4 DIVISION OF FISHES 99
| Ue, Se NATIONAL MUSEUM”

SH ISSUED BY AUTHORITY

BT ey

Held in connection with

The GREAT ANTERNATIONAL
/PISHERUES FXHIBITION
SALMON

AND

SALMON FISHERIES

BY

‘DAVID MILNE HOME, F.R.S.E.

OF MILNE-GRADEN (BERWICKSHIRE)

| 7 _ LONDON
WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LimiTEp
INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES EXHIBITION
AND 13 CHARING CROSS, S.W.

“YICE SIXPENCE

PAPERS or tHE CONFERENCES

Held in connection with the GREAT INTERNATIONAL
FISHERIES EXHIBITION.

NOW READY.
Demy 8vo., in Illustrated Wrapper. Price Sixpence each.
INAUGURAL MEETING: ADDRESS. By Professor HuxLey, P.R.S.
H.R.H. the Prince or Wats (P:esident of the Commission) in the Chair. :
NOTES ON THE SEA FISHERIES AND FISHING POPULATION
OF THE UNILED KINGDOM. By H.R.H THe Duke of EpinpurGH, K.G. 1s. J
THE FISHERY INDUSTRIES OF THE UNITED STATES. By Pro-
fessor Brown Goong, M.A.
OYSTER CULTURE AND OYSTER FISHERIES IN THE NETHER-
LANDS. By Professor HuBrecurT.
PRINCIPLES OF FISHERY LEGISLATION. By Right Hon. G. SHAW-
LeFevre, M.P.
ON THE CULTURE OF SALMONIDAE AND THE cecal
TISATION OF FISH. By Sir James Ramsay Grisson MaIrTLanp, Bart.
FISH DISBASES. By Professor HUXLEY, P.R.S.

THE ECONOMIC CONDITION OF FISHERMEN, By Professor LEONE

LEvi.

THE FISHERIES OF CANADA. By L. Z. Joncas.

PRESERVATION OF FISH LIFE IN RIVERS BY THE EXCLU-
SION OF TOWN SEWAGE. By the Hon. W. F. B. Massey MAINWARING.

MOLLUSCS, MUSSELS, WHELKS, & c., USED FOR FOOD OR BAIT.
By CHARLES HarbDINa.

COARSE FISH CULTURE. By R. B. Marston.

ON THE FOOD OF FISHES. By Dr. F. Day.

THE HERRING FISHERIES OF SCOTLAND. By R. W. Durr, M.P.

LINE FISHING. By C. M. MunpDauL.

FISH TRANSPORT AND FISH MARKETS. By His Excellency SPENCER

WALPOLE.

FOREST PROTECTION AND TREE CULTURE ON WATER
FRONTAGES. By D. HowitTz, Esq.

SEAL FISHERIES. By Captain TEMPLE.

FISH AS FOOD. By Sir HENry THompson.

STORM WARNINGS. By R. H. Scort.

ON THE DESTRUCTION OF FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC

ANIMALS BY INTERNAL PARASITES. By Professor Coppotp, F.R.S., F.L.S.
SCIENTIFIC RESULTS OF THE EXHIBITION. By Professor E. Ray

LANKESTER.

A ne FISHERY SOCIETY FOR GREAT BRITAIN. By
. E. FryYER.

CRUSTACEANS. By T. CornisuH.

TRAWLING. By ALFRED ANSELL.

THE BASIS FOR LEGISLATION ON FISHERY QUESTIONS. By
Lieut.-Col. F. G. Sovd.

MACKEREL AND PILCHARD FISHERIES. By T. Cornisu.

’ ARTIFICIAL CULTURE OF LOBSTERS. By W. Savitte Kent.

FRESHWATER FISHING (other than Salmon). By J. P. WHEELDON.

SALMON AND SALMON FISHERIES. By David MILNE Homg, F.R.S.E.

IN THE PRESS.

ON FACILITIES FOR THE IMPROVED CAPTURE AND ECO-
NOMIC TRANSMISSION OF SEA FISHES, AND HOW THESE MATTERS AFFECT
IRISH FISHERIES. By R. F. Watsn, of Kinsale.

THE FISHERIES OF IRELAND. By Jj. C. BLOOMFIELD.
THE FISHERIES OF OTHER COUNTRIES, By Commissioners for

Sweden, Norway, Spain, &c., who took part in the Conference.

LONDON: WILLIAM CLOWES & SONS, LimitTep,
INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES EXHIBITION, & 13, CHARING CROSS
/

SS ET OE ec Po

7

{ »

952 L[nternational Fisheries Exhibition
a - LONDON, 1883
Fish

AND

SALMON FISHERIES

/

BY

DAN 1 MILNE-HOME, PERSE:

OF MILNE-GRADEN (BERWICKSHIRE).

LONDON
WitptAM €CLOWES AND SONS, Limirenp

INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES EXHIBITION
AND 13 CHARING CROSS, S.W.
1883

Lnternational Fisheries Eexhibition
LONDON, -1883

CONFERENCE ON TUESDAY, JULY 17, 1883.

The LORD LOVAT in the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN, in introducing Mr. Milne Home, said
the work of the Exhibition would not have been complete
if a paper on that most noble of our fish, the salmon, had
been omitted. The importance of the salmon was very
great, supporting as it does a considerable industry, sup-
plying avast amount of food, and affording the finest sport

which in this sporting country a sportsman could enjoy.

SALMON SAND SALMON FISHERIES:

IF the announcement in the Programme of this day’s Con-
ference means that there is to be an account given of the
Salmon and Salmon Fisheries of the United Kingdom, I
fear that any information I can furnish will not do justice
to the subject ; for my knowledge of Salmon and Salmon
Fisheries is derived only from my experience as a pro-
prietor of salmon fisheries in one river in the south of
Scotland, viz., the Tweed; and from having had some
share in managing the fisheries of the river, and of the
sea-coast on each side of its mouth.

But as, according to the latest known returns, the Scotch
Salmon fisheries are, in value and produce, fully one-third of
those of the United Kingdom, and there are peculiarities

[21] Bez

ee

in the Scotch fisheries which seem deserving of atten-
tion, I venture to offer a few remarks for the consideration
of the Conference.

pS uisies

There are several kinds of salmon in the Tweed. The
most common are the Sa/mo salar, or true salmon, and
the Salmo ertox, which last kind is known also by the
names of bull-trout, sea-trout, or whitling. But there are
hybrids which sometimes render identification difficult.

The young of the true salmon, when first hatched, we
call a “ parr,’ having dusky cross bars on its sides.

)

Hatched in December or January, these “parr” go slowly
down the river towards their ultimate destination, the sea.
But they do not venture into the sea till another skin of
glistening scales has been formed over their first skin.
They then receive the name of “smolts.” . If put into salt
water, before getting this silver dress, they die. It is only
a portion of the “arr” which go to sea during the first
year. The rest, being probably more weakly in constitu-
tion, remain in fresh water till the following spring, when,
if not devoured by natural enemies, they also put on a
silvery dress, and betake themselves to the ocean.

The “ smolts,” after remaining in the sea for some
months, return to their native river, having grown to about
twelve inches in length, and weighing about half a pound
or more. They then go by the name of “ dlack-tails,”
having the tail and the dorsal back fin of a black colour.
They hover about the lower parts of the river, not going
far beyond the influence of the tide. Before winter they
return to the sea; and in the following year they come
back to the river as grilse in June and July. For what
purpose they come then is not yet known. When they

come in September and October, it is in most cases to

~~

5

deposit ova and milt in the spawning beds. After they
have spawned they return to the sea, and if they come
back next year, my opinion is that it is in the form of a
salmon—a change corresponding to that of the heifer into a
cow after her first calf. This, however, is one of the points
on which naturalists differ.

The young of the bull-trout are like the young of the
true salmon—first parr and then smolts. When they
return from the sea, they go to the higher parts of the
river, and are known as “ orange-fins,’ being distinguishable
by a yellow colour on the belly.*

It would appear that many of the grilse and salmon,
though sufficiently advanced in life, remain sterile. In the
months of December and January, which is the usual time
for spawning, quantities of adult salmon are seen by cod,
haddock, and herring fishermen, twelve and fifteen miles
from the coast, near the surface of the water, playing
about, as the fishermen term it, probably being then in
pursuit of food. Even in the river, during the above

* There is, however, a little uncertainty regarding the relative
positions of “ Orange-fin” and “ Black-tail.”” Some young fish,
believed to be Orange-fins, having been put into a pond at Carham,
and kept there for two or three years, were examined by Mr. Stirling,
of Edinburgh University, and he reported on them as follows.

A fish, weighing about 2 lbs., having been examined, Mr. Stirling
suggested the following account of its life history :—

“Tt was put into the pond in May, 1874, as an Orange-fin.
“Tt became a Black-tail in May 1875.

“Tt became a Bull-trout in November, 1876.

“Tt spawned about this time.

“Its progeny were hatched in February 1877.

“Its progeny became Parr in May 1877.

“Tts progeny became Orange-fins in April 1878.”

Mr. Stirling was therefore of opinion that the fish known as an
“ Orange-fin” in the Tweed, is the “ Black-tail” of that river in a

younger stage.

6

months, adult salmon have been seen, not seeking the
spawning beds, but lying in deep pools.

In the Tweed, there have been numerous well-authenti-
cated cases of salmon having been caught exceeding 70 lbs.
in weight (see ‘Tweed Salmon Reports,’ published by
Blackwood, Edinburgh, in 1867, p. 121).

With regard to the food of the salmon, I have never
heard of anything having been found in their stomachs,
except what they must have got when in the sea. Small
haddocks, cod, and herrings have been found, as well as
lugworms, sand-eels and remains of jelly-fish. The sea-
fishermen believe that when in salt water they feed largely
on “ Mather,” or “ Herring Sile,” minute crustaceans, which
are often in such quantities as to colour the water, and
which generally betoken to the fishermen the proximity
of herrings. Even when salmon are taken in parts of the
river, at a distance of above twenty miles from the sea, as
at my own residence on Tweedside, they have been found
with small herrings in their stomach, as the only appear-
ance of food. When they come into the river to spawn,
my belief is that they get no food, except what they bring
with them, and that they are then supported entirely by
the oil which is in their flesh. This inference is corroborated
by the experiments of the late Sir Robert Christison, who
analysed the flesh of a clean salmon caught when entering
the River Tay from the sea, and also another salmon when
descending the Tay to the sea, after having been in the
river for about six months. The amount of fatty matter
was in the latter only about one-sixteenth of what existed
in the former.”

* See Appendix A (page 37) for the details of Sir Robert Christison’s

analysis ; and also for some corroborative remarks by the late Frank
Buckland.

7

The young of the salmon, on their way down to the
sea, are preyed on by many enemies. Sea-gulls and
herons devour them in large quantities. When they reach
the mouth of the river, there are millions of “podlies”
(Merlangus carbonarius) watching for them. The Tweed
Commissioners, to lessen the slaughter, employ boats and
nets to catch these “podlies.” The last return of which I
have a note represents 6040 caught in May and June.
Many of these creatures, when examined, were found with
the remains of eight or ten smolts in their stomachs.

The migration of Tweed salmon has been to some
extent investigated by the Commissioners. With the view
of ascertaining the changes of size and shape in future
stages of life, we for many years were in the practice of
catching fish of all kinds, and putting a silver wire into the
dorsal fin, with a special number stamped on it. When any
of these wired fish were caught, the wire was sent to our
Superintendent, with a description of the fish, by length and
weight, and of the place where caught. In this way we
had reported to us cases of Tweed salmon caught in the
Firth of Forth, on the coast of Aberdeen, and in the rivers
Don and Dee of that county. Along the coast of England
to the south of the Tweed, we had cases reported to us
from Holy Island, from the Tyne, from Shields, and even
from Yarmouth. This last case, on account of the distance
travelled, is especially interesting, the wire having been
fastened to a bull-trout caught in the Whitadder, a tribu-
tary of the Tweed, on the 29th of March, 1852, and the fish
having been caught in a net at Winterton, near Yarmouth,
on the 2nd of April; it had travelled, therefore, nearly 300
miles in four days. Another fish, marked in the Whitadder
on 10th March, 1880, was caught at Yarmouth on 5th May, -
1880 (see Appendix B, page 38).

8

When salmon are swimming in the river Tweed up
stream, it has been estimated by experienced anglers that
they travel at the rate of about two miles per hour.

