66 SALMON-FISHEET OF SCOTLAND. 



in property, and all the right of the Crown to the whole, or any 

 individual part, of such property, from that moment ceased. 

 In short, the right to any subject must depend on the Tiatwre of 

 the subject. 



That a salmon-river with its salmon is as much a property 

 as a dove-cot with its pigeons, or a rabbit-warren with its 

 rabbits, or even a sheep-farm with its sheep, we think is indis- 

 putable. The salmon are bred in the river as the sheep are on 

 the farm, and the instincts by which the one are attached to its 

 parent stream, are at least as strong as those which bind the 

 other. The temporary migratory absence of the salmon can 

 make no difference, for the certainty of their return renders the 

 right of property in them as secure as to sheep which may be 

 sent to winter elsewhere. We have, however, heard lawyers 

 doubt that salmon-fisheries could be called property. If a 

 salmon-river is not a property, what is it ? Is it a servitude ? 

 If it is a servitude, on what property is it a servitude ? We 

 know of no other distinction except property, and servitudes 

 upon property — so that if it is not the one, it must be, neces- 

 sarily, the other. But the salmon are, as we said, bred in the 

 rivers, and no animals can be bred on a sei-vitude. A salmon- 

 river is, therefore, a property, or it is nothing. On the other 

 hand, a coast-fishing, or a right to intercept the passing fish, 

 which, when they reach the rivers, remain there, can from its 

 very nature be only a servitude — though it may be attached to 

 property or land. It is to all intents and purposes a servitude 

 upon the rivers, a servitude which the Crown had no more a 

 right, as we have said, to inflict upon the rivers, than it had to 

 impose servitudes upon lands, or than it would have to author- 

 ise the interception of the pigeons returning to their cots. If 

 the right were admitted, it might, as we said before, be so ex- 

 tended in aU parts along the coasts, as to occasion the utter 

 extinction of the river fisheries — ^which, alone, ought to show 

 its illegality, as being absolutely incompatible with every prin- 

 ciple of protection to property. If salmon were like haddocks, 

 there could be no servitude on the river properties, because the 

 owners of tlie rivers could claim no right of property in chance 

 fish which did not belong to the rivers ; but we can see no 



