missioners' estimate, would consume 600,000,000 herrings, instead of the 1,110,000,000 alleged by the Report, and, therefore, nearly two hundred millions fewer than the Commissioners' estimate of the annual take of the Scottish fisheries (800 millions) — twenty-five per cent, less instead of thirty- seven per cent. more.
"Hitherto the supposition of the Report, that the Gannets frequent the Scottish seas all the year round, has been followed ; but the Close- Time Committee begs leave to observe that, as a matter of fact, these birds are not there in force for more than half the year.
"This, then, will require another abatement to be made. Not to exaggerate the case, the Committee assumes them to frequent these waters seven mouths or seven-twelfths of a year. This will make their annual capture of herrings 350,350,000, instead of the more than 1,110,000,000 of the Commissioners, being 700,000,000, or much less than one-third, fewer.
"IV. That in all the evidence received and published by the Com- missioners only two witnesses allege that any harm has resulted to the fisheries from the Sea-Birds Protection Act. Of these the first, Robert M'Connell, presented a petition from the fishermen of Girvan, in which it is stated (p. 145) that ' no legislation is called for or required ; ' while another witness from the same place, John Melville (a fishery officer), declares (at p. 146) that 'The fishery has very much increased this last year. Recent years have also shown a gradual increase. The increase is partly due to the increased machinery, aud partly to the increase in the number of herrings.'
"The second witness unfavourable to the Act, John M' William (an Inspector of Poor), speaks (pp. 147-49) only from a personal knowledge acquired between 1833 and 1853, when he ceased to be a fisherman, and not from any recent experience. He can therefere scarcely be held com- petent to give an opinion of his own as to whether the Sea-Birds Protection Act (passed in 1869) has injured the fisheries. Another witness recommends the repeal of this Act; but he, Hugh MacLachlan, expressly states (p. 143) that he ' thinks the cause of the decrease [in the numbers of herrings taken] is the catching immature fish ;' aud the remedy he proposes is the adoption of a strict close time.
"V. That, on the other hand, the utility of sea-birds in pointing out the situation of shoals of herrings and other fish is not only generally notorious, but is even admitted in the Report (pp. 57 and 175).
"VI. That if the Sea-Birds Act be repealed on the grounds alleged for Scotland, its repeal for England and Ireland must logically follow ; and this Committee trusts that no step may be taken to repeal the Act for Scotland.
" I am, Sir, yours obediently,
Sec. to the Brit. Assoc. Close-Time Committee."
