ON SMALLER PONDS. 171 



To these facts some will probably demur, and use 

 a common argument, that " They never saw the 

 swans eat fish-spawn, although they have seen swans 

 at feed hundreds of times." This is very probable. 

 Gentlemen usually go on the water, and take par- 

 ticular note of things appertaining to the water, 

 during the pleasant warm months of the year, when 

 fish do not spawn, and therefore, of course, they 

 see nothing of this. Besides, such an argument, if it 

 be argument, is nothing in the face of facts. I have 

 seen them, and I know very many other people 

 who have. The late Mr. Arthur Smith and Mr. 

 Frank Bucklancl were appointed, by the Thames 

 Society, to try and mitigate the swans. They went 

 up the river some miles, for the sole purpose of 

 assuring themselves of the facts first, never having 

 previously actually noticed them ; and they came 

 back thoroughly convinced of all that I have stated, 

 from ocular demonstration. Many, many times I have 



being much larger ; suppose only 200 swans (about a fourth, perhaps, 

 of the number really employed) are at work at the spawn, and give 

 them only a fortnight for the period of their ravages. Now, what is 

 the result we get ? Why, a little total of 1 40, 000, 000. One hundred 

 and forty millions of eggs ! Suppose only half of those eggs to 

 become fish, and we have a loss of seventy millions of fish every 

 year to the River Thames— a heavy price to pay for the picturesque, 

 particularly when the reality may perhaps be doubled, or trebled, 

 or even quadrupled. 



