GENTLEMEN,--I am somewhat at a loss to understand the object of
Mr. Horsfall's letter on this subject which appears in the
"Mercury" of to-day. If he means that fish hatched by this process
are as much at the mercy of their natural enemies as they are in
their natural spawning beds I differ from him entirely; but if he
means that there is no good in breeding migratory fish like
Salmon, when the obstacles to their return in the shape of stake
nets, impassable weirs, and poisonous waters are so numerous as
they are at present in many rivers (the Wharfe and the Aire are
examples of both), I entirely agree with him. Let us consider both
suppositions, for the more this subject is ventilated the more
likely is good to arise from the discussion. I think Mr. Horsfall
is entirely wrong in the first supposition, for the following
reasons: By artificial propagation the young fish escape all
damage from floods, and particularly ice floods, which scoop out
all the loose gravel from the spawning beds, which are frequently
entirely carried away by these floods. They escape all danger from
drought, which in some rivers is almost as bad, there being now
several mounds of dry gravel in my length of the Ribble which were
spawning grounds last December. They escape being destroyed as ova
by Trout, Eels, Bullheads, Loaches, the larva of aquatic insects,
ducks (wild and tame), water rats, and water shrews. The last are
said to be destructive to the spawn; but this I do not vouch for,
as these two last-mentioned animals have not come under my own
observation as devourers of spawn.
With regard to the 500 Salmon ova said to have been taken from the
stomach of a Trout, Ramsbottom is the authority for it, only he
says there were nearer 1,000 than 500, and he took them from the
maw of a large lake Trout at Oughterard, when netting the spawning
Salmon for his artificial propagation. When Ramsbottom was fish
breeding for Mr. Peel the year after he first went to Ireland for
that purpose, he went into the brooks at night with a light. He
never found a pair of spawning fish without also finding several
waiters on Providence in the shape of small Trout, which were
picking up the ova that descended the streams towards them.
Several of these he caught, and they were perfectly gorged with
spawn.
With regard to the ducks, Ramsbottom is again my authority. He
found that a flock of tame ducks frequented the spawning beds at
Oughterard; he bought one for the purpose of ascertaining whether
they eat spawn or not, and he found its crop quite full of spawn.
With regard to the aquatic larvae of insects, Mr. Horsfall may
easily satisfy himself that they destroy spawn if he will turn
some into an artificial spawning bed. One of my friends failed to
hatch his Trout ova because he could not keep out the fresh-water
shrimps.
Mr. Horsfall seems to think that nature would be sufficient to
take care of her own interests if man did not step in to aid her
endeavours; but if he is a sportsman he no doubt has a game-
keeper, who not only preserves the ground from poachers, but traps
cats and weasels, shoots hawks, magpies and carrion crows, breeds
tame pheasants, and generally looks to the well being of the game
without trusting to the efforts of unassisted nature.
Let us take the second supposition, that there is no good in
artificial propagation when the fish which are sent to the sea can
never come back again by reason of insurmountable obstacles. If
Mr. Horsfall means this he is quite right; there is no good in the
upper proprietors of Salmon rivers becoming brood hens for the
owners of fisheries at the mouths of rivers or the proprietors of
impassable weirs, who take all the fish which get to the foot of
these weirs. I quite agree with Mr. Horsfall that it is in most
cases easy to build practicable fish passes, and at a slight
expense, if people were willing to do so; but I wish to show that
notwithstanding the boasted effects of the Act of 1861, the upper
riparian proprietors have not a sufficient inducement to build
fish passes, and will not do so unless the expense can be made
very moderate indeed.
I will take the river Ribble to illustrate my meaning. As a
general rule we have no fresh run Salmon until May, and the upper
proprietors are supposed to have a sufficient share of the fish
that ascend the stream if the owners of the fisheries in the
estuary and the tidal part of the river cease to net from six
o'clock on the Saturday night to six o'clock on the Monday
morning. That is a day and a half per week. The fishing for Salmon
(except angling) ceases on the 31st of August, and from the 1st of
May to the 31st of August there are 123 days. Call the period
eighteen weeks, which gives us twenty-seven days during which time
the Salmon have liberty to pass to the upper parts of the river.