Salmon, in descending the river after spawning, are
generally emaciated and exhausted. Many, apparently
hardly able to swim, float down the stream to the sea.
Every spring, large numbers are found dead at the sides
of the river, or in pools.

What causes the migration of salmon is matter of con-
jecture. I have observed, when walking along the Ber-
wickshire coast, salmon leaping frequently at or near the
mouths of small rivers or streams; and it has occurred to
me that, as they must get into rivers for spawning, instinct
induces them to seek those rivers the waters of which they
find most suitable for the purpose.

Certain it is that salmon, after having frequented
particular rivers from time immemorial, have abandoned
them, and the inference is that they betake themselves to
other rivers which they deem preferable. |

As an example of this, I may refer to the river Whit-
adder, which has a course of about forty miles from the
Lammermuir Hills. This river joins the Tweed, at a dis-
tance from its mouth of about three miles; so that all
the salmon caught in the higher parts of the Tweed must
have passed the mouth of the Whitadder. The tide flows
into it, as well as into the Tweed, flowing up the latter,
for six or seven miles. Formerly the true Salmo salar
frequented the Whitadder; but during the last thirty
years no salmon of that variety has been seen init. It
is frequented only by bull-trout.

Reference may also be made to the Thames and to the
Coquet (Northumberland), both of which rivers used to be
frequented by the true salmon. I might also quote the

o

Esk in Mid-Lothian, where, about fifty years ago, I have
seen hundreds of true salmon wriggling up over the mill-
weirs ; but there have been no such fish in that river for the
last twenty years.

Where have all the salmon and their progeny gone to,
which frequented these rivers? The natural conclusion
is, that rivers elsewhere have been resorted to.

In some of the cases I have mentioned, and in multi-
tudes of others, the probable cause of desertion, was the
pollution of the streams by the establishment of paper-mills,
dye-works, mining operations, and other manufactures, the
refuse of which rendered the waters in these rivers unsuit-
able for salmon life.

Thus, about thirty years ago, shortly after the establish-
ment of paper and woollen works in the upper parts of the
river Whitadder, I used to see its lower parts covered
with an oily scum and foam most destructive to fish.

These remarks lead me to refer to other circumstances
inimical to salmon when in our rivers.

One is the formation of mill-dams or weirs, of such
heights that, except in “spates” or heavy floods, the fish
cannot reach any spawning grounds. In the cases of the
Thames and of the Coquet, the English Fishery Inspectors,
after careful investigation, gave it as their opinion that
what originally caused desertion of salmon from both
rivers, was the erection of impassable mill-dams and locks,
which cut off access to spawning grounds. On the other
hand, there are: rivers where salmon have become more
plentiful, as in the Tyne; and the Chairman of the Fishery
Conservators of that river informed me, that he attri-
bute this increase chiefly to the removal of mill-dams and
the formation of fish-passes. It seems a well-established
fact that unless the fish find suitable ground for spawning

IO

they retain the ova and milt, causing great risk a fatal
inflammation; and accordingly every winter, multitudes
of fish, both male and female, are found dead and un-
spawned —in many cases with milt-sacs and ovaries
diseased.*

I believe that the state into which our rivers get by
excessive drought, is another cause of much unhealthiness
to salmon. The rain falling on our agricultural districts
rushes off at once through land drains ; so that our rivers,
instead of continuing in flood for a week or ten days, fall
to their ordinary level in three or four days; and in dry
weather, the fish congregate in pools, where the quantity of
water is so small, that the supply of oxygen for respiration
is insufficient.

A curious fact may be referred to, which perplexed
the late Frank Buckland, viz., the entry of grilse into our
rivers, at a season when it is probable they do not come
for spawning. In the north of Scotland, they enter the
rivers on the east coast, in January and February, but on

* Return by Mr. List, Superintendent of Tweed Water Bailiffs, of
salmon, grilse, and bull-trout, found dead or dying in the river,
which were taken out of the river and buried, distinguishing the
spawned and the unspawned.

Season Season Season Season
1880. 1881. 1882. 1883.
Spawned. oy". 4694 2542 11438 | 3996
Unspawned . . . 528 365 3189 864

The late Frank Buckland, in his 19th Report, p. 34, says :—“A
question of considerable importance, bearing on the salmon disease,
has arisen, viz., whether a female salmon has the power to withhold
her eggs? Now, I know most positively that she has the power.”

lI

the west coast, though on the same latitude, not till May
or June. The explanation suggested by Mr. Archibald
Young, Fishery Inspector for Scotland, seems to me
correct, founded on the relative temperatures of the sea
and of those rivers. The sea on the west coast,is from two
to three degrees warmer than on the east coast. On
the other hand, the rivers flowing eastward into the
German Ocean, lose their winter temperature, before
reaching the sea, more rapidly than the rivers flowing
by a shorter course towards the west ; because the snow-
clad mountains, from which both sets of rivers flow, are
nearer the west coast than the east coast, and therefore
the west-flowing rivers are, at’ their mouths, colder than
the east-flowing rivers at their mouths. The fish may
therefore seek to get out of the cold sea-water on the
east coast, by at once entering the rivers flowing there
into that sea; whereas on the west coast, the fish may
incline to remain in the warmer sea-water there, until the
temperature of the rivers has risen, after the snow has
melted.

This solution of the problem, being one of a meteoro-
logical character, is now being tested by thermometers,
which His Grace the Duke of Sutherland has kindly
caused to be placed and observed in the Sutherlandshire
rivers.

A question occurs on Tweedside, regarding the spawned
and spent fish, called “ £e/ts,” which are often so emaciated,
that the clause in our Act of Parliament forbidding the
capture of “fowl, unclean, and unseasonable”’ fish, has
been held to apply to them. Sometimes, however, these
kelts become, before reaching the sea, so improved in
condition, that they are considered wholesome as food,

and, being improved in appearance, are, when taken in

12

the nets, not restored to the river. The expediency of
destroying the kelts has also been maintained, on the
ground that they devour “parr’

b

in large quantities. I
incline to think this a mistake. The kelts generally go
down to the sea in February and March, at which
time the “parr,” like the common “mzznows,” hide them-
selves in the muddy bottom or sides of the river, or
under stones. A neighbour of mine, who kept a supply of
minnows in a pond in his garden for many years, told
me that they always, during the winter months, buried
themselves in the mud. My gamekeeper, when in winter
he wants “sznnows” for trout fishing, tells me that he has
to seek for them among tree roots and other rubbish along
the banks, by means of a small net. This is also probably
the case with “arr.”

IJ. FISHERIES.

Having offered these remarks in regard to /7sh, I pro-

ceed to the second part of the programme, viz. /zsherces,
which I presume refers to the persons who fish for salmon,
and to the rules for controlling their modes of fishing,
- In Scotland, as I believe is the case also in England
and Ireland, the original right of fishing for salmon is in
the Crown, the privilege being capable of being exercised
only by those who can show a Crown charter.

Until about thirty years ago, the Crown rights in this
matter seem, in Scotland at least, to have been little
attended to.

About that time, steps were taken by the Department
of Woods and Forests, to ascertain what proprietors who
were fishing for salmon, could show Crown charters.

The investigation began in the south-east of Scotland,

3)

and I was called on among others. I was able to show a
good prescriptive title for both river and sea fishings, but
many of my neighbours were not so successful, and then,
of course, the Crown officers, their right to the fishings
having first been established or acknowledged, advertised
the salmon fishings to be let to those who offered the
highest rent—a preference, however, being given to riparian
proprietors,

This investigation has. been carried on along the
east coast of Scotland, and I believe also the west
coast.

At my suggestion a return was obtained from the Woods
and Forests two years ago, of the amount of these Crown
salmon fishings for the years ending respectively Martin-
mas, 1871, and Martinmas, 1881, from which it appears that
the sum drawn for Crown leases of salmon fishings in
Scotland in the former year was £3198 Is. 2a, and in the
last-mentioned year £5110 I4s.; this progressive increase
arising from the additional fisheries taken possession of
by the Crown officers.

The total amount of the rental received by all kinds of
leases of salmon fisheries in Scotland, is believed to be
about £ 250,000.

There are, however, no statistical returns which can be
relied on for accuracy on this point. The old Scotch
Fishery Board (which was abolished last year by the Scotch
Fishery Act) concerned itself only with sea fish. Since the
new board was organised, there has been, as authorised by
that Act, an inspector of Scotch salmon fisheries appointed
by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who
is entitled to seek information regarding the numbers and
value of salmon caught, but who has only recently entered

on his duties.

14

The regulations in Scotland for salmon fishings are, many
of them, the same as in England. |

(1) Thus there is an annual winter close time; which
in Ireland continues for 168 days, in England for 154 days,
in Scotland for 170 days. In the open season of summer,
there is a weekly close time; lasting in Ireland 48 hours,
in England 42 hours, in Scotland 36 hours.

(2) No fixed nets are allowed in our rivers or in our
estuaries near the river mouths; and no nets with meshes
smaller than one and three-quarter inches, so as to avoid
catching parr, smolts, or small river trouts.

(3) Pollution of rivers, to such an extent as to kill
salmon in them, is zomznally prohibited ; but the clauses
in all the Scotch Acts are so weakly worded, that I don’t
know of any case in Scotland, except one, where fishery
proprietors or Fishery Boards have been able to enforce
these prohibitions for the protection of fish.

No power was by these Acts even attempted to be given
to prevent pollution. It is only after a fish has been killed
by it, that action is allowed ; and even then it is exceedingly
difficult, indeed, almost impossible, to show, that when a
fish is found dead, it died from the effects of poison which
came from any particular mill.

The Tweed Fishery Act has existed for 26 years, but
it was only last year that a case occurred, where the Com-
missioners ventured to exercise their powers in this respect.
Noxious matters were discharged from a mill, which
killed every kind of fish in the river for two or three miles
below the mill. There was a general outcry at such an
outrage. A leading Edinburgh angling club endeavoured to
prosecute, but was baffled by a technical defect in the word-
ing of the Scotch Freshwater Fisheries Act. The Tweed

Salmon Commissioners, however, called on the county Pro-

15

curator Fiscal (who is the local Public Prosecutor in Scot-
land) to institute proceedings in respect of the destruction
of thousands of Salmonidz, which gave to the Tweed Com-
missioners a right of action. The County Sheriff awarded a
sum of £2, being the full allowable penalty. The party
convicted appealed to the Supreme Court in Edinburgh.
There, the Sheriff's judgment was affirmed, with an award
of £12 of expenses; but it cost the Tweed Commissioners
£157 to obtain the conviction!—a proof of the utter in-
sufficiency of the existing law to meet even a case so mani-
festly flagrant as that just referred to.

This subject of river pollution suggests a remark of
wider application. Important as it is to afford to Fishery
Boards more legal power for the protection of fish, the
gross pollution of our rivers, streams, and lakes by sewage
and manufacturing refuse, ought to be prevented for the
sake also of higher interests. The health and domestic
comforts of thousands of our population demand, that there
be a stringent law declaring such pollution to be a crime,
irrespective of any proof of injury to fish or to individual
riparian proprietors. A public officer ought to be appointed,
not only to prosecute such offences when they occur, but to
prevent the discharge of noxious matters (whether from
towns or private houses), and even the erection on the
banks of rivers of any manufacturing works, which would
cause gross pollution of the water.

(4) Another point of importance, as regards Scotch
salmon fisheries, is the mode of enforcing the prescribed
rules of fishing.

On the Tweed we have no difficulty with the lessees of
the fishings, or the men employed in working the nets,
who are about 476 in number. But we have great difficulty

in repressing the poaching which goes on during the

16

long nights of the annual close time (extending for nets
from September 14th to February 15th), especially in the
upper reaches of the river, where spawning beds are
situated. In these districts, there is a dense manufacturing
population, in and near the towns of Hawick, Jedburgh,
Galashiels, Selkirk, Innerleithen, and Peebles; and the
mill-workers greatly enjoy the recreation of going out in
parties at night, with torches, to capture, by means of rake
hooks and hand nets, salmon in the shallow streams.

On an average of the last two years, the number of
poachers detected and convicted at the instance of the
Tweed Commissioners was 221 in the year; the cost of
prosecuting them was £266, and the amount of fines and
expenses awarded to the Commissioners was about £149. .

The number of our Water Bailiffs or River Watchers has
been, on an average of the last two years, 49 during the
six months of close time, and 13 during the rest of the
year.

