12 
THE EISHING GAZETTE 
■who thoroughly knew what they wanted, and 
their demands were moderate in every shape and 
form. They asked for nothing else then what 
was due to them, and what was in accordance 
with the spirit of the times. (Hear, hear.) Since 
the introduction of the Mundella Act little had 
been done with regard to the fence months being 
altered, and at the meeting referred to an 
alteration was suggested. The Association also 
asked, for an increased size of fish, but both 
applications had been most utterly disregarded. 
(Cheers., There was only one point in the 
framing of the new draft upon which the Con¬ 
servators had given them any satisfaction. He 
referred to their proposition to abolish trailing. 
(Cheers.) That step, he believed, was thoroughly 
appi’eciated by all anglers. (Hear, hear.) But 
what else had the Conservators done P They had 
increased the powers of the riparian owners, who, 
he thought, could take care of themselves very 
well, and look after their own interests without 
the assistance of the Thames Consfervators. 
(Hear, hear.) He maintained that their rights, 
instead of being increased, should have been very 
considerably curtailed. (Hear, hear.) There 
was no saying if the bye-law.s were made law how 
far they would be able to go. He could see in 
those laws the greatest amount of danger that 
had ever threatened the London anglers, for they 
would enable every small man claiming a few 
yards of frontage, every small miller, in fact, 
any one who had an atom of land adjacent 
to the river, to net it. Worse than that, 
the Conservators proposed to make a decrease in 
the size of the mesh of the net they were now 
using. (Shame.) They further intimated that 
they intended to abolish the licence to net which 
now had to he obtained by the riparian owners. 
(Shame.) Many of the riparian owners discarded 
the netting hecarrse it did not pay them to do it, 
hut now to make the matter a more paying con¬ 
cern, the size of mesh had been reduced fully 
twenty-five per cent. This was a very great 
source of danger to the anglers. He asked them 
to protect their interests. What were those 
interests P They had their rights as representa¬ 
tives of the public, and as anglers who had put 
money into the water. They had subscribed to 
various fishery associations, from the T.A.P.S. to 
the society at Oxford, in order that fish could be 
purchased and placed in the Thames. Were 
their rights, therefore, to go unprotected P He 
said, no. It seemed to him that the anglers had 
been made a butt of—they had been the ones who 
had goneiothewall, whilst the ri])arian owners had 
been elevated to the top of the tree. (Hear, hear.) 
He believed they would give vent to their feelings 
in the matter without forgetting their position as 
sportsmen—they would speak moderately, hut 
firmly, rally to the front, and fight the tpiestion 
out in a straightforward way. (Cheers.) He 
tiuisted that whatever discussion took place, it 
would be in the true spirit of moderation, 
and that they would march steadily on to 
a good cause, and with right on their side. 
(Cheers.) He begged to move the following 
resolution : 
“ We, the delegates to the Anglers’Association, 
after carefully considering the proposed new 
fishery laws, protest against the same becoming 
law, as, in our opinion, several of the changes in 
the bye-laws would be most prejudicial to our 
interests and detrimental to the fisheries on the 
Biver Thames; we object more particularly to the 
following : 1. To the greater powers to be given 
to riparian owners and others, by (a) the reduction 
in the size of the mesh of the net, (h) the abolition 
of the special licences now necessary to enable 
owners of private fisheries to use nets, &c., (o) 
allowing owners of private fisheries to lay night 
lines for eels. 2. Prohibiting the use of the gaff. 
:5. Including chub and excluding gudgeon for use 
as baits. 4. Omitting the list ot fish which may 
he taken, during the fence months for coarse fish, 
for use as bait for trout. 5. In ignoring the 
strong representations of this association (a) as 
to the sizes of fish, (b) altering the existing fence 
months, (c) and the reduction of the speed of 
steamboats. We are further of opinion that rod 
and line fishing ought to be permitted bet'ween 
London Bridge and Yantlet Creek.” 