But on the average of seasons, owing to droughts, the rapid
absorption of moisture by vegetation, and the great evaporation,
there is no fresh water to enable the fish to ascend during two-
thirds of that time. Every one who knows anything of the habits of
Salmon is aware that they never ascend the rivers from the estuary
unless there is a fresh in the river; and, as I said before, on
the average of seasons there is no fresh for two-thirds of the
time from May to August. This reduces the twenty-seven days (which
are supposed to feed the upper proprietors with Salmon to
repletion) to nine days, and these nine days are expected to stock
the river and its tributaries for one hundred miles. It is true I
have not taken into consideration the privileges which the upper
proprietors have of angling to the 1st of November; but besides
the fact that the fish are then full of spawn, and ought not to be
killed at all, very few rise at the fly, and when they are taken
they can neither be sold nor used by any one who knows what a
fresh Salmon is. It is a greater crime against public polity to
kill a spawning Salmon than it is to steal a sheep; for, supposing
it produces 10,000 ova, and one in a hundred returns as a Salmon,
it returns from a place (the sea) where it has cost nothing in
rent, taxes, or superintendence, and, in the finest condition
imaginable, it invites us to take it.
Mr. Horsfall and I both wish for the same results (rivers swarming
with fish), and although we may somewhat differ as to details, I
have no doubt both would be glad to see public attention directed
to these matters rather more than it is at present.
If Mr. Horsfall will do me the honour to come and see me, I will
show him an efficient fish-pass which has been in operation forty
years. It may suggest some ideas to him, and he may be able to
suggest some improvements in it which I should be glad to receive.
I am, Gentlemen,
Your obedient Servant,
THOMAS GARNETT.
* * * * *
LOW MOOR, _4th January_, 1865.
DEAR SIR,--As I believe Mr. Eden, the Commissioner of Salmon
fisheries, is visiting various districts connected with Salmon
rivers in England and Wales, with a view of explaining the
proposed alterations and additions to the bill of 1861, and as I
think from what I have learnt that the proposed alterations and
additions will not be satisfactory to the upper proprietors of
Salmon rivers, I wish to call your attention to the matter, that,
if he should come into this district, the gentlemen interested may
be able to point out to him how far these alterations are from
meeting their wishes. Supposing that the new bill (as published in
the "Field" newspaper, and explained and commented on by Mr. Eden)
is to be understood as a government measure and one in which they
will allow of no alterations, I maintain that it is very
objectionable both from what it omits and what it purposes to do.
To begin with the former, or, in other words, to take the
recommendations of the Worcester meeting as the groundwork of new
legislation, it does not touch on several of them; they were, so
far as I remember (for I have no memoranda to refer to) an
extension of the weekly and annual close time--minimum penalties:
--a close time for Trout, and a right of way on the banks of
Salmon rivers for all water-bailiffs, duly appointed, without
their being deemed guilty of trespass; and a tax on fishery nets
and implements, for the purpose of defraying the expenses of
protection.
Now, so far as I understand the bill as proposed, the only one of
these recommendations included in it is the tax. I am wrong in
this--the taxation is not included in the bill, but was suggested
by Mr. Eden at the meeting he attended lately at Chester. The bill
proposes that the choice of conservators shall be vested in the
magistrates at quarter sessions, and the conservators shall have
power to expend all the funds raised by voluntary subscriptions
for certain purposes mentioned in the act. But Mr. Eden suggested
at Chester that if these funds were inadequate the conservators
should have the power of supplementing them by a rate on the
owners and lessees of fisheries in proportion to their extent. Now
one man may have an estate on the banks of a river extending for
miles from which he derives little or no revenue; while another
may have a fishery not extending more yards than the other does
miles, but from which he derives a revenue of as many pounds as
the other does pence. If Mr. Eden's meaning is lineal extent, I
feel very sure it will not meet with the approval of the upper
riparian proprietors. Again, why should the magistrates in quarter
sessions (nine-tenths of whom know nothing of Salmon or Salmon
rivers) choose the conservators? What, for instance, would the
magistrates meeting at Wakefield know of the Ribble or the Hodder?
What would they care about the matter? They would choose the men
who had power to tax the riparian proprietors and lessees; but as
they would not be taxed themselves, they would look on with great
composure. No; if we are to be taxed, let us tax ourselves, and
not leave it to those who will have no interest in the matter, and
who may involve us in litigation and expense over which we shall
have no control.
