MU. T. SOUTMWEM- ON TIIR S.MKLT IN NORFOLK WATERS. 
48 .') 
of the rivers of America, .Smelts are only allowed to be caught by rod and 
line ; and brickla^'ers and other mechanics, who cannot work at their trade 
during the frosts of winter, are enabled to catch from two to three dollars’ 
worth of Smelts a day, with a beam polo, and a line and hook. This is more 
particularly carried on with sncce.ss at Tjynn, M:lxs., amongst other places. 
In Maryland, large quantities arc hatched artificially, and turned off into 
the rivers. By so doing, nint}'-nine per cent, of the eggs become fish ; 
wherea.s, if left to nature, not more than ten per cent. l>ecome fish.” 
]Mr. Harding concludes a.s follows: — “I am of opinion that, if 
the regulations and restrictions of the Norfolk and Suffolk Fisheries 
Act, 1877 are rigi<lly enforced, and a little money spent upon 
artificial h.atching, the river Ouse in two years’ time will become 
well stocked with Smelts and other fish ; and when that takes 
{(lace, 1 have every reason to believe that Sole.s ami other .sea-fish 
will be attracted into the \Va.sh in much larger ipiantities. 
“ I have been told, upon reliable authority, that 300 bushels of 
shotten or spent Smelts have been caught and sold in Lynn during 
the first two weeks of this mouth of April [1883].” 
I think it will bo found that these large ([uantities of 
unseasonable Smelts are taken in the great Fen drains which 
discharge into the river Ouse some miles above the town of Lynn, 
and that they are out of the jurisdiction of the Conservators under 
the Act of 1877. But whilst the use of stow nets, o.stensibly to 
take bait for eel fishing, with a mesh small enough to stop even 
shrimps is allowed, even where the Conservancy Board is supposed 
to have power, very little can bo done. In 1884 a prosecution was 
instituted by the Lynn authorities against some of these so-called 
bait fishers, the defendants being charged with taking Smelts 
during the close time established under the bye-laws of the 
“ Norfolk and Suffolk Fisheries Act, 1877,” also with using a net 
having a mesh of illegal size ; but strange to say the magistrates 
decided that Smelts were not “ fresh-water fish,” and therefore 
the Conservators had no power to make laws concerning them ; 
a decision which if maintained would be fatal to the excellent 
bye-laws now in force with reganl to this fishery throughout 
the two counties. But it is scarcely to be believed, as pointed 
out by jMr. Edward Field, the late honorary secretary to the 
Conservators, that the inspectors of fisheries would have allowed, 
or Her Majesty’s principal Secretary of State would have 
sanctioned, special provisions for the protection of Smelts, if they 
