8 SAlMON-nSHEEY OP SCOTLAND. 



whatever of the matter. But the owners of the rivers, whose 

 properties were thus destroyed, maintaiaed, on the other hand, 

 that the supply of fish, so far from being inexhaustible, was, 

 from .the very nature and habits of the salmon, necessarily 

 limited ; that, in point of fact, their fisheries had decreased 

 exactly in proportion as the stake-nets were productive ; and 

 that, consequently, there was no absolute increase of supply, as 

 the owners of the stake-nets had pretended, nothing, in short, ex- 

 cept an increased capture at some points, and a correspondingly 

 diminished capture at others. By all who know anything of 

 the subject, these are now admitted as unquestionable truths, 

 yet nobody believed them. It was universally supposed that 

 the opposition of the river proprietors to the new engines arose, 

 not so much from the alleged interception of the fish, as from 

 the ruin of their monopoly, as it was termed, consequent on the 

 introduction of these machines, and from a selfish desire of 

 keeping up the price of salmon in the market. They were 

 branded as monopolists, who would be content with nothing 

 short of a monopoly price for their commodity ; while the 

 generous and liberal owners of stake-nets were recommended to 

 public favour as meif who, haAong augmented the supply, 

 sought no more than the rate of the market, whatever it might 

 be. In point of fact, however, the market price of salmon never 

 fell one farthing below its ordinary average level, even while the 

 stake-net manner of fishing was at its height ; and it would have 

 been marvellous if it had, seeing that, in truth, no additional 

 quantity of fish had been sent to market, and the former rela- 

 tion between supply and demand remained undisturbed. But, 

 notwithstanding this decisive fact, the plausible fallacies of the 

 stake-net owners continued to be credited ; and no regard 

 whatever was paid to the statements of the " fresh-water pro- 

 prietors'," as they were derisively called, either by the public, 

 or in the courts of law, where the new engines were protected 

 as far as the law would possibly permit. 



Some of the judges compared the river heritors to men who 

 would wish to prevent their neighbours raising superior crops 

 of grain, lest their own should, in consequence, fall in price. 

 But there is obviously no analogy whatever between the real 



