53 



people. Sir James Maitland had gone into the matter in 

 a most lucid and instructive manner, and there was no 

 doubt that when the Paper was disseminated it would do 

 a vast amount of good. The only difficulty that he saw 

 was, that it did not appear to go hand in hand with the 

 ideas of some scientific gentlemen, who maintained that 

 protection was not necessary to some of our fish. He 

 contended, however, that if an intelligent country con- 

 sidered fish culture of service at all, it should also adopt 

 every possible mode of protecting the fish. It would be 

 no use for a pisciculturist to trouble himself to reproduce 

 fish in great numbers if the intelligence and legislation of 

 the country did not protect that which had been produced, 

 and. if every one were allowed to fish without any control. 

 It seemed to him, therefore, that it behoved all who were 

 interested in this matter to join in every possible measure 

 to enhance the production of fish, either by natural or 

 artificial means, and also to protect the fish afterwards. 

 Nearly every civilized country possessed laws for the 

 purpose of protecting fish ; and when some gentlemen 

 came forward and said that fish could not be exterminated, 

 the consequence must be that all these protective laws 

 were a mistake, and that every one should be allowed to 

 kill and eat as he pleased. He maintained, on the other 

 hand, that it was the duty of the legislature of every 

 intelligent country to suppress intemperance of all kinds, 

 not only in the matter of liquids, but in killing fish ; and 

 to pass judicious laws for the benefit of mankind. If any 

 law were more judicious than another, it was that the 

 waters should be protected from the inordinate destruction 

 of man, in order that fish might be produced in larger 

 numbers, both as a luxury for the rich and for the benefit 

 of the poor. He felt that he was treading on somewhat 



