out of the funds to be raised by licence dues ; a plan 

 which I have reason to believe would meet with the sup- 

 port of the Tweed Commissioners. 



The last class of expenses should, I think, fall on the 

 officials who in Scotland are now and have always been 

 entrusted with the administration of the criminal law. 

 Looking to the severity of the punishment for offences 

 authorised by the Salmon Acts, consisting of fines reaching 

 up to 20, and of various terms of imprisonment up to six 

 months, it seems to me unconstitutional, inexpedient, and 

 anomalous, to give to Boards the power, and still more to 

 impose on them the duty, of acting as prosecutors. In 

 cases of an analogous nature, such as night poaching, 

 killing game in close time, fishing for oysters, lobsters, and 

 mussels in close time, the prosecutions are, and can only 

 be, at the instance of the Procurator Fiscal, an official 

 who is subject to control, and even to dismissal, for any 

 impropriety or mismanagement. The expenses of such 

 prosecutions are audited by the county magistrates, and, 

 if found correct, paid out of the county funds. Why 

 should the same rule not be followed in regard to 

 offences under the Salmon Acts ? 



What is the practice in England in regard to the prose- 

 cution of offenders under the Fishery Acts, I do not know. 



In Ireland, offences against the fishery laws are taken 

 notice of by the county constabulary, and prosecutions are 

 conducted by them, as well as by Fishery Conservators. 



I have now related, I fear at too great a length, what 

 we have been doing or trying to do in Scotland to 

 bring about some amendment in our salmon fishery laws. 

 During last year, a Fishery Act was passed for Scotland, 

 abolishing the old, and creating a new fishery board, 

 which has been so far a step in the right direction, that 