.Mr. M.vuriott (Waltonians) seconded the reso¬ 
lution, and suggested that a deputation should 
he formed to wait upon the Privy Council. With 
rcg.ird to the riparian owners getting increased 
powers into their hands, he had certain surmises 
as to why they -were endeavouring to obtain 
them. They had pretty well shown they were no 
friends to the anglers, and he (Mr. Marriott) 
must confess that perhaps they had some reason 
for the objections that some of them entertained 
towards the anglers. They (the fishermen) did 
not go as they used to do years ago in twos or 
threes, but a vast army of anglers went out of 
London every Sunday, and they knew there were 
certain pious riparian owners who objected to 
Sunday fishing. Then, again, they had not alto¬ 
gether eliminated the rowdy element from their 
midst—(hear, hear)—-who went out and did not 
behave themselves as they ought to do. (Hear, 
hear.) Such a state of things was, however, fast 
dying out, and he hoped the rowdy angler would 
soon become a thing of the past. (Hear, hear.) 
All he could say was that if the bye-laws, as at 
present drafted, became law, they would ruin the 
Thames fisheries, and therefore they were to he 
resisted in every shape and form. It was mons¬ 
trous to think that on a prior occasion the Con¬ 
servancy had invited their suggestions and then 
entirely ignored them. (Hear, hear.) He had 
an idea in his mind that the movement which 
had been set on foot by the Corporation to claim 
the river as far as Oxford, might have caused the 
riparian owners to agitate for increased rights. 
If they obtained extra rights, they would of 
course ask for increased compensation, and the 
public would then be absolutely paying for their 
own property, because if the public looked up some 
of the old charters, they would find that they 
had more rights on the Thames than they were 
aware of. He did say they as anglers must look 
at the matter in a serious light, for the new 
laws, if adopted, would prove greatly injurious 
to the fisheries. 
Mr. Rushton (Beaufoy Anglers) gave several 
instances where, about three years ago, he had 
been called upon to cease fishing in the Pang- 
bourne and Mapledurham districts because it was 
alleged that they were private fisheries. He had 
been even ordered off weirs when in possession of 
the Thames Conservancy ticket. When he -wrote 
to the Conservancy they replied the ticket was 
issued subject to the existing rights. He (the 
speaker) thought the Conservancy upheld the 
riparian owners’ rights. 
Mr. Close pointed out that certain rights 
existed up the Thames over which the Con¬ 
servancy or any other body had no control. 
Mr. Manning (Izaak Walton) urged the anglers 
to offer their earnest protest against the so-called 
new bye-laws. Increased netting on the Thames 
would mean a decrease in preservation, for the 
simple reason that no society would place any 
more fish in the river when they were to be taken 
out by persons having no right to them. Would 
those present add fish to the Thames when they 
knew that Tom, Dick, and Harry could put their 
nets in and catch them whenever they liked ? 
He said no! If the increased powers were ob¬ 
tained by the riparian owners, then angling up 
the Thames, at no distant date, would become 
a thing of the past. They spoke that evening for 
several thousand anglers, and he trusted that 
they would do all in their power to stop the bye¬ 
laws becoming law, for—he could not help ex¬ 
pressing himself thus—they were the most 
abominable ever drafted, and the “ wickedest 
cut ” ever aimed at the liondon anglers. (Cheers.) 
He hoped that there would be only one opinion 
in reference to them; and he trusted that 
they should never live to see them enforced. 
(Cheers.) 
The Chairman said he spoke as a delegate now, 
and he did not quite agree with the opinion that a 
deputation should be formed to wait upon the 
Privy Council, as the Thames Conservators had 
requested them to send them on their views. On 
the other hand he would suggest that a deputation 
be appointed from that meeting to wait on the Con¬ 
servators. He was of opinion that that would be the 
best plan. He thought it would be a little prema¬ 
ture to go to the Privy Council. He urged them to 
conduct the matter in a friendly spirit, and if they 
then found that the Thames Conservators ignored 
them, let them fight them tooth and nail. (Cheers.) 