In order to pay the wages of bailiffs, the cost of prosecu-
tions, and the salaries of managing officials, the Tweed
Commissioners are entitled, under their Act of 1857, to
assess themselves, and the other proprietors of fishings, to
the extent of 20 per cent. on the rentals or values of the
fishings. These amount at present to about £13,000
yearly, so that by assessment we have about £2,500 at
our command for protection and management.

If, however, the terrible fish epidemic, which for the last
two or three years has affected the Tweed, continues, we
must expect our income from fishing rents to fall, not only
because of the decrease in the number of fish, but because
of the disinclination of sportsmen to frequent our river for
angling, the enjoyment of which is undoubtedly lessened
by the ghastly sight of diseased fish.

L7

As the salmon disease has already been a subject for
separate discussion at these Conference meetings, I abstain
from any remarks on it, beyond mentioning that during
the last three years, our bailiffs have drawn out of the
Tweed and its tributaries, altogether 27,100 salmon, grilse,
and bull-trout, either dead or dying, in order to bury them.
The value of these, at an average weight of 7 lbs. each,
and an average price of Is. per pound, amounts to about
£ 20,000 sterling.

(5) The Commissioners who manage the Tweed fisheries,
are all persons whose income from fishings exceeds £ 30
yearly, or who possess a river frontage of half a mile.
They form a numerous body, and hold a meeting once a
year, when they appoint a Committee of Management,
consisting of twelve of their own number, resident on or
near the river, and known to take an interest in fishery
matters. His Grace the Duke of Roxburghe is Chairman
of the Committee.

In other parts of Scotland, the management of the salmon
fisheries is, or rather ought to be, in District Fishery
Boards, which were appointed to be constituted by two
Acts passed in the years 1862 and 1868. But the
proprietors of salmon fishings so much disliked the
constitution of these Boards, that when the sheriffs of
counties summoned them to meet, to elect Boards for the
different districts, very few proprietors responded to the call.
Scotland had been, by three Government Commissioners,
previously divided into 105 districts, each comprising one
or more salmon rivers; but the result was that no more
than 30 Boards were formed, and during the succeeding
ten years, eight of these Boards ceased to meet, so that
there are now altogether not more than 22 Boards in existence.

To show the present state of things, I may quote the

[21] Cc

18

following from a report of the Scotch Fisheries Improve-
ment Association, read and adopted at the public annual
Meeting held at Edinburgh in May 1881 :—

“There are seven counties in Scotland, with 32 rivers,
which have ceased to be frequented by salmon ; owing, first,
to dams built across the rivers, which prevent the fish
getting up to spawn; and, second, to manifold pollutions
from town sewage, bleach-fields, chemical works, and other
manufactories. |

“Tn eight counties with salmon rivers in them, ¢here
are no District Fishery Boards.

“In one of these counties, viz., Ross and Cromarty, there
are no less than 32 salmon rivers, all without official pro-
tection.

“Tn Argyleshire, where there are about 30 salmon rivers,
there is but one District Fishery Board, and its place of
meeting (when it does meet) is in the Island of Mull.”

There has thus been almost an entire collapse of the
arrangements which were devised by Government, and
sanctioned by the Legislature in 1868, for the protection
and management of the Scotch salmon fisheries.

In the year 1870, this fact became known to Government,
through the reports officially made by the different county
sheriffs, who had been appointed by the Act of Parliament
to take steps for forming the District Boards. I must
do the Government of that day the justice to say, that
viewing the matter in a serious light, they lost no time in
endeavouring to obtain the best information with a view
toa remedy. The Honourable Mr. Bruce (now Lord Aber-
dare) then Secretary of State for the Home Department,
appointed two competent Commissioners, the late Frank
Buckland and Mr. Archibald Young of Edinburgh, to
visit the different counties in Scotland, and report, “ow
far District Fishery Boards are an operation in Scotland,

nS)

and whether any alteration in their constitution is de-
sirable.” The Commissioners at once proceeded with
the inquiry, and made a report stating that, to procure
the necessary information, they had visited the principal
salmon rivers in Scotland (forty-six in number), and had
personal meetings with twenty-two District Boards, and
also with many landed proprietors interested in the
fisheries. They further reported, that whilst the total
number of fishery districts which had been designated by
the Act of Parliament to be managed, each by a separate
board, was 105, yet “at this moment (viz. in 1871) there
are not above 30 District Boards constituted and working.”

The Commissioners also reported that the cozstitution
of the boards was unsatisfactory, and they suggested some
modifications, though apparently without much confidence
in their likelihood of success.

Shortly afterwards, there was a change of Government,
which may, perhaps, have been one reason why no steps
were then taken to remedy a state of things so injurious
to a great national industry which supplies a large amount
of much prized food, and gives employment to about from
14,000 to 15,000 of the population in Scotland.

What has been the consequence of matters having been
allowed to remain in the nearly total absence of any proper
authorities for enforcing the law? Over two-thirds of the
country, both in our rivers and along our sea-coasts, poach-
ing in annual and weekly close times, —capturing of salmon
fry,—triver pollution,—obstructions in rivers, and illegal
netting, have been prevailing, without check or hindrance.

If asked for evidence of this, I refer to the testimony of
Mr. Young, who knows more about our salmon fishings
than any one else, and who in the year 1877 published
a pamphlet, in which he states as follows: “ Poaching

CG. 23et

2©

is universal along the coast of Argyle, and among the
islands ; the central point being the town of Oban, where
thousands of sea trout are annually caught by persons who
have not a shadow of right to fish for them, and which are
openly sold without any interference.” *

Then, turning to the east coast of Scotland, I refer
to the testimony of Mr. A. B. Hogarth, Aberdeen, who at
a public meeting of fishery proprietors, held last April in
Edinburgh, voluntarily came forward to support a reso-
lution affirming that salmon in Scotland were decreasing
in number, and stated, “that the amount of over-netting
which had taken place on the sea-coasts during the last
ten years, was something past all comprehension. He
added, that he had been a fisherman for thirty-five or
thirty-six years; but it was only within the past ten
years, that things had gone on to such an extent.” This
testimony is all the more reliable, being given by a
tenant of extensive coast fisheries, who had been carrying
on, without objection or interruption, a practice admitted
to be alike injurious and illegal.

These local testimonies from Scotland are confirmed
by the returns from Billingsgate market, where an accu-
rate record has long been kept and published of the
numbers of salmon received there from England, Ire-
land, Scotland, and other countries. Taking the returns
of the last ten years, and comparing the average num-
ber of salmon brought there, during the last five
years, with the average number brought during the first
five years, I find there has been during the last five
years an iucrease from England of 20 per cent., and from
Ireland an zzcrease of 24 per cent., but from Scotland a

decrease of 20 per cent.

* ‘British Industries,’ p. 287 (Stanford, Charing Cross, 1877).

2

There being a general conviction in Scotland of the
decline of our salmon fisheries, and no appearance of any
intention on the part of the Executive Government to
adopt remedial measures, a number of fishery proprietors
and representatives of angling clubs, conceived the idea
of forming an Association for endeavouring to make the
Scotch public aware of the virtual non-existence of any
proper system of protection and management of the
fisheries, and also to urge upon Government the necessity
of better legislative arrangements.

At a public meeting in Edinburgh, held in January 1881,
the Scotch Fisheries Improvement Association was estab-
lished with that view. His Grace the Duke of Sutherland
consented to be President ; and the Earl of Breadalbane,
‘the Earl of Dalhousie, Lord Polwarth, the late Sir Robert
Christison, Sir James M. Gibson, and myself were ap-
pointed Vice-Presidents ; with a Council of fifteen mem-
bers, practically acquainted with the subject of salmon
fisheries.

This Association has accordingly, by means of public
meetings for discussion, by circulation of Reports, and by
sending memorials and deputations to Government, en-
deavoured to make known and urge the necessity of
remedial measures.

I also individually endeavoured to contribute some
amount of help towards the same object, by the publica-
tion of a small tract, to explain the reason why the
District Fishery Boards authorised by the Acts of 1862
and 1868 were so much disapproved of in Scotland.*

I there ventured to suggest that the lines of the

* In Appendix C., p. 42, extracts from this tract are given by the

courteous permission of the Executive Committee of this Exhibition

22

English system of River Conservators (as they are
termed) might be followed in Scotland. The English
Boards consist of two classes of members, proprietors
and lessees of fisheries. The proprietors are selected by
Quarter Sessions, the number on the board for each district
being previously fixed by the Secretary of State for the
Home Department; and to these selected members, there
are added a certain number of er officio proprietors, having
a rental from fisheries exceeding £30. The other class
of persons on the English Boards, are /essees of fishings,
and consist of persons holding licences to fish; for in
England (and in Ireland also) it is the law, that persons
wishing the privilege of fishing, whether by net, rod, or
boat, must take out licences, and pay for them certain
dues to be approved of by the Home Secretary. These
licence dues form a fund, which is at the disposal of the
River Conservators.

It will be observed from this explanation, that only a
small number of the members on the English Boards are
members ex officio. The majority are selected, on ac-
count of their qualifications for the duty, by others who
are supposed capable of judging of these qualifications.

Now what is the constitution of the Scotch Boards, as
explained in the Salmon Act of 1862?

All the Boards consist of the same number of mem-
bers, whatever be the size of the. district; vize tines
fishery proprietors from the lower parts of a river, and
three from the upper parts. If there be in/eithemean
these districts, only two fishery proprietors, then, what-
ever be the number of proprietors in the other district,
the total number on the Board must be four. And if
in one of the parts of the river there is only one fishery
proprietor, then the total number can only be two members

2

besides the Chairman. With regard to a Chairman, he is
not elected by the members of the Board, as is usually
the case. The Act appoints the proprietor of largest
fishery rental in the district to be Chairman, wethout
reference to his having any other qualification ; and he has
both a deliberative and a casting vote.

The result of such an arrangement was to throw the
whole power of the Board into the hands of the lower
proprietors, inasmuch as the Chairman, on account of his
high rental qualification, is almost always connected with
the lower part of the river.

The consequence is, that the upper proprietors, seeing
that they have no influence in directing the action of the
Board, decline in most districts to become members, or at
all events to attend the Board meetings.

Another objection to the Boards is the expense to
which members would be subjected, by having to assess
themselves and other fishery proprietors, to defray the
costs of prosecutions, to pay the wages of water-bailiffs,
and to pay the salaries of officials,—the Act declaring
that all these expenses fall on the Boards ; and in many
districts, the fishery rents are not sufficient to meet these
expenses.

It was likewise felt to be an invidious and odious duty
to throw on proprietors the institution of prosecutions for
the imposition of fines and imprisonment.

Another serious difficulty which militates against the
practicability of these Boards, is the scanty number of
resident proprietors in many of the northern and midland
counties of Scotland, and the great distance of their
dwellings from one another, rendering attendance at
meetings almost impossible.

These being some of the objections to the proposed

24

Boards, and which, as already mentioned, prevented the
formation of no more than about 20, out of the 105 re-
quired, the practical question now is, what can be thought
of, as likely to succeed in place of these Boards ?

The chief suggestion made in the Report of the Com-
missioners appointed by Lord Aberdare was, that where
in any district a Board has not been constituted, a Fishery
Inspector, nominated by the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, should exercise all the powers of
a Board.

I failed to see how this plan would work. The arrange-
ment which I suggested, and which I may now briefly
sketch, was as follows :—

ist. To allow no persons to fish for salmon in Scotland,
without taking out a Licence—the amount of the dues
to be fixed by the Secretary of State for the Home
Department.

2nd. To have in districts embracing one or more
salmon rivers, a Board, consisting, as in England, partly
of proprietors and partly of lessees of salmon fishings ;
the proprietors who are to be members of the Board,
to be selected by a committee, consisting in each county,
of the Lord Lieutenant, the Convenor of the County,
and the Sheriff ;—the lessees of fishings who are to be
members of the Board, to be selected at a meeting of
persons holding Licences, called publicly by the Sheriff;
and the Chairman to be elected by the Board—either from
among their own number or otherwise—the election being
yearly.

3rd. With regard to expenses, these are of three classes :
Ist, salaries of officials to assist in the management ; 2nd,
wages of water bailiffs ; and 3rd, cost of prosecutions.

The first two classes of expenses would be defrayed

25

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

26

it includes among the powers of the Board a right to
take cognizance of salmon, for the purpose of collecting
information of a statistical nature.

