30 



individual merely ; for it is a question of law which I 

 am bound to construe as a judge, tied by precedents, and not 

 biassed by its consequences in any way. As to the various 

 questions of expediency, as to the new light which has 



4 been thrown, by great ability, on what it is alleged 

 ought to be the construction of the statutes, I am hum- 

 bly of opinion, that it is the province of the legislature 



c only to appreciate these, and apply the remedy, if wrong has 



* been done, not of your Lordships. You must tread in 

 c the footsteps of your predecessors ; you must separate 

 'the new lights, which have been recently thrown upon 

 ' this subject, from the case as it stood upon the old acts 



* of parliament, and the decisions of this Court. That 



* is all that you have to do ; you must consider these 



* matters only, and decide upon them, whatever injury 

 may be occasioned thereby to any person or body of 

 men ; and if there shall be any wrong done to the public 

 interest, by any judgment that you may pronounce, you 

 may rest in tranquillity, in the assurance that THE WRONG 



* WILL BK RECTIFIED BY THE POLICY AXD WISDOM OF 



* THE LEGISLATURE.' 



The general question, then, whether as a great public 

 measure, Salmon fishing, by means of stake-nets, ought 

 or ought not to be prohibited, remains still to be determin- 

 ed by the result of an inquiry into their expediency or 

 inexpediency. It is not fettered by private rights in the 

 upper heritors, nor has it been judged of by the courts 

 of law. It lies with the legislature to inquire into the 

 policy and effects of the prohibition, and to alter and 

 amend the laws accordingly. 



Now, with reference to the simple question of the ex- 

 pediency or inexpediency of allowing stake-nets to be 

 used, the objections which have been stated to this mode 