The recommendations of the Worcester committee deserved more
consideration on the part of Government. They were suggested by
men of great experience, and, moreover, unless they are adopted
and legalized by Parliament there can be no permanent prosperity
for Salmon rivers. Take the extension of close time as an
instance. It cannot be right that the owners or lessees of estuary
fisheries shall be allowed to take ninety per cent. of the fish
which they have neither bred nor fed, and whose well-being and
increase they have done nothing to promote; while the upper
proprietors, on whom devolve all the care, trouble, and expense,
are to rest satisfied with what the thirty-six hours per week can
give them. What did they give the upper proprietors on the Ribble
and the Hodder last season? Little or nothing. When the bill of
1861 was before the House of Commons, I had an opportunity of
suggesting (indirectly) to the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis the
propriety and desirableness of an extension of the weekly close
time for the benefit of the upper proprietors. He replied, "You
might as well propose to restrict the shooting of partridges to
three days a week as to restrict the netting of Salmon." But with
all due deference to so great an authority, there is no analogy
between the two cases. If partridges had all to migrate and return
before they could be legally shot, and had, like the Salmon, all
to return by the same road, ninety per cent. of them before
reaching the district where they were reared would become the prey
of men who had neither bred nor fed them. I fancy sportsmen would
want protection for them; and if they were not able to obtain it,
they would do what is seriously proposed by many people with
regard to the Salmon--they would do all they could to exterminate
them, rather than continue to act as brood hens to hatch chickens
for other men's eating.
Then take the annual close time and the pretended compensation it
offers in the two months' rod-fishing (September and October).
After the nets have been withdrawn, what is it worth? Or, what is
the value of black fish full of spawn? They cannot be sold; they
are not fit to eat; the spawn has nearly arrived at maturity, and
the only value the fish has is in the spawn, which is potted and
sold in many instances by the poacher who kills the fish. He
deserves no other name, whatever may be his rank or station.
Again, in the 21st section, regulating the weekly close time, it
is enacted "That any person acting in contravention of this
section shall forfeit all the fish taken by him, and any net or
movable instrument used by him in taking the same, and, in
addition thereto, shall incur a penalty of not exceeding five
pounds, and a further penalty of not exceeding one pound for each
fish." But in the 17th section, which regulates the annual close
time, though there is a penalty for the contravention and
forfeiture of the Salmon so taken, there is no forfeiture of nets
and implements. You will no doubt remember how this worked when
the watchers took a net and boat, near Preston, last season, after
the setting in of the annual close time. How the owner of the net
and boat came to claim them, on the pretence that the net had been
stolen from the bank, where it had been left to dry, although his
own men were the parties who were so illegally using them.
Minimum penalties.--I see no mention of them in the new bill,
although it is notorious that many magistrates have fined
convicted poachers in the penalty of a farthing or a shilling.
What is this but an encouragement to do so again?
Close time for Trout.--This is greatly needed in Salmon rivers, as
it is well known that many a poacher pretends to be fishing for
Trout when he is looking after Salmon. This is doubly needed when
the Salmon ascend the small tributaries to spawn.
The right of way for water bailiffs.--There is no clause or
section in the new bill giving the right of way on the banks of
Salmon rivers to duly authorized persons without their being
deemed guilty of trespass. But there is one by which they are
permitted to examine weirs. There is on my part no objection to
this examination, but why are millowners stigmatized by being
subjected to exceptional legislation? Are not the gamekeepers of
gentlemen who have many miles of river subject to no surveillance
on the part of the water bailiffs as likely to act illegally as
the servants of the millowners? Let both be watched with equal
care, and I do not mind how vigilant the watching may be; but I do
object to being made the object of special and exceptional
legislation. The tax ought to be upon nets and rods and other
implements in proportion to their value. But if a tax is laid on
the extent of the fishery, we may bid adieu to voluntary
subscriptions.
In conclusion, if Mr. Eden comes into this district, I think it
ought to be distinctly intimated to him that no bill would be
satisfactory to the upper proprietors which did not give them a
greater interest in the increase and improvement of rivers. There
are three ways of doing this. The mesh of the Salmon net might be
enlarged from eight to twelve inches round. This would allow
grilse to pass, and fill the river with breeding fish. Or,
secondly, the weekly close time might be extended so as to include
Friday as well as Saturday afternoon and Sunday. Or, thirdly, the
annual close time for net and rod fishing might commence a month
earlier than at present; say net fishing to close on the 1st of
August, and rod fishing on the 1st of October. Any of these
measures would give the upper proprietors a much better supply of
fish than they now have. They all, I think, deserve consideration.
One thing at least is certain, that unless the upper proprietors
have a better share of the fish than they have at present, they
will soon cease to take an interest in their preservation.
To Colonel J. Wilson Patten, M.P.
* * * * *
LOW MOOR, _10th January_, 1865.
MY DEAR SIR,--I shall be very glad if I can induce you to read my
opinions on the Salmon question. It is one which I think may
become of even national importance, if properly managed. But the
sad tinkering it has hitherto received in the nine hundred and
ninety-nine Acts of Parliament wholly or partly devoted to the
subject makes me almost hopeless about future legislation. Yet it
seems to me that the only way to greatly increase the breed of
Salmon is so simple and obvious, that its not having been adopted
long since can only be accounted for by supposing that all the
parties interested in the matter are like the man in the fable,
who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.
