li 



are withheld from themselves ? If fixed nets are 

 to be allowed on the coast, and not in the rivers, 

 the upper heritors and all having the right offish- 

 ing, but not of using stake-nets, must be consider- 

 ed as holding their right subject to such control, 

 as the interest of the coast proprietors may require. 

 In this case, the natural order of things is inverted ; a 

 right, acquired by purchace or succession, is in- 

 fringed on, (whether that iufringment be great or 

 small, does not alter the justice of the case) if the 

 upper heritors are not as free to fish in any way 

 they please, as the lower ; while these latter receive 

 all at once and at the expence of the others, a right 

 they have not acquired as a free gift. 



Now, whether it is consistent with sound policy, 

 that chartered and patrimonial rights should be 

 violated, because the holders are not able to exactly 

 ascertain the actual damage any infringement on 

 them may occasion, I leave to be determined in 

 the proper place ; but this I may venture to say, 

 that it is impolitic to raise questions in which 

 such important points are involved for such an 

 object as that now proposed. For, if we make 

 an admission, of what, in point of fact, I am sure 

 cannot be made clear, that is, that by the new 

 mode of fishing, there will be a considerable 

 excess in supply over that attainable by the 

 old mode;* it is surely not sufficiently important 



* i. e. "supposing- all yairs, cruives, and stake- nets, were re- 

 moved." 



