mode of fishing fell under the prohibition in the statute- 

 book. They had nothing to do with it. They had to take 

 the law as they found it, fettered by the precedents and 

 usages of former times. And one and all of them, accord- 

 ingly, laid out of view the question of expediency, leaving 

 it to the legislature, to whom it properly belonged. The 

 late Lord Meadowbank is reported to have expressed him- 

 self in these distinct and decided terms. c Much /said his 

 Lordship, * has been said of the immense patrimonial 

 4 and national importance of the question. I beg leave 



* to say, that I divest my mind as much as possible of 



* the great value of the interests in competition. I com- 



* pel my mind to consider it as if it were the case of an 



' had any other object. In the first place, IT WOULD HAVE 

 ' BEEN INEXPEDIENT to prevent Salmon from being caught in 

 ' the greatest possible quantity, and the nearer the sea the better, 



* as thejish are the most likely to be in a good and Jirm state. 

 ' In the next place, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNJUST to deprive 

 ' inferior heritors of the natural advantages arising to them from 

 ' their actual situation. Many such advantages there are, and 

 ' they are inseparable from property. One man has an estate 



* near a sea-port, or adjoining a great turnpike road, and he 

 ' has benejits thence arising, which place him in a belter situation 

 ' than the generality of his neighbours. In the same way, where 



* a person has a Salrnon-Jishing, his property is enhanced in va- 

 ' lue by it ; and where it is near the sea, the property is still 

 ' more enhanced than if it were situated far up the river. All 

 ' these are adventitious benejits resulting from natural situation. 

 ' Such are the benefits enjoyed by the lower heritors in the 

 ' present case, and it would have been A MOST ABSURD AND 

 UNJUST POLICY, if the legislature had intended to prevent 

 ' them from catching as many Salmon as they could/ 



