142 



Appendices to Second Annual Report 



point where the waters of the river flowed into the sea at low water. 

 The lowest of Lord Selkirk's yairs is about three, the highest five miles 

 above that point. 



The police also mentioned 7 small nets used for taking both white fish 

 and salmon, as to which see supra, p. 138 ; infra, pp. 142, 143. 



II I. — Wigtownshire. 



The fixed engines reported by the Police were 44. 

 The number claimed was 47, with 80 pockets. 

 Certificates of privilege have been granted for 15, with 33 pockets. 

 44 engines, embracing 60 pockets have been ordered to be removed, 

 chiefly in connection with Crown fishings. 

 No appeals were taken in these cases. 



Before concluding we may mention that after the judgements of the 

 First Division of the Court of Session above-mentioned were pronounced, 

 applications were made on behalf of several proprietors for special cases 

 or alteration of their certificates. We held that we had no power so to 

 act where appeals had not been taken or not duly insisted in. This has 

 resulted in considerable hardship in several cases. 



For instance, so far as we can see, the fixed engines in the River Cree 

 on the fishings of Mrs Grant of Barholm, which we ordered to be re- 

 moved, stand precisely in the same position as regards privilege with 

 those of the Earl of Selkirk and the Burgh of Kirkcudbright; but Mrs 

 Grant, after having given notice of appeal, intimated her intention of 

 acquiescing in the order of removal, and asked us to interfere with her 

 tenant, who had continued to fish after the date fixed by the order of 

 removal, but gave it up on our remonstrating. 



Her claim had been keenly opposed by the Earl of Galloway, an ex 

 adverso proprietor, and had Mrs Grant persevered in her appeal, he would 

 have been entitled to appear and be heard for his interest. 



Again, Mr Murray Stewart of Broughton and Cally, who for the sake 

 of improving the river fishings had withdrawn all his fixed engines but 

 one during the years 1861-64, thought it would be important that his 

 certificate for that one should be expressed in the terms used by the 

 Court in regard to the Newbie fishings. We considered we had no 

 power to interfere. 



In the circumstances above mentioned we felt some hesitation in 

 taking up the case of the nets called paidle nets, and from the conclusion 

 arrived at there will be found difficulty in reconciling the declared right 

 of fishing for white fish with fixed engines and the due protection of the 

 right of salmon fishing. That conclusion we came to after a full inquiry 

 both as to the nets we ordered to be removed and the others complained 

 of by Mr Mackenzie, and the inquiry was extended to other fisheries 

 where similar, though not identical, nets were used. Some of thesB 

 other nets were used under special licences from the proprietor of the 

 salmon fishery when they were set, and were not so high as those 

 ordered to be removed. They are now set under various restrictions, as, 

 for instance, that they shall not be nearer low-water mark than 300 

 yards, and that the pockets shall have no covers.' Even under these 

 conditions they certainly sometimes catch salmon, but the proprietor 

 could not complain, as he himself regulated the construction of the nets 

 and claimed no certificates for them as privileged fixed engines. 