The Act, however, gives no power to the new Board to
make any change in the law bearing on the constitution
of the Fishery Boards. But in the reports which the Board
is to make annually to the Home Secretary, suggestions
may be offered for the regulation and improvement of the
fisheries—z.e., sea as well as salmon fisheries; and it is
to be earnestly hoped, that this power will be promptly
exercised.

What Scotland wishes and requires for salmon protec-
tion, is to be put on the same footing as England, where,
—as Mr. Spencer Walpole says in his Report of 1879
on the English salmon fisheries, “ Every river in England
capable of producing salmon, is now under the protection of
a Board of Conservators.”

Many of my countrymen think, and I confess I share
the opinion, that we in Scotland are too far off to be
heard by the Executive Government. Therefore I am glad
of the opportunity of opening my lips on this subject at
the present influential Conference, trusting that what has
now been spoken by me, however feebly, may reach the
ears of those who have power to provide a remedy.

In conclusion, may I express a hope that this Ex-
hibition will strengthen the appeal which we Scotchmen
have been making, for the better protection of our fresh-
water fish, by the evidence it affords of what other nations
are doing in that respect, especially Canada and the United
States. Let us not be ashamed to confess past indifference
on the subject, but take a lesson from others, to enable us
to fulfil a duty laid on us alike by the gifts of Providence,
and by a regard to the interests of the country.

DISCUSSION. :

Professor BROWN GOODE (United States Commis-
sioner) said he had listened with very great interest to the
Paper which Mr. Milne Home had presented, and he rose
to say a few words, which were perhaps invited by the
closing sentences of the address, concerning what America
had been doing in the way of salmon culture. He was
led to do that by the fact that certain documents had been
distributed from Canada, which had rather a tendency to
depreciate what had been done in fish culture, not only in
Europe, but in the United States. It had been said that
fish culture was only an experiment, and had not been
attended with commercial success: he, however, wished to
say that it was in no sense an experiment, but that in the
United States and in Canada it had been a decided success,
and was so recognised by every one. It was not likely
that the American Congress, or the Canadian Government,
would for a period of ten or twelve years keep on making
annual appropriations for fish culture if they were not
satisfied that it was not only a success from a scientific
stand-point, but a success from a commercial point of
view. In the United States the general Government had
appropriated considerably more than a million dollars, and
the individual States a sum almost as great. Up to 1798
large numbers of salmon were caught in the Connecticut
river, but until 1870 the fish disappeared entirely from
the river, and until about 1875 no salmon whatever were
seen in the river. In 1875, however, the salmon began
to appear, and this was the direct result of the planting of
a large number of eggs in that river three or four years

previously. Then again in the case of Sacramento River

28

of California, where about two million young fish were
planted yearly, the catch had increased in five years from
five million pounds to fifteen million pounds, and in 1881
there were more fish than could be utilised by all the
canning establishments on the river. He would not
proceed with the multiplication of examples, but would
refer to the fact that the fish in the Detroit River, where
the United States and Canada had established hatcheries,
had been increased, and the supply immensely improved.
The shad was taken in twenty or thirty great rivers on the
Atlantic coast, and was for several months of the year
a most important food supply. About twenty years ago
it was found that the supply of shad was beginning to
decrease, and Fish Commissioners were organised with
the special object of increasing the supply. He had
seen shad which four or five years before were selling at
4s. or 55. a pair, and were therefore beyond the reach of
poor people, become so cheap and common that they
could be bought for a shilling a pair, which was entirely
the result of fish culture. Professor Baird had been the
leading spirit of fish culture in America. He was asked
recently if Professor Baird was not an enthusiast, and he
replied that he was not, but a man possessing the widest
general and philosophical knowledge of natural laws,
whose sound judgment and experience had enabled him
to take up the work of fish culture and carry it on on
an immense scale in the United States. People were
sometimes dissatisfied because fish were sometimes planted
in streams and nothing was heard of them afterwards ;
but it was the theory of their Commission and of their
Government that it was a proper thing to make experi-
ments, and if they happened to be unsuccessful there
was so much ground eliminated over which it was un-

ae

necessary to go again. He thought the experiments
which had been successful ought to be allowed to balance
those which had not. Experiments in fish culture in
Europe, especially in Holland and Germany, had yielded
exceedingly promising results. Mr. Whitcher had singled
out two rivers in Canada, out of many, for the purpose of
supporting his view that fish culture had not been a
success, and had stated that although a large quantity of
salmon was taken out of certain waters in 1871 there was
none in 1881. Mr. Whitcher, as Commissioner of Canada,
was charged with the preparation of a report to the
Canadian Government upon the state of the fisheries.
The report for 1882, which surely ought to have been
within Mr. Whitcher’s access when he published the
circular, stated that the saimon fisheries nearly all over
Canada, had been much better in 1882 than within
the preceding ten years ; and other testimony showed that
there had been a magnificent improvement. He knew
that Mr. Wilmot, who had been criticised somewhat in
the circular, would feel some diffidence in speaking on the
point, but he thought he owed it to him to point out that
the official documents proved that fish culture had not been
in any sense a failure, but a decided success.

Mr. WILMoT (Canadian Commissioner) said it was with
considerable diffidence that he rose to make any remarks
upon that important question. He had been much
delighted by the very instructive paper on salmon fisheries,
a subject which of course required a great deal of time to
enter into fully. Mr. Milne Home, on the opening of the
Exhibition, visited the Canadian Court, and he felt sure,
from the way in which he expressed his views, that he was
extremely delighted with the modus operandi of fish cul-

ture in Canada. A few days ago Mr. Home called upon

30

him, and stated that he-was somewhat astonished to see
from a circular he had received from one of the officials
in Canada that fish culture had been seriously found fault
with, at the same time stating that as he was about to
read a paper on salmon fisheries, it would be his duty to
refer to the subject, as it was of great importance, and
affected very seriously the interest of the salmon fisheries
throughout the world. He was pleased that Mr. Home
had not done so, as it gave him the opportunity of going
into the matter very fully; but as it appeared that many
other persons had received circulars of the same kind,
he felt, on behalf of that great and important portion
of the British Empire, Canada, whose government had
thought proper to expend large sums of money in ad-
vancing the interests of salmon culture, he ought to say
a few words on the point. Salmon culture was initiated in
Canada by himself as a private individual, and he was
pleased to say that from the day it was initiated it had
gone on progressing and prospering. The Government of
Canada at first thought very little of it, but looked upon
it as one of those things which required further develop-
ment before they could grant aid. In 1868 there was a
small grant of £40, but the annual grants now amounted
to some $30,000 a year, which showed what importance
the Government now attached to salmon culture. The
salmon fisheries of the world required the utmost pro-
tection, and care must be taken to prevent fish being
destroyed during the breeding seasons. Salmon culture
ought to be carried out in every country where those fish
were indigenous to the waters. In Canada fish culture
had been carried on for a length of time, and its fruits were
beyond cavil. There were, however, some people who
found fault with everything, no matter what it might be,

31

and he regretted very much that Mr. Whitcher, a colleague
of his in the Canadian Fisheries, should have thought
proper to issue circulars amongst the Commissioners, stating
that fish culture had not been satisfactory. Mr. Whitcher’s
own documents, evidently not written nor read by himself,
however, proved the very reverse of that statement, and
the blue-books of Canada contained returns which showed
most conclusively the beneficial results arising from the
protection of rivers and the raising of salmon by artificial
means. After quoting a number of returns from Inspectors
of Fisheries and other officers from the annual reports of
1882, proving that there had been a very remarkable
improvement in the salmon fisheries of Canada, he said
it would be quite unnecessary to read the individual reports
of fishery officers in all parts of Canada, which, with only
a few exceptions, indicated that the salmon were increasing
wonderfully during 1882. He might also mention that he
had received letters stating that the catch of salmon by
netters and anglers in 1883 had been in excess of any
previous period, especially in those rivers where salmon
hatcheries were in operation. It was the duty of all
civilised governments and intelligent people to adopt such
means as would bring about a better supply of food, and
he had no hesitation whatever in saying that the means
adopted in Canada had in most instances been very bene-
ficial. Perhaps on some future occasion the matter might
come on again; if so he could give volumes of even
stronger evidence in proof of the success attending fish
culture.

It was painful indeed to be obliged at this Conference
to refer to the circular issued by this well-known official
crank in Canada, who, to gratify personal spleen, had
wantonly attacked an industry of world-wide beneficial

32

reputation ; more especially as the Canadian Minister at
the head of the Fisheries Department, and himself, were
here on behalf of that country advocating the importance
of fish-cultural operations in the Dominion, the practical
display of which, at this great International Fisheries
Exhibition, had gained for itself great popular favour, and
also materially aided in the general exhibit, and placed
Canada amongst the foremost of the nations for efficiency
and completeness in the science of artificially propagating
fish. From the gratifying way in which Professor Goode’s
remarks and his own had been received on this subject,
it was clearly unnecessary to refer further to this “under
the belt” stab in the circular, feeling assured that similar
conduct is always frowned down by the manly English
public.

Mr. C. E. FRYER (Home Office) said if the Exhibition
fulfilled no other object than that of making people think,
it would have achieved a great work. They had just
received a great deal of information about the manner in
which fish culture was carried on in the United States and
in Canada, and as to the beneficial results derived from
the artificial culture of salmon, and he would just say a few
words to show the benefits which had resulted from the
protection of salmon in this country even without artificial
hatching. In 1863 the value of the salmon rivers in
England and Wales was about £18,000; at the present
time the value of the same rivers was somewhere about
£150,000. That increase, large as it was, by no means
represented the possibilities of English rivers, if they were
purified and greater facilities given for the access of salmon
into the upper waters to spawn. This had already been
done to a certain extent; and, in addition, restrictions had

been placed on the power of man to catch the salmon in

oe)

the mouths of the rivers, and to destroy them when they
were on the spawning beds: and to those two things alone
was due the large increase which had taken place. He
did not for a moment wish to depreciate the value of the
efforts made by fish culturists in Canada and the United
States, but he thought before they went very largely
into salmon hatching in England they must do a great deal
more to make the rivers fitter to receive the fish to be
put into them, by removing pollutions. Means should also
be adopted to enable the salmon to pass at their own free
will up and beyond the dams which cut them off from the
spawning beds. Mr. Milne Home had referred to the ques-
tion of pollutions, and he would take that opportunity of
congratulating him upon the result of an action which had

been tried at the Court of Session, the result of which
would be that one of the tributaries of the Tweed would
be freed from its pollutions. The artificial culture of fish
had been of enormous advantage in stocking waters with
fish, which those waters had never contained before ; but
he thought that by purifying the rivers, by placing ladders
which would enable the fish to surmount the weirs, by
protecting the fry of the fish in the upper waters, and in
the lower waters by preventing the fishermen entirely
blocking the mouths of the rivers by enormous nets,
they would be able to greatly improve the salmon
fisheries ; and then artificial culture might come in. If
they took the pollutions out of the Thames, and put
ladders up the weirs, they might bring back the day when
twenty or thirty salmon used to be caught at a haul, and
when salmon used to sport themselves opposite the home
of the Legislature at St. Stephen’s. He hoped the Legis-
lature would take heart of grace, and insist upon the
pollutions being removed from the Thames and other

[21] D

34

rivers, and then they might see, not only salmon, but fish

of other kinds greatly increased.

Mr. Jas. H. CROSSMAN, in proposing a vote of thanks
to Mr. Milne Home for his very valuable Paper, said that
one of the beneficial results of the Conferences was that
gentlemen of experience from all parts of the world were
brought together to discuss these interesting questions.
He had always been of opinion that if the regulations
governing the Tweed fisheries could be applied to the other
rivers of Scotland they would not have to complain of the
falling off in the Scotch salmon fisheries. As a member
of the Executive, he might plead as some excuse to Mr.
Milne Home for the audience not being larger, that there
had just been another important lecture on “Fish as Food,”
by Sir Henry Thompson; but the able paper which had
been brought before them would be printed and distributed,
and would therefore not be lost sight of, but be thoroughly
well considered.

