THOUGHTS ON BIG FISH 163 



mouthful. It was a magnificent fish with deep 

 golden flanks, and it looked fully a yard long, 

 perhaps more. I never dared to say what I really 

 thought at the time as to its weight, but I have 

 always boldly maintained that it could not have 

 been less than fifteen pounds. That would be a 

 modest and retiring estimate for the fish I saw. 

 Later in the same year there was some confirmation 

 of the existence of this monster, when an angler 

 who had been trying for the barbel which sometimes 

 lie in a hole a little higher up — or even, in the early 

 weeks of the season, on the shallow itself — returned 

 with a thrilling story of a colossal trout which had 

 taken the worm and smashed his tackle after a 

 furious battle. What was the fish's ultimate fate 

 I know not. I never heard any more of it. 



I have seen a few other very big trout in the 

 Kennet, nothing to compare with that one, but fish 

 that might be nearly ten pounds. In most years 

 there are one or two which live close to the water 

 bridge right in Newbury town, and I have seen a 

 monster or so in other parts of the river. The 

 biggest Thames fish I ever saw was the one in 

 Benson weirpool which I mentioned in the last 

 chapter, a fish of possibly thirteen or fourteen 

 pounds from the splash of him. I remember 

 a huge trout that used to live in the Colne 

 at Uxbridge, which looked like a ten-pounder, but 