Hitherto the law has never properly recognized the claims of the
upper riparian proprietors. These men have all the trouble and
expense of rearing and protecting the young fish, whilst the
owners of estuary fisheries, men who never lift a hand nor spend a
penny in taking care of the brood, take above ninety per cent. of
the grown Salmon when in season; and even then think they are
hardly used. How can it be expected that the upper proprietors
should be very earnest in their protection of fish from which they
derive little or no benefit, merely acting the part of brood hens
and hatching the chickens for the benefit of other people?
In June, 1769, 3,384 Salmon and Salmon Trout were taken at a
single haul of the net in the Ribble, near Penwortham. Now the sea
is as wide, and, for anything we know to the contrary, as capable
of feeding them as it was a hundred years ago; and the rivers are
as capable of breeding and rearing them now as they were at that
time; and therefore I do not see why, if proper steps were taken,
they should not be as abundant now as they were then.
If we take a sheep or a bullock, and to his first cost add the
rent of the land on which he has pastured, and something for
insurance and interest on capital, the transaction is not a very
profitable one in the long run. But in the case of the Salmon, we
send a little fish down to the sea which is not worth a penny, and
he remains there, paying neither rent nor taxes, neither
gamekeepers' nor bailiffs' wages, costing nothing to anyone, until
he returns to the river, worth ten or twenty shillings, as the
case may be. Surely this is a branch of the public wealth that
deserves sedulous cultivation.
I think with you that the Calder can never become a Salmon river,
so long as manufactories flourish on its banks, and it is not
desirable that it ever should become so at their expense; but even
in the Calder (and its tributaries) a little care would prevent
immense mischief. Some people at Church, a few years ago, very
carelessly pushed a quantity of poisonous matter into the Hyndburn
brook, and the first thunderstorm that followed carried it down
the Calder into the Ribble, and poisoned all the fish between
Calder foot and Ribchester. Take another instance of carelessness
in the Ribble, the emptying of the gas-holder tank at Settle,
which when turned into the river killed nearly all the fish
between that town and Mitton. Several other instances occur to me,
but these two are sufficient to show the great mischief occasioned
by avoidable neglect and carelessness. Such mischief should not be
perpetrated with impunity.
The act of 1861 was very good as far as it went, notwithstanding
some oversights; but it did not go far enough. It did not give to
the upper riparian proprietors such an interest in the fish as
they are entitled to, nor is the interest they now have sufficient
to induce them to exert themselves in the preservation and
increase of the Salmon as they might and would do if such
additional stimulus were given to them. The law now is, that no
nets shall be used in the taking of Salmon between twelve o'clock
at noon on Saturdays, and six o'clock on Monday mornings. That is,
forty-two hours per week. But in the Ribble, as a rule, we never
see seasonable Salmon until May. Now from that time to the 1st of
September, is, say sixteen weeks, and at forty-two hours per week
(the length of the weekly close time) this gives twenty-eight days
during which time the fish may pass up the river without
interruption; but this is by no means the true state of the case.
Everyone conversant with the habits of Salmon knows that they
never ascend rivers except when they are in a state of flood; and
in average summers, partly owing to droughts, and partly to the
rapid evaporation and absorption of moisture by vegetation, these
twenty-eight days may fairly be reduced by two-thirds, to give the
true time allowed for the ascent of the fish. But say ten days,
which are supposed to give an adequate supply of fish to a hundred
miles of river,--the extent of the Ribble and its Salmon-breeding
tributaries. Is it surprising that the upper proprietors are not
satisfied with this state of things? It would be surprising if
they were content with such a cheeseparing allowance.
When the bill of 1861 was before the House of Commons, I had an
opportunity (indirectly) of suggesting to the late Sir George
Cornewall Lewis the propriety of a considerable extension of the
weekly close time. He replied, "You might as well propose to shoot
partridges only three days a week, as to restrict the netting of
Salmon to only three days." With all due deference to such an
authority, there is no analogy between the two cases. But if
partridges had all to migrate and return before they could be
legally shot, and had, like Salmon, to come by one road, and if,
like them, ninety per cent. of them became the prey of men who had
neither bred nor fed them, I fancy the sportsman who reared them
would want some restrictions placed on their being shot by men who
had not spent a farthing in breeding and protecting them, but who
took the lion's share in their appropriation.
I saw Lord Derby on the subject last spring. He had, however, so
little time at his disposal that he could only give me a few
minutes. He said a good deal must be allowed for vested interests.
