ON SMALLER PONDS. 169 



eels (much smaller than formerly), and three carp, 

 the largest about three-quarters of a pound, and all 

 three of them so starved and so wretchedly thin 

 that, as my friend remarked, one might almost shave 

 oneself with their backbones — the length and head 

 being those of two-pound fish if in fair condition. I 

 should think that one or two more years would cer- 

 tainly, if no remedial measures were adopted, see the 

 last of the carp. The roach themselves, too, had 

 diminished to the smallest size, being not larger than 

 bleak, say fifteen or twenty to the pound. 



Eels, again, are bad things to have in a pond, as 

 the destruction they work among the spawn is very 

 great ; and if the reader cares for his fish, let him by 

 no means be tempted to indulge in the picturesque, 

 by placing swans or ducks or fancy waterfowl of any 

 kind on his pond : if he does, he will certainly main- 

 tain them at the expense of the fish. If he must 

 have a pair of swans to look pretty, let him get a 

 skilful taxidermist to stuff him a pair as life-like as 

 possible ; he may even, to render the illusion more 

 real, put some clockwork into them, to make them 

 nod their heads every five minutes,; let him then 

 anchor them far out in the middle of his pond, and 

 for all picturesque purposes his end will be answered. 

 Knowing the mischief they do, I detest swans, and 



