and on the Salmon-Fisheries. 
351 
near fully closed by it.” — “ I have seen where there was sea-weed left Opon 
the net, that the tide would have taken away the very clay from- the foot of 
the stakes two or three feet deep., and the salmon have frequently gone through 
below the net, and been lost when this has happened.” — “ But we cleaned 
them every tide, or otherwise the sea would break them down ; biit it was 
very seldom they were closed ; it was only at the bottom of the net, and at 
certain seasons of the year, when the summer’s growth comes up out of the 
sea, about the month of July (not a smout month), for a short period p.. 70. 
On the supposition that the fry did frequent the stations of the stake-nets, 
these explanations would have been satisfactory. But the fry do not frequent 
the places where stake-nets can be erected. In reference to the Tay, Mr 
Johnstone declares, that he ‘‘ never” saw a smout in a stake-net ; p. 43i Of 
the presence of such in stake-nets, Mr Halliday also says, “ never ; and they 
could not be there without being seen- by me ; it was impossible p. 70- 
Mr Little declares, “ A stake-net neither injures the breeding fish, nor does 
it destroy the spawn of the salmon or the fry ; I speak from’ having attended 
those nets, and never having seen any salmon-fry in them p. 122. Mr 
Sime, and Mr Shepherd, who surveyed the stake-nets, on purpose, during the 
“ Tay case,” never found in any of them any salmon-fry ; p. 92-93. They 
are not even taken by the spirlin-nets, which have a small mesh. In fact, not 
only are the stake -nets innocent of the charge of catching the fry, but even 
the coble -net in the estuary can do them no harm, as they are beyond its 
reach in the deep water. Hence Mr Sime and Mr Shepherd, though fishing 
with a small meshed net on purpose, both in the eddy water and in the stream, 
found none after the fry had reached the tide, ih. 
The period of the return of the fry from the sea, seems not well determined; 
and on this interesting subject the evidence is very imperfect. Mr Wilson 
seems to think that, as grilse, “ they return again at the end of June and the 
commencement of July.” — “ Perhaps from the end of June they will average 
three pounds, and at the end of July about four or five pounds p. 10. Mr 
Halliday says, “ I think we do not see them again from the time they leave 
the river as fry, until the next year, early in the spring, when they begin to 
return to the rivers young salmon ;” p. 87. Mr Little says, “ I consider that 
what we call the fry that go down in the early part of the season, if they are 
allowed to go down to the sea, they return the same year ; and that we kill 
them from three to nine or ten pounds weight;” p. 111. 
The witnesses seem generally to agree with the prevailing opinion, “ That the 
salmon fisheries in the kingdom are rapidly decreasing in value, owing to the in- 
creasing scarcity of fish.' ^ But the importance which should be attached to this 
evidence, will be estimated differently according to the judgment of the reader* 
Mr Wilson communicates a statement of the number of boxes of fish shipped from 
the Tweed, or rather for the first thirteen miles from its mouth, from the year 1796 
to 1823. In this table we perceive the very great fluctuations of the fisheries, de- 
pending on the seasons ; the years 1796 and 1815, were as 9.338 to 9.382 boxes ; 
yet 1770 was to 1797 as 9.338 to 12.665 boxes ; and 1815 was to 1816 as 9.382 
to 11.471. The year 1803 is less than 1819, and 1809 than 1819 or 1821, and 
but little higher than 1822 or 1823. The box of salmon previous to 1816, con- 
tained 6| stones of fish, since that period it contains 8 and 12 stones. In this 
