SALMON LEGISLATION. 167 



and the tribunal thus strangely selected opened its door 

 only once, to hear a single witness on one of the sides, 

 and then sat down in private to tear the Bill to bits in 

 such way as the strength of the different interests might 

 permit. Apart altogether from any question as to the 

 merits of the decision arrived at, this was surely a very 

 anomalous and even irrational mode of procedure. Why 

 should public money and the labours of commissions 

 and committees be expended in ascertaining and decid- 

 ing upon the facts of the question, if another tribunal, in 

 no way qualified by knowledge, and somewhat disquali- 

 fied by position, is afterwards to throw aside the facts, 

 and reverse the decision ? What is the use of Committee 

 A deciding according to evidence, if appeal lies to Com- 

 mittee B deciding without evidence ? The result was 

 pretty much what was to have been expected after 

 much stumbling and blundering, the Committee, being 

 unable to agree upon any other course, came to decisions 

 which amounted to leaving fixed engines pretty much 

 as they were. The little, indeed, that the Committee 

 did propose to do on this subject was virtually a great 

 concession, though nominally a restriction. One peculi- 

 arity in the case of these engines had always been, that 

 they were not sanctioned either specifically or in inten- 

 tion by any charter, nor ever mentioned in any Act of 

 Parliament, excepting to be prohibited. By the Bill, as 

 altered by the Commons' Committee, they would have 

 been mentioned in an Act of Parliament for the purpose 

 of being dealt with on precisely the same footing as the 

 ancient and anciently recognised engines ; and though 

 the fixed-net owners, or rather claimants, might have 



