this principle seems to be nowadays not understood by the public, and is contested by some private proprietors. It is not uncommon to hear a long and valuable river spoken of as the property of the owner of a fishery at the mouth of it; attempts to abolish or to regulate injurious modes of fishery are met with cries of confiscation; it has even been lately stated in print, by a proprietor on the Wye, that "the public have nothing to do with the salmon fisheries, inasmuch as they are all private property;" and colour has also been given to these claims, by holding an official inquiry into the state of a river at the expense of the private proprietors. It therefore becomes necessary to insist on the public interest in the fisheries, and to refer for this purpose to the origin and exercise of that interest.

In old days, when the right of a man to do what he liked with his own was scarcely questioned, salmon were the King's fish. The King dealt freely with his own. Grants were made by the Crown to its servants or favourites, and "Several Fisheries" were thus created at the mouths and in the fairway of many rivers. These fisheries, worked by means of fish weirs, dams, stells, or garths, without stint or restriction, soon made salmon unpleasantly scarce. Over-fishing fished the rivers out; the loss of food, especially of fish food in those days of fasting, was serious. Great complaints arose, and by Magna Charta it was determined that no more such grants should be made. The Crown became a trustee for the public in the matter of the salmon fisheries. The right of Parliament to restrain the amount and kind of fishing was exercised. The public right to the fisheries in the tidal waters outside the limits of the then existing several fisheries was asserted, and has from that time to this been unquestioned both in England and in Ireland, although in practice, especially in Ireland, it has been often grievously encroached upon. In Scotland the salmon are still the King's fish, and the right of any man to fish for salmon, even from his own land in inland waters, is successfully contested by the Commissioners who administer the Crown property, unless he can show a grant, or such user as is by law held to be prescriptive evidence of such a grant.

An instance of the exercise of this right on behalf of the Crown, showing the paramount nature of the old Crown right, has lately come within my experience, and is interesting because, as the Crown. rights in the salmon fisheries were identical in the three kingdoms, this exercise of the Crown right in Scotland illustrates the nature of the public right derived from the Crown in England and Ireland. I was consulted in 1879-80 as to the construction of a pass over a fall impassable to fish. The plan was made, but the Commissioners of Woods and Forests refused to grant the right to fish for salmon in the rivers and lakes which the construction of the pass would have been the means of stocking with salmon, unless a considerable sum

were paid for the right of fishing. No user could be established or even claimed, for as no salmon had ever passed the fall no grant of salmon fishery could be presumed. Difficulties arose as to how payment of the sum exacted on behalf of the Crown should be apportioned among the proprietors of the land above the fall, and the pass has not been made.

The origin of the right of Parliament to deal with the salmon fisheries in the manner that appears to it best for the consumer, dates from Magna Charta; and of the exercise of this right abundant examples may be found in the Committees and Commissions which have sat and reported, and in the Acts of Parliament which have been passed. These Acts have from the earliest times imposed prohibitions on certain modes of fishing, restrictions upon others, fixing close seasons, and in all ways dealing with the fisheries as seemed to Parliament most conducive to the public good.

A salmon river is in very truth a farm-a Highland farm, where the sheep descend to the low grounds to feed and carry back to the hills the flesh they have put on. It is the interest of the public, consumer or fisherman, and of the proprietor, upper or lower, that this farm should produce the largest possible amount of fish. To attain this result a balance must be struck-for the farm by the farmer, for the river by Parliament-between the production and capture. In either the hill or river farm, the breeding stock must be kept at the full, the surplus stock only brought into market.

Production is limited by nature in each river by the amount of spawning-ground and the number of breeding fish it possesses. Capture unlimited by nature must be limited by law, for there is no river in the kingdom, owned by more than one proprietor, that could and would not be cleared out in a single season if the law did not restrict the amount of fishing. Unless restrained, the owner of the Several Fishery nearest the sea, or the proprietor in that position of both banks, or the two riparian proprietors so placed who, facing one another, could agree together, would build a weir across the river, close the highway, and catch every fish. Free circulation is as necessary to the life of a salmon river as it is to a man, and the weir would act as a halter. For a year or two good profits would be made, and the supply of food even be increased; at the end of that time the fisheries of that river would be extinct. If no weir were erected a similar result, though less rapid and complete, would be brought about with the net.

Salmon legislation, then, has been and must be founded on the paramount character of the public interest in salmon as a valuable article of food. The highest good for the greatest number might be its motto. The object, the production of the greatest number of fish; and the means, the limitation of capture.

Limitation must be sufficient. The forms of restriction chosen should be those which are most easily enforced and most general in incidence. Fair play, too, should be dealt out to the private proprietors as far as is consistent with the public interest and their

own.

But is the present limitation sufficient, as those who profit by the present state of things allege? One proof that it is not, is found in the continuous request for fresh legislation, and further evidence is not wanting.

The Royal Commission in 1860 found the English salmon fisheries in as low a state as was compatible with bare existence. The Act of 1861, founded on the principles I have been advocating, was passed, and the salmon fisheries improved up to a certain point, but are no longer improving. The report made by Mr. Walpole this year states that the produce of the English salmon fisheries was estimated in 1863 at £18,000, in 1865 at £30,000, and for some years past at £100,000. Now in 1865 the improvement to be expected from the Act of 1861 had not, or had scarcely, commenced, for it takes three, or more probably four, years to make a salmon. The sum of £100,000 is "for some years past," and is therefore the final outcome of the late salmon fishery legislation and preservation. Such an improvement is satisfactory if accepted as a proof that the principles of the Act of 1861 are sound, and with extension would produce farther improvement, but as a final result it is poor enough. Ireland sends to England five times as much besides its home consumption. Scotland sends on an average year double that amount to London alone. Nor can we reckon on retaining even this increase of produce.

