[3] THE FISHERIES OF SCOTLAND. 231 



sternly aud forcibly prohibited, both in rivers and estuaries, and this 

 prohibition has been confirmed by modern judicial decision, and also 

 by statute, except with regard to a certain limited number of cruives 

 and yairs, which exist by virtue of special grant from the Crown, and 

 cannot be abolished without compensation. About sixty years ago, 

 however, it was discovered that nets fixed on sea-shore were quite as 

 productive as they had been in the rivers, and accordingly in a com- 

 paratively short period the whole coast bristled with them, altogether 

 irrespective of right to fish for salmon. They have somewhat decreased 

 since then, because in many cases it was found unprofitable to work 

 them ; but they still exist in large numbers, and, judging from the 

 weight of evidence and authority which is accessible on the point, they 

 are prejudicial to the increase and preservation of salmon, and, if they 

 cannot be altogether abolished, they should be placed under much more 

 stringent regulations. It is urged on their behalf (1) that they are es- 

 tablished by prescription, and cannot, therefore, be abolished without 

 compensation ; (2) that to abolish them would seriously affect the food 

 supply of the country from this source ; (3) that though they may 

 diminish the number of fish which reach the rivers, they cause no decline 

 in the total number of fish caught annually ; and further, that the fish 

 which they catch are in better condition than those in the rivers; and 

 (4) that no other method of fishing with profit is available in the sea. 

 The first of these pleas is a very plausible one, and no doubt will be very 

 difficult to get over. Prescription, however, cannot run against statute ; 

 and though fixed nets on the shore are not specifically mentioned in the 

 old statutes, we ought to hold them included, because the spirit of the 

 whole legislation is so clearly and forcibly directed against that mode 

 of fishing as being unfair and destructive that we cannot doubt that 

 the prohibitions would have been extended to the sea had fixed nets 

 been in existence there at the time. Eemedial statutes must receive a 

 liberal interpretation. These old acts prohibit all fixed engines in the 

 '- run of the fish." The natural history and habits of the salmon were 

 not then well knoivn, and the legislators were totally ignorant of the 

 fact that the seashore was as much the "run of the fish " as the river. 

 In no charter granted is any such mode of fishing authorized or contem- 

 plated, and the proprietors of fixed nets have simply erected them with- 

 out any right to do so and on chance of no one interfering. It was in 

 the rivers that salmon fishing was originally recognized as property, 

 long before even a coast charter was granted (in 1603), and no person 

 had at any subsequent time a right to encroach on this private property. 

 That is exactly what the fixed-net fishers on the coast have done, how- 

 ever, with the result that what was once a valuable possession has in 

 many cases become useless, and no compensation has ever been paid to 

 those deprived of a considerable portion of their income, in securing 

 which often a large amount of capital had been sunk. It is difficult to 

 see what better claims to compensation those persons would have for 



