( 46 ) 



were no free fisheries, but people were licensed to fish for home 

 consumption on payment of a stipulated sum yearly to the 

 contractor. In the Himalayas (p. clvii), it is observed that 

 " the right of erecting weirs was not, I believe, carried on to 

 the same extent in former days as now. They were not then 

 so regularly or so generally made, and were not of the same 

 impassible nature as those now erected." " The people 

 living high up one of our rivers, an affluent of the Alek- 

 nunda, complained to me that, owing to the number of weirs, 

 they found that very few fish can find their way up as far as 

 their villages" (p. clvi). In Mysor and Coorg, I was in- 

 formed that under native rule indiscriminate fishing was not 

 permitted : contractors held the fisheries, and those not fisher- 

 men, who wished to capture fish for their own consumption but 

 not for sale, had to pay for such license. It appears to me that, 

 however beneficial our rule may have been in some respects, it 

 is most disastrous to fisheries, and future generations will havo 

 even more reason to complain than those of the present time, if 

 we do not revert to native precedent, modified by British law, 

 not as proposed in India, but as existing in England. Lastly, 

 I would draw attention to the fact, that even in places where 

 Government permits an unlimited license, the native land- 

 owners do not, but raise an income from it. Thus, in Bom- 

 bay (para. 97), it is stated in Wullubpur and Waree, which are 

 on the banks of the Myhee, and are talookdaree villages, the 

 Thakoos who are proprietors of them receive a third share of 

 the fish caught within those limits. In the Central Provin- 

 ces (para. 258), it is observed that in some portions of these 

 provinces the land-owners claim the right to fishing in the 

 rivers and streams running through their estates, and receive 

 fees from fishermen resorting to them. It seems to be held 

 by some officials that, as of late years license to fish lias been 

 permitted without the exaction of rent, therefore this 

 license may have obtained the force of right defensible by a 

 civil action by " the exercise of long practice having converted 

 it into communal rights," an error in law, as it will be seen 

 (para. 130) as no length of time can prevent an owner, in 

 which position Government stands, from putting an end to 

 such license. It will be perceived in the resolutions of the 

 Madras Revenue Board that the fisheries may be thrown 

 open to the public by their orders, and now the right of 

 Government to interfere with this license is questioned, 

 whereas, if it could have been legally permitted, why is it 

 not legally resumable ? 



