I do not think it will be necessary for me to move a reduction of this Vote; because I have no doubt that the Lord Advocate will be able to give the Committee some assurance on the matter to which. I wish to direct their attention. It may be in the recollection of some of the Members of the Committee, that more than once during this Session and last I have called attention to the damage inflicted both upon the fishermen and upon the people living in the neighbourhood of Loch Long and Loch Goil by the deposit of offensive matter at the mouth of Loch Long, in connection with the sewage and drainage works under the control of the Clyde Trust. The Lord Advocate when put a question to him some time ago, gave a promise that an inquiry should be made by the Scotch officials, and I believe that some kind of inquiry either has been made, or is in progress. What I want to point out to the Committee is, that the fouling of the water has gone on upon a very large scale since I last brought the matter before the House. In June, several chemical boats discharged about 500 tons of this filthy matter into the river, and all through July and also in the present month, the boats of the Clyde Trust have been engaged in discharging matter of an offensive kind. Perhaps I may he allowed to state to the Committee very briefly what the fishermen and residents say upon the subject, and what is the position which has to be met. One of the oldest fishermen in Loch Long states—

" It is the opinion of the fishermen here that there has been great harm done to the fishing in Loch Goil and Loch Long by the dredge bouts of the Clyde Trustees being emptied at the foot of the Loch. There are banks in Loch Long and Loch Goil where we used to get from 18 to 20 stone of white fish, and now with the same kind of lines we will not get the third of that quantity. It is the fishermen's opinion that the dirt drifts into the banks and spoils the spawn; during the time of the herring fishing I have seen so much dirt and scum on the water when it was calm weather that I could hardly haul the nets, and it would take us hours to wash the filth from them when we came in. I have always heard complaints about it being a nuisance both to bathers and fishermen."

A gentleman residing at Loch Goilhead says—

"The pollution you have witnessed I can assure you extends even to the heart of Loch Guil—a considerable number of miles from the place where the filth is deposited.—Tho water, naturally 50 beautifully pure, is frequently in such a state that it detracts grievously from the charm of the locality, even being quite unfit to bathe in."

So offensive is the matter deposited, that some men engaged in the construction of a new pier refused to continue to work, the conditions under which they were working being so unfavourable. The same gentleman I quoted just now writes—

" The Coalport Pier is a ease in point. The construction of this work was rendered very difficult through the presence of a deep lied of the Clyde dredgings overlying the natural bottom of the Loch. So foul was the deposit that the contractor had difficulty in getting his men to work in the 'slurry'"

The reason these men have assigned is, and the Lord Advocate will correct me if I am wrong, that as far as the inquiry has already proceeded, the fact has been ascertained that so great has been the quantity of the deposits that they have entirely changed the bottom of the banks of a great part of the Loch. It is not a bottom with shifting soil, but is coin-posed of what is known as the "old fire rocks," upon which this filth, when deposited, accumulates. An inquiry took place within a week of the time at which I am now speaking. The account I have received of it states—

"A meeting of proprietors, residents, and fishermen was held last night in Blairmore, Sir John Douglas in the chair, for the purpose of affording Dr. Littlejohn an opportunity of hearing parties on the subject of injury to fishing. Soundings of the Loch itself were taken to ascertain to what appreciable extent the formation of shoals has taken place. Mr. Yevous drew a sample of the polluted water, which he handed to Dr. Littlejohn. Sir John Douglas said that it was not half as opaque a mixture as he could furnish Dr. Littlejohn. Upon the subject of injury to fishing, the evidence was most startling and conclusive."

When the Lord Advocate replied to me on this question some time ago, I understood him to be sensible of the gravity of the matter, but further, I understood him to say that he considered it rather a matter for the Local Authorities, and for the individuals injured to deal with than for the Government to take action upon. Now, with all submission to the Government, I think it is utterly impossible for these poor fishermen to fight such a powerful body as the Clyde Trust, nor do I think it would be easy, even if it were lawful, for a number of Local Authorities to combine and find funds for the conduct of a prosecution. I am very much inclined to believe that the law of champerty and maintenance would preclude that; and that it would be impossible for the Local Authorities to make themselves co-plaintiffs, or co-prosecutors, in any proceeding. I believe the easiest plan would be for the Government to take action in the matter, if they are in a position to prove that a nuisance has been committed. I believe they have evidence of the existence of a nuisance, and also of the great amount of injury inflicted upon a number of the poor fishermen, who have been driven almost into starvation in some of the districts of Loch Long opposite the mouth of which the Clyde Trust now bring their boats and discharge this offensive matter on the edge of the Loch. Many of the residences have been rendered uninhabitable during a considerable portion of the year; and persons who have been, in the habit of resorting to this locality for the purpose of bathing have been compelled to leave it. In a small bay—the bay of Ardentinny-—there is an absolute bank of filth, of considerable extent, which is being daily enlarged. Under these circumstances, I venture to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can say something that will be satisfactory to these poor fishermen; and, whether he can hold out any hope that the Government will take steps to put a stop to the nuisance?

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

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

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

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

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

I cannot say at the present moment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I said was that I declined to make any comment on the conduct of the Secretary for Scotland. I knew of the circumstance quite well.

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

I never used the word "subordinate." I was careful not to do so. I said a junior official.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. Member has correctly stated the evil, which is the rather inefficient state of the lower staff for the purpose of overtaking matters of detail.

May I ask what is the Question now before the Committee?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then he does not draw £500 on account of his pension?

No; he draws no pension; he only draws up to what the full salary of his former appointment could have come to.

Then may I ask what his pension is?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we to understand that the pension is paid on account of the abolition of office?

No; there was no abolition of office.

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

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

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

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

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

May I ask who it is who moves this Vote?

I do.

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

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

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

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

I doubt whether any other country has a Lyon King-at-Arms.

My observations referred to Her Majesty's Limner.

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

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

Yes; but we do not pay for it.

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

How much does he receive under Class III.?

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

What does he receive these fees for?

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

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

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

He has been dead for 10 years.

He never touted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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