Mr. BLOOMFIELD seconded the vote of thanks, and said
that he, as an Irishman, had felt some pleasure in finding
that Scotchmen were not always able to do things as
well as an Irishman. . As an old magistrate of thirty
years’ standing he knew something of the matter, and he
could say that they were in a much better position in
Ireland than they appeared to be in Scotland, from what
Mr. Milne Home had stated. The representatives of
Canada and the United States had, he thought, given
them some hints which were worthy of consideration. They
had shown what the younger Governments were doing to
further the interests of the people by increasing the supply
of fish; and he was afraid the old country was very much
behind them. Fish was an important article of food for the

30

people, and as such should be protected and looked to by
the Government. He would ask the Home Office to recon-
sider the matter, and not only because they had not taken
the pollutions out of different rivers, but because they have
failed in their duty by neglecting to propagate the fish in
the rivers that were to receive them. He hoped that
what had been said would not pass out of their minds,
but would remain there until they had induced the
Government to do their duty in the matter.

Mr. MILNE HOME, in reply, said that if there had been
nothing more than the opportunity which had been given
to his friends from the United States and from Canada to
give the explanations to which the meeting had been
listening, the Conference had done good. He had been
somewhat astonished when he read the circular referred
to, because it was in contradiction to what he had read
of the complete success of artificial fish culture, and he
could not believe it possible that such statements were
correct, but he felt it was not for him to bring the matter
forward in a paper relating only to the fisheries of this
country. They had had the pleasure of hearing from Mr.
Wilmot and Professor Brown Goode that the statements
were not to be credited, and he cordially agreed with
the views which had been expressed as to the value of
artificial hatching. They had in their own country a
hatchery belonging to his friend Mr. James Maitland,
which he had visited twice, and knew to be a success.
There was one in Dumfriesshire, and there were two or
three others, on a smaller scale. He hoped they would
soon have more of those private establishments, but he
also could not help thinking and saying that there ought
to be some encouragement given to them by Government.
If they were to appoint an inspector to visit those esta-

DZ

36

blishments and report upon them, with a view to make
known what they were doing, it would be a good thing.
He had for some years past endeavoured to possess
himself of the Reports of the Canadian and United States
Commissioners, and had obtained from them very valuable
information ; and he thought we in this country ought to
learn a lesson from Canada and the United States.

Mr. MILNE HoME then proposed a vote of thanks to the
Chairman, which was carried unanimously.

The CHAIRMAN, in response, thought the pith of what
had been said was, that they should all use their best
endeavours to induce Government to assist in the pro-
pagation of fish and in the increase of the number of
salmon in this country. Out of evil often came some little
good, and he thought the circulation of the documents
which had been referred to, instead of doing harm, had
brought out more clearly the great success which had
attended the artificial propagation of fish.

ou

APPENDIX A (see page 6).

Sir Roserr Curistison’s conclusions were founded on the
examination of a salmon entering the River Tay from the sea
weighing 20 Ibs., and of a kelt weighing 27 lbs., taken in a
tributary of that river from a pool, where spawned fish were
known to congregate, on their way back to the sea.

Sir Robert says that “the clean salmon presented abundance
of fat under the skin, and in masses between the muscles.” The
kelt, “a male fish, was lank in the belly, and soft in the flesh,”
“I subjected it to analysis in the same way as the clean fish,
I cut one piece of muscle from the dorsal region a little in
front of the dorsal fin, and another from the ventral region
directly opposite ; so that the one should represent the chick and
the other the #47 of a slice of salmon.”

“Four hundred grains of each were cut into fine chips,” and
then subjected to a chemical treatment, which he describes.
The following elements were obtained :—

ee al

Dorsal. Abdominal. Mean.

Oils toy koe bcs em ee 16°66 20°40 18°53
Salmon; Fibrine, albumen, &c. . . . 20)157 18°82 19°70
Saline matters and water . . 62577 60°78 61°77

100° 00 100*0O I00°*0O

OMG 5 & 8 6 6G 1°20 1°30 25

Kelt .(Fibrine, albumen, &c. . . . 16°92 17°22 17°07
Saline matters and water . . 81°88 81°48 81°€8

100*00 100°0O 100°0O

See ee ee _

On these results Sir Robert remarks, that “the nitrogenous
solids of the clean salmon, and its fat or oil, constituted together
in round numbers 38 per cent. of its flesh;—that there is
decidedly more fat in the ¢iiz or dorsal region ;—that there is
very little difference in constitution between the dorsal and

38

abdominal regions of a kelt ;—that the kelt is a much more watery
fish than a clean salmon; and that this is slightly owing to
a deficiency in nitrogenous ingredients, but much more to an
enormous deficiency of oil or fat, which is reduced to almost
a sixteenth of the amount in aclean run fish.” (Proceedings of
Royal Society of Edinburgh for Session 1871-72, page 695.)

I find that the opinion expressed by me regarding the food of
salmon when in rivers, was entertained by the late Frank
Buckland. In his rgth Report, p. 18, he says that in the
salmon, ‘“‘ there are no less than fifty pyloric appendages. Upon
these I found firmly adherent a dense mass of white fat. In my
report for 1868, I promulgated the idea that one of the principal
uses of the pyloric appendages was not only to secrete a fluid
which assists in digestion, but also to act as a depository of fat.
This fat is derived from the food which the salmon eats when in
salt water. It is stored up in a layer underneath the skin, as
well as upon the pyloric appendages. During the stay of the fish
in fresh water, this fat is gradually absorbed, and its principal use
is to go towards the formation of the milt and ova. In a fish
running up from the sea, therefore, we find that the milt and ova
are very small, while the fat on the pylorus is often so abundant
as to almost obscure them from view.” Again, at page 20 of the
same report, Buckland says, ‘“‘I do not think salmon eat much in
fresh water. They subsist principally, as I have shown at page
18, on a store-house of fat which is laid up in their pyloric
appendages. Nevertheless they take worms. In the Trent and
in the Rhine the worm is a favourite bait, especially at flood-time.
The food of the salmon, therefore, consists of herrings, sprats,
smelts, sand-eels, fry of fish, and lugworms.”

APPENDIX B (see page 7).

WirtH reference to the cases of Tweed salmon caught in 1852
near Yarmouth, it may be noticed that the late Frank Buckland,
in his Fishery Report for 1876, mentions the surprise with which
he had learnt, ‘‘ that every year large numbers of bull trout are

BS)

caught in the neighbourhood of Yarmouth,” there being no rivers
in that part of England frequented by Salmonide. He says, “the
fishermen begin to take these trout in the middle of April, and
go on catching them to the latter part of July. The fishermen
catch them near the shore from 3o to 130 yards from the beach.
These trout exist in more or less abundance along the whole
coast of Norfolk. They are migrating southwards. Their object,
without doubt, is food, especially sand-eels and the fry of sea-fish,
which are in abundance on the sands of the coast of Norfolk.
These bull-trout must come from rivers flowing into the German
Ocean to the north of Yarmouth.” He then enumerates these
rivers, including the Tweed, and adds that he had “ come to the
conclusion that the bull-trout caught on the Norfolk coast, are
bred in one or other of these rivers.” (Report, p. 16.)

That salmon migrate enormous distances is established by
a fact communicated to the Tweed Commissioners by Dr. Giinther
of the British Museum, that he knew “of an instance of a French
sea-trout (now in the British Museum) being caught in the Bristol
Channel.” (‘Salmonoids of the Tweed, Blackwood, Edinburgh,
1867, p. 100.)

In reference to two questions in my lecture, viz., the migration
of salmon, and the deterioration of salmon in condition, whilst
remaining long in fresh water, I here add some tables and notes
taken from the Tweed Salmon Reports published by Blackwood,
and also from some more recent reports by the River Super-
intendent, not published, but communicated to the Tweed Com-
missioners from time to time.

These extracts also give definite information regarding the
position in the scale of fish-life, of the “ orange-fins,” “ parr,” and
© black-tails.”

Extracts from Reports made to the River Tweed Commissioners
by their Experimental Com mittee,

r. Young fish, considered to be orange-fins, about 100 in
number, were put into a pond at Carham, belonging to the late
Richard Hodgson Huntley, Esq., in May, 1874, and were
detained in it for five years, fed with bullock’s liver.

These fish were from time to time examined by the Committee,

40

and in their presence were weighed and measured by Mr. List,
Superintendent of Water Bailiffs.

In February, 1877, a number of small fry made their appear-
ance in the pond, which were assumed to have been hatched
there, from the ova of the detained fish.

Mr. J. B. Stirling, of the Edinburgh University, the assistant of
Mr. Turner, Professor of Anatomy, and who had studied fresh-
water fish scientifically, having, on the invitation of the Com-
mittee, visited Carham and examined the fish, drew out the
following Report :—

“‘ Assuming that the fish, or some of them, put into the pond in
May, 1874, were orange-fins, they became black-tails in May,
1875; they became bull-trout in November, 1876, and some of
them would spawn about this time.

“The progeny would be hatched about February, 1877, and
would become parr in May, 1877, and orange-fins in April, 1878.”

2. The result of the measurements of 80 fish in Carham
Pond, between 4th July and 13th December, 1876, showed an
average increase in length of three-quarters of an inch. The
measurements of 78 fish between 13th December, 1876, and
17th May, 1877, showed an average increase in length of only
one-tenth of an inch.

3. Into a deserted. stone quarry, near Coldstream, filled with
rain-water, two smolts, about 3 inches long, were put by boys, out
of mere amusement. One of these grew into a salmon, which,
when five years old, weighing 13 lbs., was caught and sent to
Mr. Stoddart, of Kelso, who had it boiled for dinner. He
reported that it was not unpalatable. The other smolt grew
into a bull-trout, and lived for seven years. It died during a
very severe winter, when, on account of the water being frozen,
it could not be fed.

4. The Duke of Buccleuch’s gamekeeper at Bowhill was for
some years in the practice of putting a few smolts into a fresh-
water pond, and feeding them regularly with bullock’s liver. He
reported that the smolts which grew into salmon throve for about
three years, and then died, but that bull-trout smolts kept in
good condition for a longer period.

5. Fish marked by wires in the River Tweed, and elsewhere.

AI

Kind of Fish. Marked. Weight.|Length.| Recaptured. |KindofFish.|Weight.}Length.
inches. Ibs. oz.} inches.
Two Salmon|April or 50 .. (17 Aug. 1852/Grilses 33 0
smolts May 1851 ” 4 0
Orange-fin or April or PE .. [11 May 1854/Clean
Trout-smolt| May 1851 3ull-trout| 5 oO
Smolt . .|Spring, 1854} I oz.| .. July 1855/Grilse 34 Oo
Bull-trout |15 May 1857] .. .. (25 May 1858)Bull-trout} 3 o
smolt
Salmonsmolt 15 May 1857) .. ef 9g Aug. 1857\Grilse .| 33 0
Grilse, near|31 Mar. 1858] 2lbs.| .. | 2 Aug. 1858)/Salmon .| 38 0
river mouth at Carham
Black-tail .| Oct. 1859) 8 to .. {15 Mar. 1861|Whitling .|1} to
12 02. 2 Ibs.
Whitling .|29 Sept. 1870] 12lbs.| 17 |26 July 1872/Whitling.| 23 0} 183
Salmon. .|/29 Sept. 1870/214 ,, | 37 |12 Nov. 1871/Salmon .|25 o| ?
Bull-trout ./29 Sept. 1870] 2} ,,| 18 |15 Aug. 1871|Bull-trout| 53 o| ?
Black-tail ./12 Oct. 1870|12 ozs.| 12 | 1 June 1871|Whitling.| o 17} 13
Grilse . .|10 Nov. 1870| adlbs.| 23 |22 Feb. 1871\Grilse 4 oo ?
Black-tail ./12 Oct. 1871/21 ozs.| 143 |19 Aug. 1872/Whitling.| 23 0} 18
Orange-fin ./17 Apr. 1873] 17 ,, 63 | I June 1874 . r 8 175
Black-tail .|25 Sept. 1873| 9 ,,| 122 |12 June 1874 £ Ll ise
Grilse . ./25 Oct. 1873] 43lbs.| 24 1 Apr. 1874| of 29503) 924)
5» kelt .|/11 Mar. 1875] 5 ,, | 263 |16 Mar. 1875/Grilse-kelt} 43 o| ?
Black-tail .|/10 Nov. 1875/12 ,,| 13 |17 Aug. 1876| _ o 16) 163
» 9 «(10 Nov. 1875|1040zs.| 12 |31 Mar. 1876|Black-tail| 83 0} 13
9» 9 «(f0 Noy. 1875]11 ozs.| 13 | 2 Aug. 1877|Bull-trout} 3 12) 213
sys tr@ct 187 7\T0x ., Th |20Mary 1873|055 8 ss Cnn 5 104
SSG INOVes co) iD. 13 |20 Apr. 1878)Black-tail] 0 10) 133
7 me a » |13 »,| 13 |12 May 1879|Bull-trout} 43 0} 22
> 99 * ” Ap | StU a 12 |18 Aug. ,, 9 ” 23 0} 193
” ” ° ” ” 143 ” 14 |27 Aug. ” ” ” oO 28) 163
NS eee
ry ee a
oe Marked. 3 = Recaptured. Where. Lae Weight. zi
5) 4
Ibs. oz.| in. Ibs. oz.fin
Bull-trout |29 Mar. 1852) 3. o| .. | 2 April 1852)Yarmouth _./Bull-trout| 33 0j..
kelt
yi 5) (20. Mar. 1852) 3 0 2 April 1852|/Shields . . z O|..

