This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1883 edition. Excerpt: ... ciple;" but he hesitated to risk the possible "derangement and contraction" of the foreign trade, which he thought might result from its abandonment. He took the middle course, therefore, of suggesting that a fee should be charged for the brand, and that the enterprising curer should be encouraged, by the prospect of saving his fee, to rely on his own brand instead of that of the Government. Nothing came of the report till 1855, when the Treasury decided on abolishing the brand. The remonstrances, however, which the decision excited in Scotland induced it, instead of abolishing the brand, to appoint a new Commission to enquire into it. The new Commissioners spoke with an uncertain sound. One of them recommended the termination of the system; two of them adopted Sir John Lefevre's compromise, and proposed that the brand should be retained, but that a fee should be charged for it. The Treasury adopted the advice of the majority of the Commissioners, the brand was saved, and the fee was imposed. This arrangement has not, however, had the effect of terminating the controversy. In 1866 an able Commission, the ablest Commission to which the subject of fisheries has ever been referred, condemned the brand; in 1870, however, a new Commission appointed by the Treasury declined "to undertake the responsibility of advising" its discontinuance. Finally in 1881, a Select Committee of the House of Commons recommended its retention. These various reports and conflicting opinions have necessarily involved the subject in a good deal of confusion; and statesmen still hold contrary opinions on the expediency of the brand, who would be unanimous in The Commission of 1866 consisted of Mr. (now Sir J.) Caird, Professor Huxley, and Mr. G. S. Lefevre, Sir J....