of the Fishery Board for Scotland. 
47 
These suggestions of Mr Humphreys were brought before the Fishery 
Board in the end of September last and I had then the honour to lay 
before the Board a Report upon them which was printed and approved 
of by the Board. To that Report I still adhere and beg to refer to it for 
a detail of the strong reasons which exist for rejecting Mr Humphreys 
suggestions. 
I think, however, that it would be quite practicable to draw up a short 
Bill applicable to the United Kingdom, for the special purpose of putting 
a stop to the illicit traffic in unseasonable salmon, and I have drafted the 
clauses which I think would be necessary in Scotland. At present, the 
English acts, though still defective in some particulars, give far greater 
power for putting a stop to such traffic than the Scotch. In England, for 
example, the buying, selling, offering for sale, or having in possession 
for the purpose of sale, any salmon caught during the extension of time 
for rod-fishing is absolutely prohibited ; whereas, in Scotland, all these 
things are legal. Then the powers of search for and seizure of unseason- 
able salmon posessed by water-bailiffs, constables, &c, are much more 
stringent under the English Acts than under the Scotch ; and it may 
farther be stated that, as a general rule, the English Acts throw the 
burden of proof on the person having unseasonable salmon in his 
possession ; whereas the Scotch Acts, as interpreted by the decisions of the 
Courts, throw the burden of proof on the prosecutor. In these respects, 
the English Acts are unquestionably more efficient than ours. 
Mr Humphreys' 4th suggestion relates to an extension and more precise 
definition of the powers of seizure possessed by the Fishmongers Company 
by their charter, in the city of London, the burgh of Southwark, and in 
the suburbs of the city of London, this humbly seems to me a matter for 
the consideration of the Fisheries Department of the Board of Trade, and 
not for this Board. 
The 4th suggestion quotes from page 336 of Mr Willis Bund's ' Law 
'of Salmon Fisheries in England and Wales,' and proposes that there 
should be a new definition of the terms ' unclean ' and ' unseasonable ' 
fish. I venture to think that these terms 'unclean and unseasonable 
f salmon,' are pretty well understood in Scotland, though there is certainly 
no definition of them in the interpretation clause of the Salmon Fisheries 
Act of 1862. (See Stewart's 'Treatise on the Law of Scotland relating 
to Rights of Fishing,' pages 185-187). 
Mr Humphreys' 5th suggestion is ' that it would be advisable in the 
' new bill to give power to Municipal Corporations of Counties and 
' Boroughs, through their sanitary inspectors, to seize unseasonable and 
' unclean salmon, and authority to prosecute in such cases, even if the 
' Fishmongers Company should receive a general power throughout 
'England.' This seems a very good suggestion and powers in this 
direction should probably be given to our market authorities or sanitary 
inspectors in Scotland. 
Mr Humphreys suggests that it would be advisable where prima facie 
evidence appears as to the sender of the fish to admit such evidence in 
Courts of Justice as sufficient to call upon the person sending it to prove 
that he was not the sender j instead of having to call witnesses from a 
distance to prove the transmission of the fish from the country to London. 
The following suggestion seems worthy of consideration, namely, that 
the power given by the 28 and 29 Vict. cap. 121, sect. 65, which creates 
a forfeiture of the fish, should be amended by also creating a forfeiture of 
the package and all its contents, and he gives as a reason for this that very 
often salmon are consigned with other fish, such as eels, whiting, &c, 
placed on the top of them, and in the seizure of the salmon it is not 
