of the Fishery Board for Scotland. 
193 
There is no doubt that hitherto in dealing with this question, too 
little discrimination has been made between the destruction of the 
young of the different kinds of fishes. One of the chief arguments 
used by the Eoyal Commissioners of 1866 and 1879, and by Professor 
Huxley, Mr Buckland, Mr Shaw-Lefevre, and others, is that since the 
admittedly enormous destruction of immature herrings, by man, their 
enemies, and physical causes has not seriously affected the numbers of 
adult herrings captured by the herring boats, it would be idle to interfere 
with the destruction of the young of other kinds of fish. No doubt 
when the Report of the Commissioners was issued in 1866 the evidence 
of the diminution of any particular fishery was not satisfactory, and 
our knowledge of the spawning, habits, &c, of the food-fishes was very 
much less than what it is now. The Commissioners say:* — ' It is assumed 
' that any destruction of fry effected by man bears a large ratio to the 
* destruction resulting from other causes, an assumption which in several 
' cases is, certainly, and in most is, probably, altogether erroneous. Nor do 
' we know enough of the number, the mode of multiplication, or of the 
* conditions of existence in any locality of any given kind of fish, to be able 
' to form the slightest estimate as to the effect which will be produced upon 
'the number of that fish by a given amount of destruction of its young.' 
Our knowledge, however, has been greatly increased since 1866 ; 
and, while it is not possible to give with accuracy the propor- 
tion of young that may with impunity be destroyed in any one case, 
we now know that the destruction of immature turbot, sole, brill, 
and plaice, should as far as possible be prevented. The arguments used 
by Mr Buckland and Sir Spencer Walpole in their Report of 1879 are of the 
same character, with especial reference to the abundance of herrings, 
despite the destruction of the young. Illustrations are drawn from the 
destruction of wheat in the manufacture of bread, the eating of eggs and 
of lambs. It is obvious, however, that in the one case we know how 
many grains of wheat, how many eggs, and how many lambs must not be 
destroyed, and take care that the requisite number is preserved to keep up 
the supply • and although it is gravely stated that ' fish are more prolific 
' than wheat/ it does not follow that in all cases the requisite number of 
young fish are left in the sea to keep up the supply. The necessity, above 
referred to, of carefully discriminating between the destruction of the 
young of the various kinds of fish, is also shown by the argument based 
on the capture of whitebait ; e.g., 1 if the sale of small fish be prohibited, 
f the law must either apply, or not apply, to the sale of whitebait. If it be 
' intended to prohibit the sale of whitebait, no further observations seem to 
* be necessary ; but if, for the reasons which we have already given [the 
1 abundance of herring, &c], whitebait are still to continue a legal article of 
' food, we can see no reason whatever for interfering with the sale of other 
f small fish.'f Mr Shaw-Lefevre, who was one of the Commissioners in 
' 1865, has expressed a similar opinion. He says J ' The destruction of 
' whitebait, however, is so great, that in comparison with it the destruction 
{ of all other small fish sinks into insignificance, and it would seem absurd 
' to take steps to prohibit the capture of other immature fish, while the 
■ capture of whitebait is permitted.' Such reasoning, however, is away 
from the point, and ignores the natural distinctions between the life-con- 
ditions of one species and another. Rats and mice, for instance, are trapped 
and destroyed in every possible way by man : yet the race survives. But 
if the same licence were allowed in the destruction of sheep or deer, these 
* Op. cit., p. xxvi. 
t Report on the Sea Fisheries of England and Wales, p. xxii, 1879. 
+ The Fisheries Exhibition Literature, vol. iv. p. 97, 1884. 
n 
