January 21, 1893 ] 
Bye-law 20. They advise that if the smelt net 
be allowed above London Bridge it should not be 
used after March 14. 
Bye-law 23.—The society warmly approves of 
this rule, but ventures to offer the following 
suggestion ; strike out the words “ when angling ” 
and insert “ and then only.” 
Bye-law 24.—Night fishing from boat or punt 
should be prohibited in all parts of the river 
Thames, as it will be dangerous to navigation, 
and afliord an easy means of poaching with nets, 
&c., which cannot be used by bank anglers. 
Clause B.—To add the words “or disturb them in 
their passage over or through any river.” They 
are induced to make this suggestion from having 
observed vast quantities of small fish attempting 
to ascend the weir shortly hefore the close season. 
Bushels of these fish were taken by the cast-net. 
Bye-law 27.—This bye-law as drawn is a 
source of great disappointment to the Richmond 
Piscatorial Society. They, in common with all 
the other angling and preservation societies, had 
suggested a much higher standard for nearly all 
sorts of fish, and in consequence of this unanimity 
had fully expected to have seen those suggestions 
embodied in the new rules ; but they find, with 
the single exception of barbel, the sizes are the 
same as formerly. It cannot be questioned that 
no simpler or better means could be devised for 
increasing the stock of fair-sized fish than return¬ 
ing to the water all the small ones. Moreover, the 
rinciple of this proposition is already conceded 
y the existence of the present bye-laws, and 
surely, when the anglers themselves offer to 
diminish their sport by returning the small fish, 
the guardians of the fishery should be delighted 
to accede to their suggestion. They would urge 
that gudgeon be included in the list of protected 
fish, as this is not only the finest edible fish in 
Ihe river, but also the principal food of pike and 
trout. It surely should be preserved. 
Bye-laws 31 and 32.—The society view with ex¬ 
treme regret and apprehension the new privileges 
conferred upon the riparian owners by these two 
laws. It is to be feared that the propagation and 
preservation of fish by various societies estab¬ 
lished for the purpose will be abandoned if their 
fish are to be taken from the river with nets of even 
smaller mesh thanwereformerly allowed, and with¬ 
out the consent of the conservators being obtained. 
Bye-law 34.—To add, in the ca.se of such mis¬ 
conduct on the part of professional fishermen, his 
licence may be cancelled at the discretion of the 
conservators. 
To Clause 35, defining fisherman, add, “or any 
licensed fisherman who does not own a boat or 
punt.” 
m 
The attention of the Lord Mayor of London, 
who is, ex officio, a conservator of the Thames, has 
been drawn to the Proposed Thames Fishery 
Bye-laws. He has promised to desire the other 
members of the Corporation who are on the 
Board of Conservancy to consider the matter. 
I shall be vastly surprised if the representatives 
of the City will allow bye-laws to be passed 
which would have a bad effect on the Thames 
fisheries. Unfortunately aldermen have not, as 
a rule, much knowledge of fishery preservation, 
and it is therefore necessary, whenever the con¬ 
servators, as a body, threaten to do anything 
which would be adverse to the interests of London 
anglers, to call the attention of the Lord Mayor 
and his colleagues to the matter. 
The London anglers have spoken. The dele¬ 
gates of eighty-four anglers’ clubs at the Foresters’ 
Hall, on Monday, represented something like 
four thousand five hundred anglers, and these 
with no uncertain voice carried a series of resolu¬ 
tions which must convince the Conservators that 
London anglers are to a man against them in 
their policy of deferring to the wishes of the 
persons who lay claim to the fisheries of the 
Thames. Resolutions were arrived at which were 
entirely in accord with those passed by the 
several Thames fishery preservation societies 
which protect the river between London and 
Oxford, and with the views repeatedly expressed 
in these column.s. 
THE EISHING GAZETTE 
Thehe are two Acts which have to be examined. 
