( 101 ) 



walnrs, ciiul considcriiiii^ Mio good of tlic fish consuming 

 niillious as superior to that of the wasteful few. 



FisiiEiiY Laws of Great Buitain, 



CII. lu several of the following reports, such 

 exceedingly incorrect asscrlions liave 

 KisiKiy L.UV3 of Cleat hccn advanced res])cctiiig the Fisheri/ 

 Laws of Oreat BrilainWvx^ I consider it 

 advisal)lc to give a few remarks on what really exists, unless 

 lately altered, and that Avith but few comments on my part. 

 Salmon and trout are not found in the fresh-waters of India, 

 their place being supplied by carps and perhaps herrings. 

 The reason why most of the laws in Great 15ritaiu appear to 

 nlludc to salmon, appears to be as stated in the law of Scot- 

 land that "salmon lishiug is a paramount right to which 

 other fresh-water fishing must yield." Here, there being no 

 Galmon, protective laws should embrace all fresh-water 

 iish. Whilst the frcsh-watcr fisheries may be considered 

 briefly as such which exist in fresh-waters which are not 

 within tidal influence. There are four descriptions of 

 fishery. A common Jisherij is that kind of right which all 

 the public have alike to fish in the sea or a navigable 

 river. A several fishery is the right of an individual to 

 fish exclusively in a particular water, and it is not 

 necessarily united with the riglit to the soil, though origin- 

 ally all owners of the bed of a river or water must have 

 had a several fishery in such Avater as a constituent part of 

 the right of property until they parted with it to another. 

 A free fishery is the right of fishing along witii other 

 individuals iu a water. A comvioii of fishery is the right of 

 a person to fish in waters of which the soil belongs to a 

 diil'ercnt person. 



cm. " The next question is — Who is the person who 

 „. ,, ,,,. has the legal right of fishing for 



nigl.t of fishing. , , r- T 1- n 1 11 



trout [m India tlic word would 

 bo ' fish,' not ' trout,' for the reasons specified in the last 

 paragraph] generally, i. e., with nets and other compe- 

 tent means ? The answci- is, that all riparian owners 

 have this right as an incident of ownership. Wiierc 

 the owner has, however, let the land to a tenant, the 

 question may arise, whether the owner or the tenant 

 is to enjoy the trout-iishing. If the lease expressly 

 let the fishing to the tenant, there is an end of the question ; 

 but the dilliculty arises whether, when the lease is silent, 



