6g 
by the fact that the Commissioners entered upon their task, 
if anything, prejudiced in favour of repressive legislation, 
and impressed by the idea that an enormous destruction of 
small fish was taking place, and that our fisheries were 
being ruined. 
Before 1878 we find Mr. Buckland writing in-season 
and out of season, in his own impetuous way, denouncing 
the fearful destruction of small fish, even introducing the 
question into his Salmon Fishery reports to Parliament, so 
eager was he for something to be done. 
In 1878, however, Government, impressed with the con- 
tinual outcry, appointed two commissioners. Buckiand was 
one, but with him they coupled Mr. Walpole, perhaps the 
very best selection they could have made, for, while a 
naturalist himself, Mr. Walpole was as cool and logical as 
Buckland was hasty and impetuous. He brought to the 
enquiry the mind of a trained barrister, educated specially 
to sift evidence, and to endeavour to extract the truth out 
of masses of conflicting statements. 
I will not weary you with all the contradictory evidence, 
it is all published in the Blue Book, but will confine my- 
self to quoting their conclusions arrived at after, as I have 
said, an enquiry not confined to the Lancashire coast but 
extending all round the British Isles. 
‘‘ The sea cannot support more than a certain propor- 
tion of the fish that are born, and there is no harm, 