. 99 ”

> », |29 Mar. 1852/10 Oj] .. Aug. 1852/Eyemouth ./Label and part of
salmon found in
stomach of cod.
Three Autumn 1858] .. |.- July 1861)Aberdeen;one)Three 2lbs.to}..

Black- in Don, and) Whitlings| 3 lbs.
tails. two in sea.
Black-tail| Oct. 1859 80z.to) .. Aug. 1861)North Esk .|Whitling .| 13 Ib.
I2 oz. to2lbs
Black-tail |20 Sep. 18701 © |13 |25 Sep. 1871)North Esk .|Bull-trout 1 |18

_

12 | 5 June ,, |Lamberton .|Bull-trout
2020) Nove ssi| COGUCts trem ily siumts
12 |13 Aug. 1872|Stirling - -} 55 55
15 |18 July, 1873)River Dee es eae
1 Nov. 1872|Whitadder .|Black-tail
3,14 May 1873)River Mouth. /Smolt

4 July, 1876/Stirling . .|Bull-trout
2 Aug. 1877/|Firth of Forth Bull-trout
ec an ht) A oy f>) », |Sea-trout
23 July, 99 ci) ” oy a

ess elie Oct. 1870
Bull-trout |13 Oct. 1870
Black-tail |12 Oct. 1871
EG TONSepa 1372
ee LOL@©ct, 1372
S. smolt .|17 Apr. 1873
Black-tail |10 Nov. 1875
Pee TORO©cts: O70
Pe ee DT © Ctaskor7.7
ass (7 Nov. 1371

vie

_—
Cuww Hd COON

_

iS}

el

—

ORONOVORO CO) Or mG2'O

Ye HOCOOHANN
Lal
to
S

ree
= = =
mm Oo

Ne}

42

APPENDIX C (ee page 21).

In the November number of the /ortnightly Review (for 1881)
there is an instructive article on the Salmon Fisheries of Great
Britain by Mr. Fred. Eden. The views he expresses will have a
useful effect in awakening public interest to a subject of much
national importance. Mr. Eden, having acted for several years
in all parts of the United Kingdom as Government Inspector and
Commissioner, in regard to Salmon Fisheries, has had great
opportunity of knowing the condition of those fisheries, and of
judging what is necessary for their prosperity.

Mr. Eden is evidently apprehensive that, unless some strong
measures are taken, the stock of salmon will soon disappear from
our rivers. ‘To prevent this, he says it is absolutely necessary to
lessen the catch of salmon. With that view he recommends the
entire stoppage of net fishing in rivers, except where the tide
reaches ; and even in tidal waters, he is for prohibiting night
fishing. Another suggestion he makes, is the formation of a
central office, so that, instead of “separate establishments and
different officials for each of the three kingdoms,” there should
be more uniformity of management, by what he calls a ‘ consoli-
dation of the Fishery Offices,” viz. by the creation, as I suppose,
of an office in London.

Mr. Eden regrets that he is unable to supply statistics, or any
official evidence, to justify his convictions as to the unprosperous
condition of our fisheries; no small proof, by the way, of the
lamentable absence of information regarding an important national
industry, which every well-constituted Government ought to
possess.

Some amount of statistical information, however, may be ob-
tained from the official record kept at Billingsgate Market, of the
number of boxes of salmon which arrive there from different parts
of the United Kingdom. True, London is not the only large town
to which British salmon are sent for sale; but it receives an

43

immensely larger supply than any other town; so that if its
market records distinguish the different divisions of the United
Kingdom from which the supplies come, any considerable increase
or decrease of these, through a series of years, will indicate a
change in the productiveness of our rivers.

The number of boxes from Scotland for the years 1877, 1878,
1879, and 1880, were respectively 28,189, 26,465, 13,929, and
17,408. The average of these four years is 21,497. But in looking
back to the previous six years’ returns, it is found that the average
of these six years was 26,038 boxes. In one of these six years,
the number of boxes exceeded 31,000.

This diminution in these ten years is the more remarkable,
because during that time the numbers of nets and of improvements
in the modes of fishing have been constantly increasing.

It is a further indication of the unprosperous condition of the
Scotch Salmon Fisheries, that, about a year ago, an association
for the improvement of these fisheries was formed, with the Duke
of Sutherland at its head, and with a council of influential pro-
prietors, all more or less interested in the preservation of the
Scotch Salmon Fisheries. This association, with a membership
already of 159 persons, and supported by 69 local angling clubs,
could scarcely have obtained such immediate and influential
support, had there not been a strong and general conviction on the
part of the Scotch public, that our salmon fisheries are in a very
unprosperous state.

One of the first acts of this association was to send out a cir-
cular to the chief constables of counties, asking, ‘* Whether there
are any rivers in your county, which were formerly frequented by
salmon, but in which they are not now to be found ; and if there be
such, what are the causes which, in your opinion, now prevent
salmon entering them ?”

The answers to this circular showed, “ ¢hat im seven counties
salmon appear to have forsaken rivers formerly frequented by them.”
The names of these seven counties are enumerated in the lately

printed and published report of the association.

These answers further state, as probable causes of this desertion
of rivers by salmon, fol/utions, obstructions, and poaching.

44

Another query put to the chief constables was to ascertain if
“ proper arrangements exist for the proper observance of the pro-
visions of the Salmon Fishery Acts of 1862 and 1868, for the pro-
tection of salmon in the salmon rivers of your county ?”

From the answers to this query, it appeared that i eight counties
(the names of which are given), each containing several fishery
districts, 20 Fishery Boards exist. In one of these counties, there
are no less than thirty-two salmon rivers ; and in another county
(but not one of these eight), viz. Argyll, where there are also
thirty-two salmon rivers, there is only one Fishery Board, viz. in
the Island of Mull. It appears that, in terms of the Salmon Act
of 1862, the whole of Scotland was perambulated by Government
Commissioners, with the view of officially determining the districts
in which Fishery Boards were to be formed. The districts fixed
on by these Commissioners numbered 105, each of course con-
taining one or more salmon rivers. The Sheriffs of Counties, by
appointment of Government, summoned the fishery proprietors in
these districts to meet, with the view of forming Boards; but in
most districts the call was not responded to; and at present
there are no more than about twenty Fishery Boards altogether,
independently of the Tweed Commissioners.

It is true that the absence of Fishery Boards in some districts is
there partially compensated for by such protection as can be
afforded by individual proprietors, through whose property, or
part of it, salmon rivers run. This is the case in Sutherlandshire,
and in some parts of Inverness-shire, Ross-shire, Perthshire, Elgin,
Argyllshire, and Caithness. Their protection of salmon is of
course less efficacious than that of Statutory Boards. But sup-
posing their protection were as good, the fact remains, that there
are at least two-thirds of the Scotch salmon rivers without any
protection against pollutions, obstructions, and poaching.

Therefore, the first point of inquiry surely should be, why has
the scheme of protection introduced by the Government Salmon
Acts of 1862 and 1868 so completely failed ; and why should no
less than twelve years have been allowed to elapse, without any
remedy being applied, or even proposed ?

It appears that, in or shortly before the year 1870, this fact of

45

failure had become known to Government ; for special Commis-
sioners were in that year appointed to inquire into the matter, and
report on “the effect of recent legislation on the Salmon Fisheries
in Scotland.” Lord Aberdare, who was then Home Secretary,
directed the attention of the Commissioners to various points, and
among them the following :—
“As to local fishery management ; how far are District Boards
in operation, and whether any alteration in their constitution
is desirable 2’?

The two Commissioners appointed to make this inquiry were
the late Dr. Frank Buckland, and Mr. Archibald Young, the present
Fishery Inspector for Scotland.

They state in their official Report, that,to enable them to obtain
the requisite information, they sent to District Boards and to pro-
prietors, as well as to tacksmen of salmon fisheries, circulars con-
taining thirty-six queries, to most of which answers were received.

The Commissioners say that they afterwards personally inspected
the principal salmon rivers in Scotland, forty-six in number, and
had personal meetings with twenty-two District Boards, and with
a number of landed proprietors interested in the fisheries.

On the point above referred to, the Report bears, that whilst
the number of Fishery Districts designated by the Commissioners
under the Acts of 1862 and 1868 was 105, “at this moment there
are not above 30 District Boards constituted and working !”

The Commissioners in their Report suggest, as a cause for this
failure of the scheme of Fishery Boards, ‘the smallness of many
of the districts, and the poverty of the fishings ;” explaining this by
adding, that “such comparatively trifling streams as the Alness,
Armadale, Aylort (and ten others named), and many others, have
each been formed into a separate district.”

The Commissioners do not point out how “the smallness” of a
district, and the “ poverty of the fishings ” in that district, prevented
the formation of a Board. But it is presumed, what they mean
is, that when the rent or value of the fishings in any particular
river is so small, that no reasonable rate of assessment would be
sufficient to pay the expense of a Board (with a clerk to record
proceedings and levy assessments, as also to pay watchers and

46

conduct prosecutions), the formation of a Board was felt to be
impracticable.

With the view of meeting this difficulty, the Commissioners
suggested, that “if the system of District Boards is to be carried
out and extended, we are of opinion that many of the smaller
adjacent districts might be advantageously combined.”

It will be observed that the Commissioners, in offering this
suggestion as a remedy, speak of it in no terms of confidence.
Undoubtedly some expense would be saved by having one clerk
for a district embracing three or four Boards. But, on the other
hand, the greater distances which members of such a Board
would have to travel, might prevent attendance at meetings ; and
the rivers in the enlarged or combined district might still yield so
small a rental, that any reasonable assessment on that rental
would not provide watchers for all the rivers.

The Commissioners, apparently from want of faith in the
efficacy of Fishery Boards, even when combined, referred to
another plan, by stating that ‘it has likewise been proposed, that
inspectors should be appointed, as in England, who should exercise
the powers of District Boards in those districts where Boards do
not exist, and who should have a seat at meetings of District
Boards, but no vote.”

And this suggestion the Commissioners, at the conclusion of
their Report, actually adopt as a recommendation to Government,
in the following terms, viz. “¢hat Government Inspectors should
be appointed, to enforce the provisions of the Salmon Fishery Acts
in districts where Boards have not been constituted.”

But this recommendation seems one of doubtful practicability.
In the first place, though it is said that in England, Fishery
Inspectors exercise the powers of District Boards, the evidence of
this statement is not referred to. In the second place, when it is
said that the Government Inspectors are to “ exercise the powers
of Boards,” and “enforce the provisions of the Salmon Acts,”
how can these powers be exercised by an official residing in
Edinburgh? Is he, in the absence of any Fishery Board in a
district, to appoint watchers for the rivers there ?—or order
prosecutions ?—or levy assessments ?

47

The Commissioners having consulted such District Boards as
were in existence when they drew up their Report, it may be
useful to see what answers these Boards gave, bearing on local
management.

In reference to the query, “Zs the constitution of District
Boards satisfactory, as regulated by 25 and 26 Vict., cap. 37
(1862), and 31 and 32 Vict., cap. 128 (1868)? Jf not, state
what tmprovements you would suggest, and why?”

From the forth District an answer came containing the
following statement :—‘It should be made obligatory on pro-
prietors of salmon fishings to appoint and maintain efficient
District Boards, unless it be intended to depute their powers to
Government Inspectors. At present there are no District Boards
in the great majority of the salmon fishery districts. But even if
there were, for all the rivers, I think it absolutely necessary that
there should be qualified inspectors, with power to examine and
inquire into all fisheries, and cause the enactments relating to
them to be carried out.” ‘The absence of authoritative inspec-
tion is a direct encouragement to neglect of the regulations.”