If the worst came to the worst he was sure the 
anglers would not be found wanting should an 
appeal for funds bo made. (Cheers.) With regard 
to the bye-laws they were certainly dead against 
anglers, and his impression was that anyone 
[January 21, 1893 
could, upon the invitation of the riparian owners, 
net the fisheries. The matter wanted explaining 
to the Conservators, and he begged to suggest the 
deputation referred to. 
Mr. Marriott remarked that the Conservancy 
had asked them for their views, and had brought 
in a set of monstrous regulations like the present. 
If the anglers were going to act they must act 
(juickly. 
The Chairman pointed out that the Conser¬ 
vators were not obliged to ask the anglers for 
their views. 
Mr. Waltham (Waltonians) said the bye-laws 
did not meet their views. Well, as practical men, 
what were they going to do ? He thought the 
resolution proposed 'met every objection. He 
thought if they carried the resolution, and after¬ 
wards waited as a deputation on the Conservators, 
they would be acting as sensible men. (Hear, 
hear.) 
Mr. Ridgeway (President of the Eagle Angling 
Society) thought a committee ought to be first 
formed to argue out the objections thoroughl}', 
and then proceed in deputation form to the 
conservators. 
Mr. Muri’hy (Good Intent) said he could not 
agree with Mr. Ridgeway, because it would bo 
delaying time. He was of opinion that Mr. Close’s 
resolution would cover the whole ground. He 
advocated an immediate interview with the Con¬ 
servators to see if they could not induce them to 
alter some of the objectionable bye-laws. (Hear, 
hear.) 
Messrs. Goodwin, Moss, Parker, Rozier, Bart¬ 
lett, Pain, and others having spoken, the resolu¬ 
tion was put to the meeting, and carried without 
a single dissentient. 
Subsequently the following gentlemen were 
elected by a show of hands, to form the deputa¬ 
tion to the Conservators, Mr. Ghurney being 
instructed, when forwarding the resolution, to 
inquire when it would be most convenient for the 
reception of the same by the Board: Messrs. 
Beckett, Marriott, Close, Ridgeway, Tibbatts, 
Parker, and Murphy. 
With a vote of thanks to Mr. Beckett for 
presiding, proposed by Mr. H. J. Tibbatts, the 
meeting then terminated. 
RICHMOND PISCATORIAL SOCIETY. 
The following are the suggestions of the Rich¬ 
mond Piscatorial Society : 
Bye-law 4.—Add, gaff may be used in angling. 
Bye-law 6.—The Richmond Piscatorial Society, 
while thankfully acknowledging the concession 
of this rule, would again urge that one be made 
to prohibit gorge fishing. Great numbers of 
little jack (even smaller than permitted by the 
present law) are destroyed by this means. The 
rule requiring that they shall be returned is 
defeated because they are killed before they can 
be measured. 
Bye-law 7.—That in this rule and everywhere 
felse, the same system of measurement be adopted 
to avoid confusion, and they would respectfully 
advise that the old method be retained of measur¬ 
ing the mesh from knot to knot. 
Clause 4.—That the smelt net be prohibited 
above London Bridge, there being no smelts in 
those waters. 
Clause 7.—This appears to be a mistake, a 
landing net of these dimensions would be a 
mischievous poaching instrument, and useless for 
an angler. We would suppose that the measure¬ 
ment of the diameter and the depth have been 
transposed in the printing: the former should be 
2ft., and the latter 3ft. With regard to well nets, 
they are only required of very small size, but 
should be of very fine mesh, as they are only 
required to take minnows and other small fish 
from the well. 
Bye-law 8.—The Richmond Piscatorial Society 
beg to tender their best thanks to the Hon. 
Board of Thames Conservancy for having 
adopted their suggestions with respect to the 
netting above London Bridge, but they would 
venture to point out that it is necessary that no 
nets shall be used above Isleworth Church Perry, 
as formerly, and that the description of fish 
allowed to be taken by the various nets should be 
defined as in the old bye-lows. 
Bye-law 15.—The Richir.ond Piscatorial Society 
strongly recommend that the netting of flooded 
meadows and ditches be prohibited. 
