57 



reverse, and that it was navigable prior to their 

 erection, which obstructed and hindered the 

 free navigation of it ; as well as that the river 

 must have been naturally so, as no other means 

 of art appears at any time to have been made 

 use of to render it so. They prove also, that 

 not only the navigation belonged to the public, 

 but that thejishing also was preserved for their 

 use ; as the injury is said to be done, not to a 

 private individual, not even to the King him- 

 self, but to the injury of the King and his people, 

 and not in one of them is there a saving clause 

 of any private right of fishing or otherwise. 



But we come now to consider the Act relied 

 upon by those persons who claim the exclusive 

 right of fishing in the Thames, which, I believe, 

 is the statute of 4 and 5 William and Mary, 

 c. 23,* and is the one upon which every at- 

 tempt has yet been made to found a conviction 

 for fishing in the River Thames ^ for there is no 

 other statute upon which they have ventured 

 to proceed to defeat the public right, or that 

 a private right can be pretended to be sup- 

 ported by. 



* Or the 22nd and 23rd of Car. II. c. 25. 

 t It is difficult to know which, for both are equally irrele- 

 vant to the present question. 



