40 



instance of the harm done by enthusiasts who bring only a httle 

 knowledge to bear upon a subject which cannot be discussed properly 

 except after a prolonged study of a number of infinitely varied 

 experiences at the waterside. 



The statements in " The Salmon Fly," which for some inscrutable 

 reason, were despised by the critic — a gentleman who bears a name, 

 Baden- I^owell, that has won everlasting renown in other (and slightly 

 drier) fields (a little " f " please, Mr. Printer) — were the outcome of 

 long and patient observation. It may be stated in the most emphatic 

 manner possible, that they had never been hinted at, or even 

 previously presented to the Publie in any shape or form, at least in 

 the way of calling rivers " Grey," " Red," etc. They referred to the 

 fixed policy of using certain flies on certain occasions — flies specifically 

 characterised, as the occasion dictates, by fibres of this or that colour 

 in the tail, body, and wings. They were based on stubborn facts (a) 

 that salmon act according to certain predispositions ; (b) that they 

 take certain natural flies ; (c) that when they are immovable as the 

 rock of the river bed to-day, and give way to the artless lure of the 

 raw recruit to-morrow, they are governed almost invariably by some 

 direct cause, and do not act under the influence of mere caprice. And 

 the author supported these facts by an overwhelming array of 

 evidence, well-founded, and calculated to explain j^roblems otherwise 

 inexplicable. 



These statements are stamped by the critic as rubbish. 



It is very easy for the writer to exclaim " Rubbish," as easy as it 

 was for the old lady to believe in the efficacy of that blessed word 

 " Mesopotamia." 



For the sake of the author's chain of reasoning which holds the 