From the Zay District an answer came containing the following
statements :—‘“‘I am opposed to the manner in which District
Boards are constituted. No Board with four to three can be a
fair tribunal. Boards should be constituted of an equal number
of upper and lower heritors, their chairman having a deliberative
but not a casting vote. Instead of Boards, I would rather give
the management of the fisheries to two paid Commissioners,
provided they had ample powers.”

“‘ District Boards should not have direct authority, but should
report to a Central Board in Edinburgh. Some means should be
devised for preventing individual interests being prejudicial to the
general good of the fisheries in the district.”

“Six members are sometimes more than can be found in the
district of a small river. Again, six members are fewer than
will admit of all the interests of a larger district being fully
represented.”

From the South Esk District an answer came containing the
following statements :—“I consider District Boards of little use,

48

except to give information to a Government Commissioner who
knows his work, and has power to enforce the law.”

Another proprietor wrote: “I do not approve of Boards.
There ought to be Government Inspectors, independent of the
proprietors, ‘The inspectors should make an examination of the
river at least twice a year—the proprietors and tenants, using the
weirs and exercising the right of fishing, being subject to his
orders, with a right of appeal to the Sheriff.” ‘

Another proprietor wrote as follows :—The Board, of which I
am a member, is utterly useless ; the proof of which is, that there
is here a good salmon river without salmon, at least above
Brechin. The members cannot be got together. We don’t
understand all matters connected with salmon fishing, and we
don’t like to interfere with our neighbours. None of the upper
proprietors think of attending the Board meetings, because there
is no salmon fishing above Brechin; so the lower proprietors are
allowed to do as they like.”

From the /Vess District the following remarks came :—‘‘ The
constitution of the Boards is not satisfactory. The districts also
are badly arranged. ‘The Boards are formed on the principle of
having all matters relating to the fisheries conducted by fishery
proprietors, and giving a completely preponderating interest to
the upper as against the lower proprietors, or the reverse, without
any representation of the public interest. The Boards should be
composed in whole, or at least to the extent of two or three
members, for each district, of Government Commissioners ; and
the existing arrangements for giving a dominating influence to
one class should be abolished. The district should also be
enlarged. I think the Ness, Beauly, Conon, and Nairn, and
their tributaries, should form one district, and a specified number
of members should be entitled to call meetings, or require the
clerk to do so.”

Another proprietor in the Ness District wrote as follows :—
“ All fishery proprietors should have a voice at the Board, or else
be exempted from taxation.

“T suggest also that a district. embracing several rivers, such as
the Ness, might advantageously be placed under the management

49

of some intelligent person, who should have power to make
alterations in the bed of the river, so as to increase its productive
power as a spawning bed, or to improve its capabilities for angling
by stoning it, &c. At present, proprietors are chary of doing
anything at their own expense, because other people may benefit
by it as much as they, without incurring expense.”

Another proprietor in the Ness District wrote :— The Board
does not work satisfactorily, the whole power being vested in the
upper proprietors, since they succeeded in depriving me of the
chairmanship, by reducing my rent from the highest in the district
to its present low rate. Under present circumstances, upper and
lower proprietors can scarcely agree.”

From JVaivn Fishery District the following remarks came :—
“A Board has been constituted, but is not in a working state.”
“The Nairn will never be a fishing river. ~ It is valuable only for
breeding.”

From Lochy Fishery District the following remarks came :—
“‘ Undue weight and importance is given to the proprietor who
has the largest rental, as regards his right to sit as chairman, with
a deliberative as well as a casting vote. The consequence is,
that he assumes and acts as an autocrat.”

From Creran District the following came :—“ There is no
Board here. The formation of a Board should be compulsory ;
or proprietors who assess themselves for the protection of the
fishings should be entitled to exercise all powers for the protec-
tion of the fish, without the interference of those proprietors who
consider their fishings valueless. At present, those who wish to
protect the salmon are prevented by others, who have little
interest in the fish.”

From Awe District the following answer came :—“ This Board
may illustrate the working of Boards as constituted under the
Acts. There are two upper and two lower proprietors on the
Board, the chairman being a lower proprietor, and having a
casting vote. One of the upper proprietors has not been repre-
sented at the Board, but should be. The lower proprietors could
have carried any measure against the upper, who have therefore
practically no power to compel the Board to carry the Act into

[2x] E

50

execution. Hitherto the upper proprietors protected the fishings,
while the lower proprietors have got the fish, Jt is in the
interest of the upper proprietors that additional measures are
required.”

From Sfie District the following answer came :—“ There
is no Board;—but some authority should exist. Probably,
if districts were larger, the formation of a Board would be
easier ; but I believe inspectors would be better than a Board,
every member of which is more or less influenced by his own
interests, while inspectors would be influenced only by the public
good.”

From Findhorn District the following answer came :—* Our
Board seldom meets, and the control is much in the hands of
the chairman, who occupies that position as having the largest
(netting) interest. Of course the tendency is to work against the
interests of upper proprietors, if they are conflicting with those
of the lower proprietors. ‘The Board must be one-sided, the
chairman having the casting vote. But they are too much one-
sided, and unnecessarily so.”

From Clyde and Leven District the following answer came :—
“A Board was constituted, but it was never set working. Pro-
ceedings were taken in Court by Sir James Colquhoun; and he
got the Board quashed.”

From Doon District the statement came that the Board, “ being
found to be unworkable, was allowed to lapse.”

From Conon District the answer was, that “a Board was con-
stituted, but it became extinct.”

The following suggestion came from the Zochy District Board,
viz.—‘‘ There should be a staff of marine watchers, provided with
a steam launch, to put down the depredations upon salmon com-
mitted by trawlers within the southern limits of the district of the
River Add, and the point of Ardnamurchan.

“This provision is necessary, owing to the prevalence of the
capture of salmon in the Sounds of Jura and Scarba, Loch
Linnhe, the Sound of Mull, and the numerous arms of the sea
opening therefrom. These watchers should be under the control
of a general Board.”

si

On a review of the information and suggestions contained
the foregoing memoranda, it will be seen—

rst. That the plan of entrusting to Fishery Boards the carrying
out of the provisions of the Scotch Salmon Acts of 1862 and 1868
has almost entirely failed.

Some of the principal rivers in Scotland, viz. the Tweed,
Forth, Tay, North Esk, South Esk, Dee, Don, Deveron, Ythan,
Findhorn, Spey, Ness, and Lochy, are under the management of
Fishery Boards or individual proprietors ; but apparently all the
rest of the Scotch salmon rivers are under no protection whatever.

2nd. That in the Fishery Boards which exist, there is evidence
of want of harmonious action, on account of the diversity of
interests of the members; one half of the members consisting of
upper proprietors, who seldom see salmon, except in close-time,
when they cannot legally be caught; and the other half con-
sisting of lower proprietors, who possess all the fishings of any
value.

3rd. That almost all the Fishery Boards, apparently conscious
of their inability duly to carry out the provisions of the Salmon
Acts, suggest the appointment of Government Inspectors, not
only to visit the districts and assist Boards with their advice, but
even to exercise powers for enforcing observance of the law.

Some of the answers sent by the Boards to the Commissioners’
circular, bear on the constitution of the Boards, and are deserving
consideration, in reference to the question whether any attempt
should be made to continue the existing system of Boards. By
the provisions of the Salmon Acts, the Boards must consist of two
sets of proprietors—called in these Acts the upper and the lower
proprietors. The greatest number of each set is required to be
three ; and if there be less than three in either the upper or the
lower part of the river, the number of members on the Board
must then be four, viz. two of each set. Curiously enough, the
Boards are not allowed to elect a chairman ; nor is a chairman
selected for them by any one who might judge of his qualifica-
tions. The Act appoints as chairman the proprietor who has the
largest fishery rental or value in the district, ignoring altogether
any other test of suitability.

a,

Now, it is important to observe that the interests and duties of
these two sets of proprietors are not only different, but adverse
to each other. Each set, of course, wishes to capture as many
salmon as they can, For this purpose the lower proprietors wish
to detain the fish in the lower parts of the river by allowing or
tolerating obstructions, natural or artificial, which prevent the fish
ascending to the higher reaches. On the other hand, the upper
proprietors desire the removal of such obstructions ; and especially
as the expense of removing them would fall chiefly on the lower
proprietors, on account of their larger rentals. Many examples
of contention on this account, between the two sets of proprietors,
are afforded by the answers from several of the Districts.

In these conflicts the lower proprietors generally can outnumber
the upper proprietors ; as even though one of the former should
be absent from a meeting, the chairman naturally sides with them,
and he has a casting as well as a deliberating vote.

In the answers from the Boards, it is frankly admitted that,
each set of proprietors generally fight on behalf of their own
individual interests, and that the interests of the public are over-
looked. Whilst it is the object of each set of proprietors to
catch as many fish as they can, it is the interest of the public,
that the numbers caught should not be so great as to exter-
minate the stock, on the well-recognised principle, that profits
ought to come out of yearly dividends, and not out of capital.

It is, however, only fair to the Boards to add, that many of
them, as if sensible of the almost unavoidable tendency of
members to attend chiefly to the interests of their own parts
of the river, suggested that, instead of Boards, there should be
inspectors, appointed by Government, with ample powers to
devise and carry out measures of management which the Boards,
constituted as they were, found themselves unable to adopt.

Perhaps it may be asked, why should there have been so
complete a failure of protection by means of local Boards in
Scotland, when a similar system of Boards prevails successfully
in England and Ireland ?

On the other hand, it is not incorrect to affirm, that even in
England and Ireland the action of the River Conservators has

53

not always been smooth. The jealousies and sparring of upper
and lower proprietors on these Boards, are occasionally referred
to by the late Dr. Buckland in his Annual Reports. But in
England and Ireland the local Boards have several advantages
over those in Scotland, to secure harmonious action.

In the first place, there are Government Inspectors in England
and Ireland, men of great intelligence, experience, and social
weight, whose duty it is, and whose practice it has been, to assist
Boards by their advice, and also to visit districts, when personal
inspection is necessary.

In the second place, the funds at the command of the Boards
in England and Ireland are not raised by assessment on the
members of the Boards, as under the Scotch Acts. The funds are,
in both of these countries, raised by means of licences, which
have to be taken out for the use of nets, boats, and rods, and the
dues for which are mostly paid by persons not members of the
Boards. The amount of licence dues paid in the year 1880 for
England was £9331, and for Ireland £9700. It is a proof
alike of the efficiency and popularity of licences in England,
that two years ago that system was extended to include angling
for trout, which (at only 1s. per rod) in England already yields a
yearly income of above £1500.

Then, besides the funds raised by licences, there is in Ireland
important assistance given by the Coast-Guard for repressing
poaching along the sea coast, and by the Constabulary for
punishing persons guilty of polluting rivers.

In the third place, the Government Inspectors in England and
Ireland draw up annual reports, to be laid before Government and
Parliament, in which not only is there information respecting the
state of the fisheries generally, but particular information of the
operations of the local Boards in charge of the different rivers.

In the fourth place, it should be recollected that Scotland,
especially in the Highland districts, is less densely peopled by
resident proprietors than England and Ireland. The distances
which members have to travel, to attend Board meetings is,
therefore, much greater in many parts of Scotland, than in the
other divisions of the kingdom.

54

Notwithstanding this last drawback, it is very probable that,
were arrangements introduced similar to those in England and
Ireland, the system of Fishery Boards in Scotland might be con-
tinued, and steps taken to extend them. Especially is it desirable
to adopt some other plan of raising funds than by obliging the
members of Fishery Boards to assess themselves and their neigh-
bours. It is scarcely reasonable to expect, that proprietors of
fishings, especially when their fishery rental is small, will volun-
tarily constitute a Board, whose proceedings would involve the
members, not only in the expense of employing watchers, but in
legal proceedings for removing obstructions, stopping pollu-
tions, &c.

The aversion to such self-imposed assessments is all the more
natural, when it is remembered how heavily taxed all subjects
entered in the valuation rolls of Scotch counties are, for police,
prisons, lunatic asylums, poor rates, schools, &c. &c.

