70 



peal, if they were dissatisfied with it. This, 

 however, as tradesmen, they thought it not 

 prudent to do, and therefore paid the penalty. 

 But had the conviction been removed into the 

 King's Bench, there cannot, I think, be the 

 slightest doubt of its being quashed.* 



It is, however, much to be regretted that this 

 question (like the Game Laws) has been pushed 

 so far as it has lately been done, by some 

 persons claiming this exclusive right, as it 

 must necessarily tend to an examination of 

 the law on the subject. It must also be 

 obvious, that much injury might be done to 



* A paragraph in Sir John Hawkins' edition of Walton's 

 Complete Angler deserves notice. (( But there are (says he) 

 some covetous rigid persons whose souls hold no sympathy 

 with those of the innocent angler, having neither got to be 

 lords of royalties or owners of land adjoining to rivers, and 

 these do by some apted clownish nature and education, for the 

 purpose, insult and domineer over the innocent angler, beating 

 him, breaking his rod, or at least taking it from him, and 

 sometimes imprisoning his person, as if he were a felon. 

 Whereas a true-bred gentleman scorns those spider-like at- 

 tempts, and will rather refresh a civil stranger at his table 

 than warn him from coming on his ground upon so innocent 

 an occasion. It should therefore be considered how far such 

 furious drivers are warranted by the law, and what the angler 

 may (in case of such violence) do in defence of himself ;" whkh 

 he proceeds to state. 



