IxvJl 



1j'.). The Madras GovenimenI, {;Wi\\ \\nW ISC.OJ diict-k'd Uiat all 



pieces of inland waters sliouM lie leased out 



Onlersoftl,cMa,lr.sGovc,„. '" order to jrive a disti.ict interest to some 



ii.cut niKl of the Ucveuiio Hoard, person in ])revcntinn^ nidiscnnnnatc lislnnjii-, 



tliat provision should be made in the con- 

 (laets, for the proteetion of fisii in regard to the size of the mesh used, 

 f /?., four inches in eireunircrciice, the periods and localities for fishing', the 

 il raining olF water in tanks and the ))oisoniiig of rivers ; that lish passes 

 should ho constructed at anicuts, and rewards given for the destruction 

 of vermin that destroy fish, and the prohibition of fishing during certain 

 luonllis, October to February inclusive, in the irrigation channels througli 

 which the young fish pass down to the sen ; and that such should come 

 ill force on July 1st, 1809. These orders also included the prohibition 

 of the use of nets within 100 yards of anicuts and such like masonry works 

 extending across streams. The Revenue Board (May 28th, 1809) 

 considered that headmen of villages should hold the fisheries at a 

 small roy.alty, or that protective rules should bo embodictl in a brief 

 Fishery Act. They neither approved of an inch between the meshes of 

 nets, nor prohibiting the taking of breeding fish detained near irrigation 

 weirs. The Madras Government (June 25th, 1 809) saw no reason why pro- 

 tective measures should be deferred, but would not object to the details 

 being modified as regards letting the fisheries, and the minimum size of 

 the mesh of the nets. The Board of Itercnne (August 37th, 1809) agaiu 

 objected, stating that 13 Collectors agreed in reporting that no wanton 

 destruction of fisii takes place, and that no protective measures arc needed. 

 The Madras Government decided " no orders arc necessary on these 

 )iapers." The instructions to district ofRcers were called for. The 

 Board of Revenue (October 23rd, 1809) stated that no detailed orders on 

 the subject were issued. The Madras Government (November lOtli, 1809) 

 "bservc, " that they saw no reason why the protective measures suggest- 

 ed should be deferred, but permitted some of the details to be ji.artially 

 modified as proposed by the Board. On the receipt of this last coni- 

 numication, it was clearly the duty of the Board to have immediately 

 issued the necessary orders to Collectors, but this it appears has not been 

 done. The Board will, accordingly, now be instructed to give otTcct to 

 the orders which should have been brought into operation on the 1st of 

 July last." On Dccemljcr 18th, the Board issued their instructions 

 (para. 118), modifying the minimum size of the mesh of nets to three 

 inches (instead of four) all round, and offering certain rewards for vermin 

 killed within one mile of irrigation weirs. Fish were to be passed over 

 weirs (see para. 152), whilst the subsidiary orders partially nullify the 

 original propositions. The Acting Secretary io the Madras Government 

 (October 5th, 1809) reported to the Secretary to the Government of 

 India that " the Government have already decided on adopting the 

 jiroteetivc measures advocated by Dr. Day for fresh-water fisheries." 

 Finally (July 12th, 1872), on being asked for "information showing the 

 results from letting the fresh-water fisheries from July last year" (1871), 

 the A cling Sub-Secretari/ to the Board replied, " the Board are not aware that 

 any special measures have been adojited in the matter of leasing fisheries 

 during the past revenue year;" from which it would almost appear 

 doubtful if the foregoing instructions have yet been brought into oper- 