In 1883 there was a Thames Act passed, giving 
the conservators power to tax launch owners, and 
making it an offence to navigate any vessel at such 
speed as would endanger life or cause damage to 
the banks, “ or to any other property.” Now I take 
it that a fishery is “ property,” and that a launcb 
driver could be summoned for driving his launch 
at such speed as to injure a fishery. Note that no 
particular rate of speed is mentioned. In each case 
the question is not how many miles an hour, but 
was damage being done or life endangered ? 
Looking at the Thames Act of 18(J4,1 find that 
the Conservators are given powei’s to make bye¬ 
laws “ for the preserving and regulating of the 
fisheries in the river Thames and the preser¬ 
vation of the fish therein; for the prohibition of 
the use of nets and apparatus improper to be used 
for taking fish; for determining the times during 
which the taking of any particular kinds of fish 
may not be practised.” It will be seen from the 
foregoing remarks that launches may not be 
worked to the injury of “ property,” i.e., fisheries, 
and that the conservators have wide general 
powers to preserve fish. Therefore I venture to 
say that unless there are Acts of which I am not 
aware, the conservators have the power to make 
a bye-law to the effect that during the fence 
months and, for the matter of that, at all other 
times as well, no vessel shall be driven at such a 
rate of speed as to injure the fisheries of the 
Thames. It may be said that such a bye-law 
might have a bad effect on the trade which is 
carried on on the river, but if that objection is 
taken and pressed, then steam tugs might be 
excepted from the operation of the bye-law, 
though why steam tugs should have the privilege 
of injuring fisheries I do not know. 
Has not the time come when anglers might 
ask the Conservators to abolish netting on the 
Thames altogether? N.B.—The conservators have 
the power to entirely stop netting on the Upper 
Thames. The netting rights of private persons 
are not reserved to them by Act of Parliament, 
but are expressly left under the operation of the 
bye-laws. ___ 
M.vny anglers who visit Killaloe will be sorry 
to hear that the obliging station-master, Mr. 
Grace, has been dismissed from his post for no 
fault, after thirty years’ service. Mr. Grace 
writes me that he is now dependent for a liveli¬ 
hood on the rooms which his wife lets to anglers, 
and as these are both clean and comfortable, 
according to the people who have stayed in them 
often, several seasons in succession, let it be 
hoped that he and his family will prosper. Clean, 
comfortable lodgings are quite uncommon in 
Ireland. I hear that a small local agitation has 
arisen with a view to Mr. Grace’s reinstatement. 
There is a bit of free water at Killaloe in which 
over twenty salmon were killed early last spring. 
Templar. 
The Suffolk anp Essex Stour.—Sea Fisheries 
Regulation Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Viet., c. 54).— 
Order conferring the powers of a local fisheries 
committee on the Board of Conservators of the 
Stour (Suffolk and Essex) Fishery District. 
Whereas the Board of Conservators of the Stour 
(Suffolk and Essex) Fishery District are a board 
of salmon conservators, having jurisdiction over 
the area comprised within the fishery district of 
the River Stour (dividing the counties of Suffolk 
and Essex) formed and defined under the Salmon 
and Freshwater Fisheries Acts, 1861 to 1886, and 
the Fisheries Act, 1891, by a certificate of the 
Board of Trade dated the 23rd day of September, 
1891 : And whereas an application for the 
creation of a sea fisheries district comprising that 
area or part thereof has been refused : Now, 
therefore, the Board of Trade, by virtue of the 
powers conferred upon them by the Sea Fisheries 
Regulation Act, 1888, and otherwise, do hereby 
confer upon the said board of conservators the 
powers of a local fisheries committee with respect 
to the above-mentioned area underand in accord¬ 
ance with the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 
1888. Signed and sealed by order of the Board 
of Trade this 12th day of January, 1893.—(Signed) 
Courtenay Boyle, Acting Secretary to the said 
Board. 
[TFe do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions 
expressed by our Correspondents.'] 
