17 
herring which had shot its spawn in the early part of the 
spring. There were always some fish which had not shot 
their spawn, and the fact that some of these spring 
herrings were caught late in the year with hard spawn in 
them, which they had been unable to discharge, proved 
that they were not young fish, and as spring came to an 
end, these fish came in to within twenty-five miles of 
Yarmouth, and till ultimately the spring-herring fishery 
finished at a distance of twelve miles off the shore. At 
the termination of the spring-herring fishery upon the 
20th of May, it would be found that the fish were not so 
large as at the commencement of fishing. This conclu- 
sively proved that spring herrings were not young herrings. 
A spring herring and a midsummer herring being shown to 
Mr. Buckland, the question was put to him whether, as an 
amateur fisherman, he could bring his mind to believe that 
herring would grow from this size in the latter part of 
May to the middle of June, and he said that it was an 
impossibility, and that he was perfectly convinced that the 
fishermen of Lowestoft were right when they said that a 
spring herring and a midsummer herring were not identical. 
Another argument in support of this view was that 
during the spring herring fishery, although a large 
number of fish were left in the water, and it was 
thought that in consequence there would be enormous 
catches at midsummer, it turned out, although there were 
over one hundred boats fishing during the midsummer 
season, not a single boat paid its expenses. This 
to his mind conclusively proved that the spring herring 
and midsummer herring were not identical. He also 
agreed with what Professor Huxley said at the Norwich 
Exhibition, that drift fishing did not diminish the quantity 
of fish. Professor Huxley proved that cod devoured more 
[41] Cc 
