( 56 ) 



most three years of age, the more mature ones having heen 

 destroyed. And what is the result of this mode of treating 

 fisheries, as regards the fisherman ? Would prohibiting the 

 wasteful destruction of breeding and young fish benefit or 

 ruin their occupation ? I am compelled to enter rather 

 fully upon this question, as the well-worn epithet experience 

 is so often advanced, and that without any arguments to 

 back it, that the fisheries should be let alone, the fisher- 

 men being permitted to continue fishing as they always 

 have done, such having been, in operation for centuries, and 

 still fish being present in the fresh-waters. It will, however, 

 be apparent that such arguments entirely evade the points 

 at issue, as they assume that the fishermen continue fishing 

 as they have done from immemorial ages without any im- 

 provement in their means of capture : it also takes for grant- 

 ed that the captors of fish, the times employed in fishing, as 

 well as the fish-eating population, have remained stationary ; 

 and, lastly, that the fisheries are in an equally good condition 

 under the sway of Europeans, who mostly do not notice the 

 fresh-water fish, as they were in times gone-by, when natives 

 ruled who esteemed this article of food, and doubtless gave 

 protection to this legitimate source of revenue. The first 

 assumption being improbable, the second, doubtless, incor- 

 rect, and the last in well-populated districts being directly 

 opposed to the result of recent investigations. Even the 

 exponents of the let-alone system have not attempted to 

 demonstrate that these waters, where small fish are being 

 so wastefully destroyed, are insufficient to support a very 

 much larger number than they now contain. Every practi- 

 cal fisherman will assert they are, as a rule, insufficiently 

 stocked, and if such is the case, as I have no doubt it is, 

 and the fish were permitted fair play, a very much increased 

 supply would be the result. And what, it may be enquired, 

 would be the effect on the fisherman were restrictive rules 

 sanctioned, as regards his prospects ? Doubtless, many of 

 the women and children, who now destroy myriads of 

 fry and small fish, would have to cease such occupa- 

 tions, whilst agriculturists also would be unable to trap the 

 breeding-fish and fry in the paddy or irrigated fields. These, 

 however, would be temporary inconveniences, and would cease 

 with the season. One of the important results would, 

 however, be a vast increase in the non-migratory fishes, and 

 a considerable augmentation in this article of food, more 

 especially during the <?old months. These rules being 