“One of the charms of angling is that it presents an 
endless field for argument, speculation, and experi¬ 
ment.”—T. E. Pbitt. 
THE PROPOSED NEW THAMES FISHERY' 
BYHl-LAWS. 
Dear Mr. Editor, —As an old angler I feel in¬ 
terested in the controversy respecting the pro¬ 
posed new bye-laws for the Thames Fishery, and 
especially as an angler, during nearly thirty years, 
for Thames pike. Remembering the grand sport 
that, years ago, could be obtained among those fish, 
before such hosts of “ trailers,” boatists, and steam- 
launches frequented the river, I naturally am sur¬ 
prised that the conservators of the Thames in¬ 
structed Mr. Willis Bund, of the River Severn 
Fishery Board, to draw up a scale of sizes—in 
some instances so ridiculously small for the fishes 
of our metropolitan river. I’ossibly Severn grows 
no big pike, and chub may not be valued as sport¬ 
giving fish in waters which hold salmon. But 
here, on Thames, anglers do value those fish, and 
a sure and certain way to exterminate them both is to 
use baby chub as baits, to catch immature and 
consequently infertile jack. 
The late Frank Buckland maintained that jack 
were infertile unless of more than three pounds 
weight, and I doubt if one of twenty-two inches 
(the newly-proposed extreme length) would weigh 
that. “ If all the chickens were killed how should 
we be off for laying-hens?” and “ if all the calves, 
what about beef?” also, if immature fisb, too 
young to reproduce their species, what is to 
become of the angler’s sport, to say nothing as 
to fresh-water _/i8/i-/ood; and a pike—in season— 
nicely roasted or baked, with savoury stuffing, is, 
as Izaak Walton affirmed, “ a dish of meat, too 
good for any but anglers, or honest men.” My 
own opinion is, that a jack of legal “ killable size ” 
should be twenty-four inches long. 
The “ slaughter of so many innocents ” during 
the last two decades has depleted the Thames of 
pike, and it is a greater triumph to catch a ten- 
pounder now, than it was to capture a twenty- 
pounder when I began to fish the river.—Y'ours, 
&c., _ A. Jardine. 
Sir, —Some months since you afforded me 
space for a short review of the suggestions of the 
various angling societies and associations, made 
at the invitation of the Thames Conservancy 
Board, for the revision of the bye-laws. It was 
my intention, on the appearance of the proposed 
bye-laws as drafted, to have treated them in the 
same spirit, pointing out the good that undoubt¬ 
edly exists in some of them, as, for instance, the 
scheme for the gradual extinction of the netting 
between Isleworth and London; the abolition of 
trailing; the retention of the present fence 
seasons, &c.; and suggesting improvements in 
these, and alterations in others. But the angling 
mind appears to be now too much irritated by the 
clauses seeking to confer fresh privileges upon 
the riparian owners, to allow of any calm con¬ 
sideration of the byo-laws as a whole. I will, 
therefore, with your permission, confine myself 
to contrasting the conduct of the two bodies most 
interested in the subject. 
It must have been observed that the angling 
and preservation societies, in discussing the 
various propositions for altering the bye-laws, 
although exhibiting various degrees of knowledge 
of the subject, all appeared to be actuated by one 
common principle— the improvement of the fishery ; 
and however they differed in opinion, they 
invariably sought that end—not at other people’s 
expense, but by relinquishing parts or degrees of 
their sport, they offered to give up certain 
privileges, that the fish might be increased in 
size or number. Some consented to shorten their 
angling season, some offered to pay a rod lax, 
some to give up trailing or gorge baiting; all 
agreed to put back small fish, frequently caught 
after great exercise of patience, and which they 
are now allowed to retain. In not one instance 
did the anglers ask for greater rights or powers 
of fishing, but by imposing restrictions upon 
themselves they hoped to attain the desired end. 
While the anglers were thus occupied, another 
