DEAR SIR,--I am favoured by the receipt of your letter of the 25th
inst., and the accompanying draft of a proposed bill "for the
better Preservation of Salmon," and proceed at once to offer such
remarks and suggestions as occur to me, and shall be glad to learn
that they meet with your approval.
In the third clause (section) you give an interpretation of the
names under which you wish to include all fish of the Salmon kind.
Does not this include common Trout? You specially include Char by
name. Would it not be better to limit your intentions to all
migratory fish of the Salmon kind, to wit, Salmon, Grilse, &c.
&c.? I think also the meaning of a fixed net wants defining more
rigorously. As it now stands it appears to me that it would
include any net which should be fastened on a root or stone whilst
it was being drawn through a pool, if the men employed in doing
this were to let go the cords whilst they loosed the net from the
obstruction.
Fourth clause.--I quite agree with you on the period allotted to
annual close time, but think there ought to be a penalty for
buying, selling, or having in possession Salmon roe (save and
except for the purpose of artificial propagation).
Seventh.--I do not agree with you at all on the subject of the
weekly close time, which in my opinion ought to be for one-half of
every day, except Sunday, and the whole of that day. Why should
the owners of fisheries at the mouths of rivers, who are at
neither trouble nor expense in breeding or preserving the spawning
fish, have all the benefit derivable from their increase? Why
should the upper proprietors act the part of brood hens for these,
hatching and preserving the fish for the benefit of those who take
no trouble about these things themselves?
Twelfth.--I do not agree with you as to the size of the mesh: I do
not think that a mesh of twelve inches in circumference, or three
inches from knot to knot, at all too large; it would permit fish
below six pounds to escape, and this being done, there would under
any circumstances be a fair supply of breeding fish.
Fifteenth.--I think your leister requires a more rigorous
definition. A man in this neighbourhood is reputed to have killed
a good many Salmon with a hay or a dung fork. Are either of these
leisters?
Your sixteenth section is utterly impracticable. How could such
hecks or grates be prevented from choking with leaves in the
autumn and ice in the winter, thus stopping the wheels? You might
as well require a farmer to hedge out the game. Impose a penalty,
if you like, upon any millowner who may kill Salmon in his mill
lead; and as you give your conservators power to inspect
everywhere, you will readily detect such practices. But it will
never do to close the mills by pretexts that the fish may be taken
or killed there.
Twenty-first.--I do not understand the meaning of this. But taken
in its ordinary sense, it seems to me to be very unjust. Many
persons have traps in their weirs for the purpose of taking Salmon
to which they plead a prescriptive right. Do you mean to do away
with these? You may succeed in this, but why should not a man be
allowed to fish in the river above the weir where there are no
obstructions to the passage of the fish? And why should not a man
be allowed to fish with a rod and line below the weir, and as near
to it as he chooses? I think weirs might be safely divided into
two classes: those used for manufacturing purposes and those for
fishery purposes; that a man should be allowed to say in which
class his weir should be included. If for manufacturing purposes
he should not be allowed to catch Salmon (except with rod and
line) within a certain distance below the weir. If he choose to
class his weir as one for fishery purposes, he should then be
compelled to give a free passage to the fish for twelve hours
every day; but he should be compelled to make his election as to
the class in which he would include his weir.
Twenty-fifth.--It would never do to allow the commissioners to
make bye-laws. Suppose the case of a millowner who got into a
dispute with them: he might be utterly ruined by their bye-laws;
they might make bye-laws which deprived him of his water-power,
under a pretext that they were taking more efficient care of the
Salmon.
Thirty-first.--I think the licence to angle should be compulsory,
and not at the discretion of the commissioner. That it should be
in the nature of a game licence, qualifying and enabling the
holder to angle in any river of Great Britain and Ireland,
provided he had the consent of the owner of the fishery where he
was angling.
(_Additional observations_). Twelfth.--You say that no double net
shall be used. Do you mean to prohibit the trammel, which is
usually a treble and not a double net? You also prohibit one net
behind another, but you do not specify the distance outside of
which a second net would be lawful. If neither a series of Scotch
nets nor a single trammel is to be used, by what sort of net do
you propose to catch the Salmon?
Nineteenth.--You say the sluices which admit water to wheels or
factories shall be kept closed from six o'clock on Saturday night
to six o'clock on Monday morning. How, then, are the repairs of
shafting and machinery to be made? These are generally done when
the workpeople have gone home on Saturdays. Besides, what is your
object? If the river is low, the Salmon will not be running up the
stream, and if it be in flood there will always be an abundant
supply running over the weir in addition to that which would be
required to turn the wheel. You add that the water may be allowed
to flow freely through the waste-gate, provided the opening of
such a waste-gate shall not deprive the mill of the necessary
supply of water.
Eighteenth.--In this clause you say that in weirs already
constructed it shall be lawful for the commissioner, on the
application of any two or more persons interested in the fisheries
of such river, and at the proper costs and charges of the persons
making such application--proof having been first given, &c.--to
cause a survey to be made of such dam or weir by a competent
engineer, and to direct such alterations to be made therein as
shall, in the opinion of the commissioner, be necessary and
desirable, &c.
In this clause, which so far as it goes is very desirable, you
have omitted a proviso without which it could never pass into a
law. You have forgotten to provide for the legal right of the
millowner, which would, or might, be taken away by the alteration
made in the weir unless there were some provision in the act which
prevented this being done. At present there is no such proviso in
your act. Here I have offered for years to allow the upper
proprietors to make any alteration they liked in the weir,
provided such alterations did not affect the milling power, the
stability of the weir, or my legal title to the weir as existing
at present. And my legal adviser tells me that any alteration made
in the weir without a guarantee from the upper proprietors would
very probably deprive me of my present title.
* * * * *