152 SALMON-FISHEEY OF SCOTLAND. 



not only in the streams within the bounds of our grants, but 

 also in the rivers beyond the bounds of our grants, belong so 

 naturally to the land, like the grass which grows upon it, that 

 the one follows the other as a matter of course ; besides, the 

 Crown has granted to us the trouts in all adjacent rivers, let 

 them belong to whom they may, by the words piscationibus et 

 pertinentilus in our titles ; and, moreover, trouts are res nullius, 

 which belong to nobody : see upon what a firm and consistent 

 footing our right stands ! The owners of the salmon-fishery, 

 on the other hand, say, The Crown has granted to us the trouts 

 with the rivers, or as a part and pertinent of the salmon-fishery, 

 of which they are undoubtedly a more natural pertinent than 

 of your land; and as we hay e. possessed them, as such, for time 

 immemorial, our right to them is indisputable. Such, we un- 

 derstand, are the arguments or grounds of right of both parties ; 

 but we must follow them more into detail. 



First. — As to trouts being a natural pertinent of land, we 

 think we need scarcely say much about the matter, since it 

 speaks for itself. We may perhaps be next told, that partridges 

 are a natural pertinent of water. " Fishes of any kind," says 

 Stair, " cannot be considered as annexis ovconnexis of lajid, having 

 so little connection with land." The right of a man to the trouts 

 in the streams on his estate arises, not because fishes are a na- 

 turalpertinent of lands, which is nonsense, in anywayin whichit 

 is taken, but because they are upon his property. Besides, who 

 else could claim them ? Thus, a man has a right to the trouts 

 in a pond — not because the trouts in the pond are pertinent of 

 the adjacent laTid, but because the pond belongs to him ; and, 

 on the same principle, he has a right to the trouts in his 

 streams.* The streams belong to him, and consequently the 

 trouts in them. But this is very different from the trouts in 

 rivers beyond the bounds of his lands or grant, though the Court 

 of Session seem to have blended both together. Such rivers do 



* Lawyers tell us that the game upon a man's estate does not belong to him, 

 but that he may prevent others from committing a trespass upon his ground. 

 Of what me is all this tortuosity 1 Would it not be more simple to say at once, 

 the game belongs to the owner of the estate while it continues upon his pro- 

 perty? His right to the trouts is stronger, because they do not leave the 

 streams upon his estate. 



