21 
people. Sir James Maitland had gone into the matter in 
a most lucid and instructive manner, and there was no 
doubt that when the Paper was disseminated it would do 
a vast amount of good. The only difficulty that he saw 
was, that it did not appear to go hand in hand with the 
ideas of some scientific gentlemen, who maintained that 
protection was not necessary to some of our fish. He 
contended, however, that if an intelligent country con- 
sidered fish culture of service at all, it should also adopt 
every possible mode of protecting the fish. It would be 
no use for a pisciculturist to trouble himself to reproduce 
fish in great numbers if the intelligence and legislation of 
the country did not protect that which had been produced, 
and if every one were allowed to fish without any control. 
It seemed to him, therefore, that it behoved all who were 
interested in this matter to join in every possible measure 
to enhance the production of fish, either by natural or 
artificial means, and also to protect the fish afterwards. 
Nearly every civilized country possessed laws for the 
purpose of protecting fish; and when some gentlemen 
came forward and said that fish could not be exterminated, 
the consequence must be that all these protective laws 
were a mistake, and that every one should be allowed to 
kill and eat as he pleased. He maintained, on the other 
hand, that it was the duty of the legislature of every 
intelligent country to suppress intemperance of all kinds, 
not only in the matter of liquids, but in killing fish; and 
to pass judicious laws for the benefit of mankind. If any 
law were more judicious than another, it was that the 
waters should be protected from the inordinate destruction 
of man, in order that fish might be produced in larger 
numbers, both as a luxury for the rich and for the benefit 
of the poor. He felt that he was treading on somewhat 
