Board had shown to them in this country in regard to dealing with their fisheries. The Scotch Board had done a great deal to throw light upon the migration, the food of fishes, and the means of increasing the supply of fish, but in England they had only one great organisation for this work—at Plymouth and Grimsby—in the Marine Biological Association, and even that Scientific Body had not pursued the history and character of the fishes and the best means of saving them and utilising them for food so well as the Scotch Fishery Board. There was no doubt we were throwing away, to a great extent, the harvest of the sea in this country, and of the North Sea especially. As far as one could judge, it did not seem to be the case that there were as good fish in the sea as ever came out, except only proverbially. On the contrary, the seas were ceasing to be the sources of fishing industry they had been in the past, and unless great care were taken in protecting the nurseries for fish, and some steps also adopted for limiting the size of the fish which might be taken, the time was not far distant when a great source of food and a most valuable means of change of diet would be, to a great extent, denied the people of this country. It was a serious state of things that while the catching power had increased so largely the quantity of fish caught remained stationary or nearly so, if it was not even decreasing. The fishes caught were also much less in size than was the case formerly. This required investigation, and he wished to bear his testimony to the value of the scientific work of the Scotch Fishery Board. Scotland had a Fishery Board, but in England they anticipated Scotland by having their District Committees. He was glad this step had been taken in Scotland, that the representative principle had been extended, and that practical fishermen were to be represented on the Boards, and he hoped the time was not far distant when the Sea Fisheries Committees of this country would be equally representative of the fishermen. He trusted, too, that they 1101 should have a National Sea Fisheries Board as well as Committees, which would follow the valuable example set by Scotland. With reference to the grant for telegraphic extension, it was most important that intelligence of large catches should be quickly conveyed to the markets to avoid the great waste that must ensue from the non-consumption of fish. The amount of that grant was £1,200, but he hoped it might be increased. It was very necessary, too, that the question of harbours and piers should be borne in mind, especially with regard to Ireland. He trusted that what had been done in Scotland would be done in England and Ireland.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 3. £2,872, to complete the sum for Lunacy Commission, Scotland.
§ 4. £4,887, to complete the sum for Registrar General's Office, Scotland.
§ CAPTAIN SINCLAIR (Dunbartonshire)asked whether the Census for Scotland was approaching completion?
§ SIR G. TREVELYANreplied that it was. £3,500 was taken this year, and he had every reason to believe that the work was approaching completion.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ 5. £4,830, to complete the sum for Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, and for Public Health, Scotland.
§ DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he wished to make a protest against the somewhat retrograde step which had been taken by the Scotch Office in the withdrawal of the Circular of the Board of Supervision prohibiting medical officers from engaging in private practice.
MR. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid, he could only state that the Board of Supervision, of which he was a member when this matter came forward, considered the matter as best they could, and they certainly took the best practical advice they could obtain. As the right hon. Gentleman had departed from the official declaration of the Board, he hoped he would be able to give them some satisfaction on the subject. The position of the' Board was acquiesced in by the vast majority of the counties.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, it was impossible to carry out the Circular in four or five counties, including Ross-shire; and so far from being a general 1102 Regulation, it dealt with the subject in an arbitrary manner, which excited a great deal of bitterness in those counties, notably Haddington, Forfar, and Berwick. These counties were not allowed to have their share of the grant, because they had not a medical officer engaged for his whole time. He (Sir G. Trevelyan), therefore, decided that those counties should receive the grant where it was shown that the duties of the medical officer were efficiently and properly done. If it should turn out that he had made a mistake the system would have to be changed.
§ SIR C. CAMERONsaid, the only item for medical professional advice to the Board of Supervision stated in the Estimates was a sum of £200 paid to Dr. Littlejohn, who, though possessing high qualifications, had a number of other official duties to discharge. Last night they had a declaration from the President of the Local Government Board that he had increased the medical staff of his Board in view of the threatened visitation of cholera. He (Sir C. Cameron) did not ask the Secretary for Scotland to rush into any great expense in this matter, but he thought that it would be money well spent if some definite arrangements were made in connection with the Board of Supervision to take care that they should have some really efficient Central Department of medical advice. If a suspicious case broke out in Scotland, it was of supreme importance that there should be arrangements whereby experts could pronounce upon the real nature of the case, and at present there was no machinery connected with the Board of Supervision to enable that to be done.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, that nobody was more deeply impressed than he was with the inadequate staff which the Board of Supervision had for such a matter as this. His earnest hope was that the very first measure of importance introduced by the Scottish Department might include the reorganisation of the Board of Supervision.
§ Vote agreed to.