To W. H. Hornby, Esq., M.P.

* * * * *

REMARKS ON A PROPOSED BILL FOR THE BETTER PRESERVATION OF SALMON.

CLITHEROE, August 27th, 1860.

HENRY GEORGE, ESQ.

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.