116 gALMONIDuSl OF BRITAIN". 



could be removed or modified : if tlie water is polluted : any question afEeoting 

 the breeding of the fish or the diseases they suffer from, in short, their enemies 

 and their friends in the widest acceptation of these terms. For there is a great 

 difference as to the result of killing these fish when in various conditions, thus a 

 fresh-run clean salmon may be one whose capture is desirable for supplying the 

 market during certain seasons of the year. In short, the destruction of one which 

 has spawned means simply the death of an individual fish, but the killing of one 

 about to spawn is equivalent to the destruction of what may be termed an entire 

 family. 



It has been the almost invariable rule wherever there existed a market for the 

 sale of salmon that whenever these fish from any cause began to increase in 

 numbers so have the engines for their destruction, and the higher the price of the 

 article the greater becomes the inducement for their capture. Fishermen as a rule 

 mostly act on the maxim to catch all they can, for were they not to do so their 

 neighbours would, while they are very regardless of how future years' supply is 

 to be maintained. The consequences may be seen, as already stated, that these 

 fish are now absent from the Thames,* Medway, and some of our other rivers (see 

 p. 2 ante). 



* As regards the salmon fisheries of the Thames which were formerly esteemed among the most 

 celebrated in the kingdom, but are now extinct, we find numerous facts detaOed. We are informed 

 that for several centuries a tithe of Thames salmon had been claimed and allowed to the Abbot 

 of St. Peter's at Westminster, on the plea that when St. Peter (according to the legend) came 

 and consecrated that church, he promised the fishermen who ferried him across the river a 

 plentiful supply of fish provided he ceased fishing on Sundays and gave a tithe of his captures 

 to the Abbot. This was paid until 1382 and then stopped, and which is said to be doubtless the 

 reason why salmon have now disappeared from this river. Mr. Hepworth Dixon, in a paper on the 

 Tower of London, observed that, " One of the points which King John had been forced to surrender 

 to his people was a claim, on the part of his Tower-warden, to catch fish in the Thames 

 improperly, by placing kidels in the stream. For three or four reigns, the great Mdel question was 

 our chief domestic topic ; agitating Essex, Kent, and Middlesex, especially the river-side taverns ; 

 leading to endless orders in council, and many disorders in the streets. A kidel was a weir, fitted 

 up with nets ; in fact, a dishonest fish-trap. The King's people not only set their own kidels in the 

 Thames, but sold their rights of dishonest fishing to others, so as to interfere with the legitimate 

 trade, to destroy the sahnon and shad, and to diminish poorer people's food. Lionheart tried to 

 settle this kidel dispute. In the eighth year of his reign, being pressed by his wars, he made a merit 

 of giving up his right of kideling the Thames ; enacting — as the grant expresses it — that, for the 

 salvation of his soul, for the salvation of his father's soul, for the salvation of the souls of all 

 his ancestors, as well as for the good of his realm, there shall be no more kidels. I am sorry to 

 say his royal word was not kept ; and it is to be hoped that the souls of these pious kings do not 

 suffer for his servant's fault. Even after the Great Charter had been sworn, the Tower wardens 

 put kidels into the river ; and you may read, in the ' Liber Albus,' that they long continued to 

 vex the fishmongers, not only by taking salmon unfairly from the water, but by seizing on any 

 stray waggons of oysters, mussels, red herrings, and smelts, which they found coming into London 

 overland." 



A petition to Edward III. (between 1327 and 1377) concluded, "Awaiting which, most 

 redoubtable Lord, if it shall please your Highness thus to make order for the next three years, 

 aU your people repairing to London or bordering the river, shall buy as good a salmon for two 

 shillings as they now get for ten." Mr. Lovegrove gave the Commissioners in 1860, a list of the 

 sahnon captured in the Thames at Boulter's Loch and Pool from 1794 to 1821, two having been 

 taken in this last year, but none in 1820. The total numbers of fish for those years inclusive 

 were 488, weight 7346J lb. Also at p. 75 of the Inspectors of Salmon Fisheries' Report 

 for 1879, may be found the following : — About 1820 a salmon of 20 lb. weight was caught 

 by a fisherman named Finmore. It was taken in a deep hole near Surly Hall, just above Windsor. 

 This was sold to the king for a guinea a pound, who then resided at Virginia Water. A sahnon 

 was wanted in 1821 for the coronation of King George IV., and SOs per pound was offered. No 

 sahnon could be caught in time for the dinner, but the day after two were caught between Black- 

 wall and Woolwich Beaches." In 1830 Mr. Gould stated one was caught at Monkey Island bank 

 by Mr. Wilder. 



In the Field, May 28rd 1885, it was remarked — " 1860, in which year the occurrence of a salmon 

 in the lower part of the Thames was reported in the press, and following the report was the 

 announcement that the fish was the first that had been seen in the river for twenty years. The 

 Morning Chronicle corrected this supposition by stating that a salmon had been caught in 1859. 

 Then it was urged by enthusiasts that salmon were once more coming back to the Thames. It 

 seemed certain that one was caught, though not more than one, in each of the years 1861 and 

 1862. The Thames Angling Preservation Society, taking the matter in hand, in 1862 hatched 

 their first salmon turning in several thousand fry. In 1863 two smolts were declared to have been 

 caught ofl Southend at the confluence of the Thames and the Medway, and Mr. Buckland, with 



