( 47 ) 



LXI. Row are fisheries worked under British rule ? 

 HOW fisheries arc worked comes next for consideration. In 

 under British rule. permanently-settled estates, unless a 



stipulation exists, of course they go with the land. In some 

 places the adjacent villagers or people are considered to 

 possess certain communal rights with respect to them, in 

 many cases, I suspect, through a misapprehension ; thus, 

 when proved that a land-owner has only received one-third 

 or two-thirds of the proceeds, it appears to have heen ruled 

 that the remainder is the property of the neighbouring 

 people, whereas in reality it only expressed the share of 

 the fisherman in re-payment for his labour in taking the 

 fish. It is the rule in India and Burma to remunerate by 

 the proceeds obtained : sometimes the fisherman has to sell 

 his share to the contractor or lessee at a given rate ; more 

 rarely the fish are sold, and he obtains a proportion of the 

 money, or he may have it in kind. I do not propose enter- 

 ing upon how the fisheries have been or are being let, but 

 regarding any regulations which exist in regard to the pro- 

 tection of the fish from wasteful destruction, and how license to 

 capture the finny tribes has gradually crept in, until it has 

 become a great abuse. In but few localities has it been 

 stated that Government have never received some share of 

 the fisheries, although such has been collected in different 

 modes, either by selling direct, which is letting or leasing, or 

 by a moturfa tax, which is clearly a license to net, either in 

 the form of a capitation tax on the fisherman, or one on his 

 implement of chase, identical with the tax now imposed in 

 fishery districts in England, and has nothing whatever to do 

 with letting the fishery. In fact, it is the same as a person who 

 takes out a license to use a gun, but that license gives him 

 no right to trespass on his neighbour's property to shoot his 

 game. It may be generally asserted that Government have, 

 until of late years, exercised their right as landlord in letting 

 their fisheries, but they have not regulated in any way how 

 those fisheries should have been worked, and at last, in many 

 places, came to the decision to permit an unlimited license, 

 perhaps partly due to the deterioration in their value. Thus, 

 in Madras, the moturfa tax was abolished, and this doubtless 

 in districts was equivalent to, amongst the fishermen, 

 permitting them to capture fish without payment in any of 

 the Government waters ; and by the orders of the Revenue 

 Board in 1849, it will be seen (para. 146) many leased fisheries 

 were given up to the general public. This intended boon has 