Another valuable suggestion may be obtained, from the mode
of constituting the Boards of Conservators in England. ‘There
the Boards include three classes of persons: first, owners or
tenants of fisheries in the district, not below a certain yearly
value or river frontage; second, persons selected by the Justices
in Quarter Sessions, the number being previously determined by
the Home Secretary; and, third, persons selected by those holding
licences for fishing in the district, the number depending on the
money value of the licences. In Scotland, under the Salmon
Acts, the Fishery Boards consist entirely of proprietors, in
respect merely of being connected with those parts of the river
which put them into antagonism with one another. In England,
whilst some of the members are on the Board in respect of
being owners or occupiers of fishings above a certain standard,
the majority of the members are elected and selected with no
other qualification except fitness for the duty, in the opinion of
those appointed by law as thought competent to judge.

The constitution of the English Fishery Boards is therefore, in
principle, greatly superior to that of the Scotch Boards; and in
any future legislation for Scotland, this point should be kept in view.

Above all, there should be for Scotland an appointment of

20

official inspectors, with the powers and duties of the inspectors in
England and Ireland. For England, there are two most able and
intelligent inspectors (Mr. Spencer Walpole and Professor Huxley),
each with a salary of £700 yearly, a Government office in London,
and a secretary, who has a salary of £160 yearly. For Ireland,
there are three inspectors, equally able and intelligent, Major
Hayes, Mr. Brady, and Mr. Johnston, each with a salary of £700,
a Government office in Dublin, and a secretary, who has a
salary. These inspectors are in frequent communication with the
District Fishery Boards, not only by correspondence, but by
personal visits to the rivers, and thereby afford to the Boards
much valuable advice and assistance.

Why should there be no similar arrangement for Scotland ?
The following estimates have been given of the yearly value of the
Salmon Fisheries in the three divisions of the kingdom :—

By Mr. Caird | By Mr. Young*

in 1868. in 1877.
rs £.
Emeland yn.) en 30,000 100,000
Ibgytenel A TG 5 Gl 320,000 400,000
Scotland . . . . «| 200,000 | 250,000

These figures are surely sufficient to establish the importance of
the fisheries in each division of the kingdom.

If the preservation of salmon in our country be allowed to be
an object of national importance, why should the same means for
attaining that object, adopted in England and Ireland, not be
applied to Scotland ?

The obligation of Government to look after those fisheries,
which afford alike a large supply of wholesome food to our popu-
lation, and means of extensive employment to the industrial

* The figures in this table are taken from Mr. Young’s Treatise on Salmon
Fisheries in Stamford’s series of ‘ British Industries.’ It is understood that
Mr. Young’s information was derived from official returns, so far as regards
England and Ireland ; and, as regards Scotland, from his own personal know-
ledge of the Scotch rivers, and returns furnished by clerks of District Boards.

56

classes, has been so far acknowledged, and so far fulfilled for
Scotland, that a Board many years ago was established in Edin-
burgh for the “‘ encouragement and better regulation” of Herring
Fisheries, by enforcing the provisions of various Acts, which fix
an annual and weekly close-time, specify the size of the meshes of
nets, and require registration of boats. The Act of Parliament
also places at the service of that Board a gunboat, with a crew
and an officer of the Navy, to assist the Board in the execution of
its duties. In connection with this object, offices are provided in
a Government building in Edinburgh, with a secretary, two clerks,
two general superintendents, and upwards of thirty local inspectors.
By establishing such a department, Government and Parliament
have acknowledged the obligation to look after and regulate our
Scotch Herring Fisheries. Are Salmon Fisheries not equally
entitled to State protection? Of late years, Government and
Parliament have been extending protection to other -wild animals
of very inferior importance, such as crabs, mussels, oysters, sea-
fowl, and land birds, fixing a close-time for each, imposing a
penalty on offenders, and authorising the Procurator-fiscal to
prosecute, at the public expense. Looking to these facts, why
in the case of salmon should the State throw on individuals
the duty and expense of prosecuting persons who violate the pro-
visions which the State chooses to enact? Salmon, whether in the
sea or in rivers, are no more private property than herrings.
They are the property of the Crown, and no riparian proprietor,
either on our rivers or on the sea-coast, can fish for salmon except
he can show a grant or a lease from the Crown. But the Crown
does not thereby divest itself of the obligation to preserve from
extermination, what it has leased or what it keeps in its own
hands in trust for the nation.

On these grounds, it is hoped that Government and Parliament
will feel it to be a duty to devise better means of protecting salmon
in Scotland than at present exist ; and for this an opportunity is
afforded by the fact of there being already in Edinburgh a Board
of Fishery Commissioners, occupying apartments in a Government
building, where there is sufficient space for an additional office
applicable to Salmon Fisheries.

: oe

As in this Paper on behalf of Scotch Salmon Fisheries, the
appointment of inspectors has been urged, with powers similar to
those of the inspectors in England and Ireland, it would be wrong
to conclude without adverting to Mr. Eden’s disapproval of having
separate inspectors for each division of the United Kingdom. He
says, at present “there are separate establishments and different
officials for each of the three kingdoms. But one policy, and one
set of men to carry it out, would tend largely to efficiency and
economy.” He adds, that ‘ by consolidation or amalgamation of
the Fishery offices, uniformity of management would be obtained.”
(Page 639.)

If Mr. Eden means that there should be only one set of in-
spectors for the whole kingdom, with offices in London, it seems
very doubtful whether either efficiency or economy would be thereby
secured. Surely inspection would be both more efficient and more
economical, were the officials for Ireland to reside there, with an
office in Dublin, and those for Scotland to reside there, with an
office in Edinburgh, where they would be nearer to their work.
“ Uniformity of management,” which Mr. Eden deems of im-
portance, could quite well be secured, by the same instructions
being issued by Government to each set of inspectors.

One of the greatest disadvantages to which the Scotch fish-
eries and Fishery Boards are exposed, is the non-existence of any
inspector to visit the Fishery districts, and collect materials for
framing an annual report. A still greater service would be rendered
were Inspectors appointed with power to visit the districts and
attend Meetings of the Board, as ex-officio members.

Now that the utter failure of the Fishery Board system, and the
non-existence and need of an efficient inspector in Scotland has
been made publicly known, a heavy responsibility will lie on
Government if steps are not immediately taken to provide a remedy.

There ought to be the less hesitation on the part of Government
to devise some measure for affording protection to the Scotch
Salmon Fisheries, that, during the last twenty years, owing to the
assiduity of the officers connected with the Woods and Forests,
the revenue now drawn for the Crown from these fisheries is very
considerable, and is every year increasing in amount. The

[21] F

58

Commissioner entrusted with this duty made most searching
inquiries along the sea coasts, and also along river banks, to
ascertain whether the proprietors who claim salmon fisheries
there could show a legal title to them. Much irritation was
caused by these proceedings; and it seems not unreasonable
that, in respect of the revenue obtained by the Crown from
Scotch Salmon Fisheries, the Executive Government should
not grudge the expense of affording the means of additional
protection.*

This is a practical question which may well be pressed on the
attention of Her Majesty’s Government. The Association recently
formed for the improvement of Scotch Salmon Fisheries would
render signal service to the country, by appointing a deputation
to wait upon the Home Secretary, to urge that steps should be
taken for remedying evils, officially made known to Government
twelve years ago, and now attempted to be more fully explained
in the foregoing pages.

* Tt is said, that the amount of Salmon Fishery Rents now drawn by the

Crown in Scotland amounts to about £7000; and that they are annually
increasing.

LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, STAMFORD STREET
AND CHARING CROSS,

Viicr

65 AIST 8-43

*regervation |

enees, = OF FICIAL. PUBLICATIONS
nfrr| lf SVE1-OY * oy OF THE
3.04 INTDT

INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES EXHIBITION,

PUBLISHED BY

WM. CLOWES & SONS, Limited, 13, Charing Cross, 8.W.

(And Sold at their Stalls near each Entrance to the Exhibition.)

OFFICIAL GUIDE BOOKS, &c.

LARGE PLAN and TOUR of the BUILDINGS, 1d.;
post-free 13d.

GUIDE to the EXHIBITION, 38d.; post-free 4d.
PROGRAMME of MUSIC, &c., 2d.; post-free 3d.

OFFICIAL CATALOGUE, Second Edition, ls.; post-
free ls. 4d.

CHEAP RECIPES for FISH COOKERY. Prepared
by Mrs. CHARLES CLARKE. 84.; post-free 4d.

THE FISHERIES PORTFOLIO:

CONTAINING
Ten Original Etchings of Scenes on the British Coast.
TITLE. ARTIST.

1.—Bait Gatherers . . . . . . R. W. Macsetu, A.R.A.
2.—Running Ashore. . . . . . COLIN HunTER,
3.—A Fisher Girl oro ye hy awl de etna) eta Os VA TISON:

4.—Fishing Boats off Hastings 7s a DAVID Aww:
6.—Going for Bait . .. - » OTTO Leypg, R.S.A,
6.—Boat Building on the vare i Sa oaghec WAGES:
7.—Preparing for Sea—Hastings . C. P. SLocomss,
8.—Ramsgate Harbour. . . . . J. P. HESELTINE.
9.—Fisherman’s Haven . . . . . J. MACWHIRTER, A.R.A.
10.—Stranded—Rye. . . . . . . WILFRID W. BALL.

Price 15s. the complete set.

Lonpon : WILLIAM CLOWES & SONS, Limitep,
INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES EXHIBITION, & 13 CHARING CROSS.

|

OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS.

The following Handbooks (upon subjects cognate to the
International ee arisc ~*~ | published,

alee | 11 HUN

THE FISHERY 1 3 9088 0 _ Rene
Law, M.A. (Oxon.), Hon. LL.D. Edin. ; silk Christi Professor of Juris-

rudence in the University of Oxford.

ZOOLOGY AND FOOD FISHES. By Georcr B. Howes,
Demonstrator of Biology, Normal School of Science, and Royal School of Mines,
South Kensington.

BRITISH MARINE AND FRESHWATER FISHES.
(Zilustrated.) By W. SAVILLE KENT, F.L.S., F.Z.S., Author of Official Guide-
books to the Brighton, Manchester, and Westminster Aquaria.

APPARATUS FOR FISHING. By E. W. H. HoLpswortn,
F.L.S., F.Z.S., Special Commissioner for Juries, International Fisheries
Exhibition ; Author of ‘*Deep Sea Fisheries and Fishing Boats,” ‘‘ British
Industries—Sea Fisheries,” &c. ;

THE BRITISH FISH TRADE. By His Excellency SPENCER
WALPOLE, Lieut.-Governor of the Isle of Man.

THE UNAPPRECIATED FISHER FOLK. By James G.
BERTRAM, Author of ‘‘ The Harvest of the Sea.”

THE SALMON FISHERIES. ened ) By C. E. Frver.
Assistant Inspector of Salmon Fisheries, Home O

eae AIGNSTEES UNMASKED. (Wiustrated ) By Henry Leg,

THE “ANGLING CLUBS AND PRESERVATION SO-
CIETIES OF LONDON AND THE PROVINCES, ByJ. P. WHEELDON,
late Angling Editor of ‘‘ Bell’s Life.” i

INDIAN FISH AND FISHING. (J//ustrated.) By FRANCIS
Day, F.L.S., Commissioner for India to International Fisheries Exhibition,

A POPULAR HISTORY OF FISHSRIES AND FISHER-
MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES. By
W. M. Apams, B.A., formerly Fellow of New College, Oxford; Author of
‘Zenobia: a Tragedy,’ and inventor of the Coelometer.

FISH CULTURE. (//ustrated.) By Francis Day, F.L.S., Com- |
missioner for India to International Fisheries Exhibition.

IN THE PRESS.

FISH AS DIET. By W. SrepHen MITCHELL, M.A. (Cantab.)

ANGLING IN GREAT BRITAIN. By Witi1am Senror (‘Red
Spinner”),

EDIBLE CRUSTACEA. By W. Savitte Kent, F.LS., F.ZS.,

Author of Official Guidebooks to the Brighton, Manchester, and Westminster
Aquaria.

THE LITERATURE OF SEA AND RIVER FISHING.
By JouHN J. MANLEY, M.A. (Oxon.)
SEA FABLES DISCLOSED. By Henry Lez, F.L.S.
FOLK LORE OF FISHES: their Place in Fable, Fairy
Tale, Myth, and Poetry. By PHIL ROBINSON. |
THE OUTCOME OF THE EXHIBITION. By A.J. RK. |

TRENDELL, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Literary Superintendent for
the Fisheries Exhibition.

LONDON :
WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, Lirtep,
INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES EXHIBITION, & 13, CHARING CROSS.

LONDON; PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS,