77 



interference on their parts could produce any beneficial or last- 

 ing effect, or that the fisheries of any locality could be brought 

 to a permanently prosperous state by any but local means and 

 attention. 



Their remarks are thus ended : " From all the causes we 

 have adverted to, the Salmon Fisheries have not been in that 

 state of quick improvement which the capabilities of the coun- 

 try, and the provisions of the law, if cordially concurred in and 

 carried into effect, would produce. In fact, it would be hardly 

 practicable these fisheries could improve, the means and power 

 of capture being increased, whilst the attention to and protec- 

 tion of breeding were neglected, or at best left to the fortuitous 

 operation of natural events." 



After a perusal of this lengthened inquiry, in which the state- 

 ments of the Commissioners themselves have developed a better 

 policy to be observed for the legislation, control, and improve- 

 ment of the Salmon fisheries of Ireland, and in which their 

 explanation of their system of management is given: after 

 reflection on the disorganized state of this country, the peculiar 

 circumstances of the property concerned, and the failure to 

 execute much that the law pointed out to be done, the reader 

 may be asked whether he will join in the verdict of the Lessees* 

 of the northern rivers, that these Fisheries have diminished from 

 the constitution of the Act of 1842, and * under the regime of 

 the Fishery Board.' 



NOTE. 



Notes from, and Remarks on, the Evidence of J. C. Alcock, esq., 

 Member of the Leinster Circuit. [Report, 1849, pp. 452, &c.] 



' Before the Act of 1842, Baron Foster decided upon the construction 

 of the statute of 10 Charles I., that a stake-weir was absolutely pro- 

 hibited/ The words of Lord Hale are, that ' the jus privatum that is 

 acquired to the subject, either by patent or prescription, must not pre- 

 judice the jus publicum wherewith public rivers, or arms of the sea, 

 are affected for public use.' Mr. Alcock remarks ( that a weir is not 

 indictable qua a fishing engine, at common law, because you cannot 

 prescribe for a nuisance. There is no precedent of such an indictment. 

 It is not maintainable merely because it takes fish/ 



Lord Clare states, that if a party has a several fishery, he has a 

 common law right to take every fish coming within his fishery. ' If,' 

 observes Mr. Alcock, 'you indict a party as for an injury to the public 

 fishery, you must show that there is an injury to public right. Now 

 the difficulty in those cases is this ; and that is why there was a mis- 

 carriage in all the indictments. We proved that there was no possible 

 mode of taking the fish in this particular part of the river, except by 

 a fixed engine. The gravamen alleged was, that we prevented parties 



* See their memorial to the Lord Lieutenant, June, 1848, in the appendix to 

 the report of the select committee, page 152. 