Mr. Walpole's reports show that England and Wales sent to Billingsgate Market in 1865, when the benefit of the legislation of 1861 had not yet been fully felt, only 868 boxes. In the next seven years, 1866 to 1872, no less than 14,989 boxes were sent, and in the next seven years, 1873 to 1879, only 10,595. Mr. Walpole points out that English salmon are in great measure consumed in the neighbourhood where they are caught. But the amount sent to London may be fairly taken as the surplus left by the neighbourhoods' consumption, and as it is probable that in abundant years more would be consumed at home than in scarce ones, the falling off is probably greater than the figures show. In the absence of better statistical information, recourse must be had to that which we have; and it is so extremely difficult to obtain any accurate statistics respecting fisheries, that Mr. Walpole must be congratulated on the considerable amount contained in his reports. Such local reports as he publishes, and his own comments as well as general outside opinion, would lead us to suppose that there is no continuous increase, but rather the reverse. What is the cause? The rods accuse the nets, the

nets the rods. Both nets and rods talk of the restrictions imposed on themselves, of pollution, of increased population and traffic. The net fishermen of the Tay say that the annual close time, and those of the Eden that the weekly close time, is too long. The more they kill, the more will there be left to kill, that is their opinion, and is the opinion loudly expressed of too many fishermen on too many rivers. But it is at least as fair an argument that if the increased protection afforded by the Act of 1861 and its successors increased the fisheries from £30,000 to £100,000, still more protection would increase the £100,000 in the same proportion.

General assertion and contradictory opinions can scarcely be accepted without examination on a point so important as the cause of the decrease. And here we are met with one of the great difficulties that attend this subject. It is so very hard to obtain, not only statistical, but any other sort of definite evidence. The men to whom the persons charged with any inquiry have to apply are those who will be affected by the conclusion arrived at. Their minds are biassed by their interests. From the limited local character of their experience, they are often ignorant and full of prejudice. The net-men will rarely, if ever, give in evidence figures to show the amount of their takes, fearing that such information may be used against them, either by their landlords as a proof that their rent is too low, or by their neighbours, as a proof that they are getting more than their share of the fish. On the other hand, the rod-take is often exaggerated, for the glory of the achievement of landing a salmon is apt to make fish grow unnaturally in size and number after they are out of the water. River-bank rumours are proverbial, and the takes of ancient as well as modern days must be received with caution. The investigations recently held on the state of the Wye not only show both the difficulty of obtaining evidence and the reticence of those who could supply it, but throw some light on the causes of decrease. One inquiry was held by Lord Aberdare at the request of the Secretary of State in 1877, and others by the inspectors. The upper men proved on all occasions that the fish had become scarce in their waters. They attributed this scarcity to the increased fishing of the nets below them; but they had no means of proving this, except the record of the takes made by those nets. The net-men did not directly refute the accusation of the rod-men by a reference to their books. Instead of doing so, to use Messrs. Walpole and Huxley's words "the proprietors of the middle-water (net) fisheries were particularly reticent on the subject of their takes," and they made their defence by casting blame on every thing and body but themselves. After hearing their evidence, Lord Aberdare came to the conclusion that the causes of decrease were "numerous and multiform, and in most respects traceable to the

altered conditions of the times we live in." The opinion of Lord Aberdare on fishing subjects deserves especial weight with all persons interested in them. It would be difficult to value too highly the able and continuous assistance that Mr. H. A. Bruce, when Under-Secretary of State, gave to those engaged in salmon-fishing reform, not only in England, but in the sister kingdoms; and if it had been possible for Lord Aberdare to extend his inquiry to other rivers, I have no doubt that he would have modified the opinion above quoted.

It is easy for those interested in the continuance of things that be, to make a general reference to changes which all know exist, and to find in them reasons to account for the mischief all observe. But it is dangerous to apply these general references to particular cases. The condition of the times we live in is probably less altered in the Wye than in many rivers. The Severn and the Tyne were described this year in the Times as great sufferers from the same general causes. The Severn suffers from obstruction by weirs preventing free access to the spawning grounds, rather than pollution. The Tyne will shortly be referred to, to prove how a comparatively high rate of produce may be obtained in spite of pollution by mines and population, of traffic and steam vastly greater than is met with in the quiet Wye valley. Newport must contribute tons more dirt, and vastly more traffic and disturbance, to the smaller neighbouring Usk than Chepstow and Monmouth to the Wye. The population, railways, mines, and factories on Usk bank are all greater, area for area, than are found on the Wye. Yet the Usk is peaceful, wellmanaged, and prosperous; the Wye a battle-field in a battle-field's barren condition.

But is there not reason enough for non-improvement without seeking for it in circumstances that we find co-existent with good progress and fair production elsewhere? For produce there must be producers, and it is notorious that the rivers are now so hardly fished that hundreds of miles of spawning ground in the English and Welsh rivers have not had for many winters a pair of fish upon them. The breeding fish, too, must be protected, and they can only be protected by the upper men in whose waters they breed. Therefore these men must be treated in such a way as to obtain their goodwill and assistance. How are they treated? In the Appendix to Mr. Walpole's Reports are given the answers of the different boards to certain questions. One of these questions is as to the relative take by nets and by rods in each district. Categorical answers to this inquiry were obtained for the year 1880 from the following rivers only, and the return is eloquent :