I said, "My Lord, I am a manufacturer. When the Ten Hours Bill was
passed, manufacturers were deprived of one-sixth of their fixed
capital at a stroke, and had not a farthing allowed for their
vested interests; nay, more, that measure involved the destruction
of machinery which had cost millions. All this was done on grounds
of public policy. And is not the Salmon question one of public
policy? If, as I suppose, the measure I advocate produced a great
increase in the breed of Salmon, the estuary fisheries would be
the first to profit by it. They are the first on the river.
Indeed, the stake nets in the estuaries are taking fish daily in
times of drought, when fish will not ascend the river at all."
In 1859 we had not a fresh in the river between the 10th of April
and the 1st of August. And last year we had only a few days of
flood between the beginning of May and the 31st August, when close
time (for nets) commences.
I have said above that only ten days per year are allowed for the
supply of fish to the upper proprietors. I may be told that they
have two months (September and October) in which they are allowed
to angle for them. True, but what are they worth? They are not
allowed to be sold, they are not fit to eat, the fish are black
(or red), the milt and spawn nearly at maturity, and the only
temptation they offer is to the poacher (who often pots the roe as
a bait for Trout); and he is a poacher, whatever his rank or
station, who will kill an October fish when full of spawn.
Last year, at my suggestion, a meeting of gentlemen interested in
Salmon fisheries was convened at Worcester, during the meeting
there of the Royal Agricultural Society, and a number of
suggestions were made, and resolutions were come to, which were
intended to serve as a basis for the desired alterations in the
Salmon Bill of 1861. I have no memoranda to which I can now refer,
but the most important, according to my recollection, were the
following:--The extension of the weekly close time; the annual
close time to be extended to Trout; a right to be given to all
conservators and water-bailiffs, duly appointed, to pass along the
banks of Salmon rivers without being deemed guilty of trespass; a
tax on fishing-nets, rods, and implements, to defray the expenses
of protecting the rivers from poachers.
The Commissioner of Salmon Fisheries, Mr. Eden, has been convening
meetings of gentlemen interested in Salmon rivers at Chester,
Conway, York, and various other places, to explain the provisions
of the bill which Government introduced at the end of last session
and intend to bring forward again. I have not attended any of
these meetings, but expect he will be at Whalley or Preston
shortly, when we shall hear what he has got to say. The new bill,
as printed last year, does not embody any of the suggestions of
the Worcester meeting; but as I learn from private sources, Mr.
Eden, at the various meetings he has lately attended, has thrown
out various suggestions, some of which are highly objectionable.
For instance, he suggests that the magistrates in quarter sessions
assembled shall have the power to appoint conservators, and that
the conservators shall have the power to expend all the money
raised by subscription in having water-bailiffs to put up fish-
ladders, commencing actions at law in certain cases; and if the
subscriptions are not adequate to defray all these expenses, that
they (the conservators) shall have the power to levy a rate in aid
on the riparian proprietors.
I cannot see how this can be made to work equitably. If the rate
be laid on the extent of frontage to the river, one man may have a
great extent of no value for fishing purposes, another may have
only one pool, so conveniently formed and placed for netting that
he will be able to catch ten times as many fish as the other. Then
how are the fisheries in the estuary and just above tideway to be
valued? They probably take ninety per cent. of all the seasonable
fish. Will they be willing to pay ninety per cent. of the rate?
Again, the college at Stonyhurst claims a right of _several
fishery_, both in the Ribble and the Hodder. That is, they
exercise a right to fish in both rivers, where they have no land,
and they exercise this right so freely that they take more fish
than all the other upper proprietors added together. If, then, the
tax is laid on the extent of frontage to the rivers, these
reverend gentlemen would escape entirely, so far as the right of
_several fishery_ extends, and would only pay the rate on their
own extent of frontage.
Again, the new bill does not embody the suggestions of the
Worcester meeting as to the right of way for the water-bailiffs;
but according to Mr. Eden's comment upon it at Chester and
elsewhere, a strict surveillance is to be kept on weirs, to which
the water-bailiffs are to have free access. Personally I have no
objection to this, provided the water-bailiffs are allowed free
access to the banks of the river elsewhere; but I have a strong
objection to be made the subject of offensive exceptional
legislation. Are not gamekeepers as likely to need looking after
as mill-owners?
Again, the bill does not touch on minimum penalties. This it ought
to do, for in some districts (Wales, for instance) there is a
strong animus against all attempts at preserving the Salmon, and
notorious poachers, duly convicted of offences against the act of
1861, in some instances have been fined a shilling, in others a
farthing.
To W. H. Hornby, Esq., M.P.
* * * * *