this unfortunate state of matters with regard to trout - fishing in Scotland, but up to the present time these efforts have proved unsuccessful. In 1894 Lord Lamington introduced in the House of Lords a Trout Fishing (Scotland) Bill. This bill provided that

any

pass

"it shall not be lawful for any person whatever, at any time after the ing of this Act, between the first day of November in any year and the first day of February in the year following, both inclusive, to fish for common trout (Salmo fario) in any river, water, or loch in Scotland, by net, rod, line, or otherwise, or in any way whatever to take such trout from such river, water, or loch; or within such dates, both inclusive, to have possession of or expose for sale such trout; and if any person shall so fish for or take such trout from any river, water, or loch in Scotland, or shall have possession of such trout, or expose such trout for sale at any time within the said dates, both inclusive, such persons shall forfeit and pay a sum not

exceeding five pounds for every such offence."

Further, it was provided that this new Act should be read and construed along with and as part of the Trout (Scotland) Act, 1845, and the Trout (Scotland) Act, 1860, which have been already referred to. Lamington's bill was blocked in Unfortunately Lord the House of Commons, and nothing further came of it. The Fishery Board for Scotland, however, determined to ascertain the opinions of all the County Councils in Scotland on the subject of a close-time for trout. They were each asked to state if in their opinion a close - time for trout were desirable, and, if so, during which months such closetime should extend. Herewith are appended the answers to these questions, which Mr J. B. Balfour, the ex-Lord Advocate, kindly gave me liberty to publish :

the public to free fishing for trout with certain limited exceptions, objected to any close-time being enforced unless that right to free fishing were first legally established. According to the evidence from all parts of the Tweed, it appears that the proprietors in whom at present the legal right to trout-fishing is vested are extremely liberal in granting facilities to the public to prosecute trout-fishing to their hearts' content. Under these circumstances we are unable to recommend such an alteration in the law as Mr Brown suggests; but, though it is somewhat beyond our province to do so, we recommend that the general law of Scotland should be amended so as to provide a close-time for trout, and that the sale and possession of trout should be made illegal during the close-time."

Mr A. L. Brown, having thus failed to influence the Tweed and Solway Commissioners in favour of a bill for free fishing, has now proceeded, in conjunction with his successor in the Border Burghs, Mr Thomas Shaw, the ex-Solicitor-General for Scotland, to concoct a scheme whereby to defeat Sir Herbert Maxwell's bill for a close-time for trout. In order to do this effectively, he has entered into an unholy alliance with certain Irish members who have blocked the bill. It may very reasonably be asked what the Irish members have to do with blocking a bill for a close-time for trout in Scotland, especially when, as I have shown above, the trout and pollen in Ireland have the benefit of a closeseason. The reason Mr Brown has had the audacity to make public in the press it is that "the Border Burghs have helped the Irish cause." Thus, for party purposes, certain members of the Irish gang are blocking a bill about which they, in all probability, know nothing and care less ! But in whose interests is

it that Mr A. L. Brown and Mr Thomas Shaw are so anxious to

acquire this free fishing? Is it for the benefit of the respectable angler in that Border constituency? Not so. I defy Mr A. L. Brown or Mr Thomas Shaw to produce a single respectable angler from the Hawick Burghs who has expressed himself in favour of such an enactment. I here quote, may as of more weight than any words of my own, a memorandum regarding the origin and progress of the Upper Teviotdale Fisheries Association, the largest and most important association of the kind in Scotland, prepared for the Duke of Buccleuch by the secretary of the Association on April 9, 1894. These fisheries, it may be mentioned in passing, are connected chiefly with the very constituency which had for its representative in Parliament Mr A. L. Brown in the past, and possesses Mr Thomas Shaw for the present. After showing that the Association was formed in 1881, so that "all respectable anglers could obtain liberty to fish, for the payment of a small annual fee, and which Association would have the power to enforce an annual close-time for trout, and to protect the waters from unlicensed fishers and poachers," the report goes on to show what has been done in that direction since the commencement of its operations. Licences have been granted, the waters have been protected, and the trout-fishing has improved enormously. But a still further benefit has been conferred upon all the decent anglers in the neighbourhood through the action of this Association. The memorandum thus puts it:

"By preventing any one fishing for a livelihood, by prohibiting any angler

allowing dogs to follow him to the riverside, and by refusing its licence to all parties who have infringed its rules, or who are suspected of poaching, of whom there are at present no less than 106 on the Black List, the Association has, in a great measure, put a stop to poaching in the district."

It appears to me that this report of the Upper Teviotdale Fisheries Association conclusively proves that the respectable angler will have nothing to do with the free fishing bill proposed to be granted by Mr A. L. Brown and Mr Thomas Shaw, and that the only persons that will reap any benefit through the passing of such a measure would be the 106, or thereby, so-called anglers who, from their poaching methods or

wilful breach of the regulations of that society, have been publicly debarred from receiving licences to fish.

It has been further

alleged by Mr A. L. Brown and Mr Thomas Shaw that the bill of Sir Herbert Maxwell is one in the interests of the landlords of Scotland only. This, I consider, is a deliberate misstatement of fact. The bill has been carefully prepared for the benefit of the respectable angling community, and has, as I have shown, the support of the representatives of practically the whole of Scotland. It is to be hoped that Mr A. L. Brown and Mr Thomas Shaw employ more sportsmanlike methods in their angling than they appear to do in dealing with political questions.