THE SALMON AND CHANNEL FISHERIES. 211 



be lawful or unlawful, but leaves the question of 

 legality upon the same ground that it stood upon 

 before the passing of this act. It is as clear as 

 day-light, notwithstanding what is said by the trap 

 men, that this act neither justifies the establish- 

 ment or the demolition of fish-locks, or the methods 

 of catching fish in them. To give it any other con- 

 struction would be quite monstrous ; it would have 

 the effect of palming a fraud upon the public, of 

 perverting the object of the act, and of rendering 

 it altogether nugatory and inoperative. The only 

 wonder is, that the act should mention fish-locks 

 at all, since it does nothing either way towards 

 deciding the question of their legality. I do not 

 say that they are unlawful ; let that be determined 

 by better authority ; but I consider them as en- 

 croachments on the privileges of the public, and 

 injurious to the rights of fishery belonging to other 

 persons. I, therefore, trust that enough has been 

 here advanced to establish the necessity of clearly 

 ascertaining whether they are legal or not, and to 

 convince the unprejudiced, that, whilst they conti- 

 nue, it is impossible for the salmon fishery ever to 

 attain to a flourishing condition. 



The penalties of this act, — which, if it legalize 

 the fish-locks as they are at present used, is the 

 most ruinous and insidious ever passed, — are to be 

 enforced by " summary conviction ;" a new but 

 very common method of enforcing compliance with 

 an act of parliament, dispensing with the constitu- 

 tional method of so doing by trial by jury. Since 



p 2 



