26 
THE EISIIIXG GAZETTE 
[January 14, 1893 
to, there are several reasons (specified) ap;ainst 
altering them. 
In these, and in one or two other matters of 
minor importance, the conservators have met the 
wishes of the society. 
There are, however, several clauses in these 
proposed bye-laws, that it is most earnestly hoped 
the conservators will see their way clear to 
reconsider, otherwise incalculable injury to the 
angling interests of the River Thames must 
inevitably ensue. Those that strike the Richmond 
Piscatorial Society, as especially requiring such 
reconsideration, are herewith enumerated with 
suggested alterations: 
Bye-law 4.—That the words “ A gaff for pike,” 
be added to the list of specified instruments and 
apparatus used for taking the fish. 
Bye-law 5.—To add “ No live or dead fish to be 
used as bait that has to be swallowed before 
the fish is hooked,” usually called gorge-bait 
fishing. 
Bye-law 7 (clause 4).—That the smelt net be 
prohibited above London Bridge, or alternatively, 
to define the net as IJin. in the mesh (instead of 
as now described), and to add “ Such net not to 
be used in the River Thames above Isleworth 
Ferry.” 
Bye-law 7 (clause 7).—This clause is probablj'a 
clerical error. It should doubtless read : “ With a 
greater diameter than two feet and a greater 
depth that three feet.” 
Bye-law 9 (clause 3).—It is recommended that 
a limited number of licensed fishermen be allowed 
to use the cast net in addition to assistant river 
keepers. 
This bye-law, in its present form, confers upon 
assistant river keepers a monopoly that is not 
desirable, and would materially affect the interests 
of a deserving class of men. 
Bye-law 10.—To add the words “at any time” 
after the word “used.” 
Bye-law 15.—To insert the words “or on any 
flooded lands or meadows,” after the word “river,” 
in line 5. 
Bye-law It). —To omit the word “ gaff'.” 
Bye-law 30.—That the “ 25th day of March ” be 
altered to the “ 15th day of March.” 
Bye-law 22 (clause B).—To add the words “ or 
to disturb them in their passage over or through 
any weir.” 
Bye-law 27.—The R.P.S. especially and most 
urgently request the conservators to further con¬ 
sider the question of the sizes of fish. They feel 
deeply that it would be to the advantage of every 
angler if the sizes of the following fish were 
raised: 
Pike or \ 
.Jack j 
Perch 
Ohnb 
Roach 
to inches 
„ !' „ 
„ Pi 
„ « „ 
' Parhel 
Trout 
Bream 
Carp 
Rudd 
to IS inches 
18 „ 
15 » 
„ 11 „ 
„ S „ 
And further, to add gudgeon to the fish specified 
under this bye-law. 
Bye-law 27 (Clause B).—That chub be omitted 
and gudgeon retained. 
Bye-law32.—The Richmond l‘iscatorial Society 
strongly and most emphatically protest against 
the increased powers to be given to riparian 
owners, and arc of opinion that such powers, if 
conferred, would do incalculable injury to the 
River Thames. 
Bye-law 85(Clause“ Fisherman ”).—Toadd after 
the word “fishing,” and preceding “on the River 
'rhames,” the words “ or the licensed assistant or 
deputy of such owner.” 
(lenerally : The R.P.S., taking into considera¬ 
tion the many interests the Conservators have to 
study, believe that the}’ are doing all in their 
])Ower to meet the wishes of the general body of 
anglers, and, although some of the clauses in 
their present condition arc open to objection, it 
is within their knowledge that scvei’al of them 
will be greatly modified. The society have not 
touched upon the subject of steam-launches, as 
they are informed that the Conservators have not 
the power under the present Act of Parliament 
to make any alterations in the existing regula¬ 
tions relating to speed, &c., and, although they 
ai-e painfully aware that immense damage is done 
to the spawn of fish by this traffic, yet they feel 
that they, with others, must for the present accept 
the inevitable. 
NEW ALBION PISCATORIAL SOCIETY. 
A MEETING of the new Albion Piscatorial 
Society was held on Thursday night to discuss 
the draft of the proposed new Thames Fishery 
laws. Mr. W. F. Grimmett presided, and the 
following resolution was carried: “ That this 
meeting of the New Albion Piscatorial Society, 
held at the Duke of Kent, Old Kent-road, on 
Thursday, Jan. 12,1893, views with alarm many 
of the proponed new Fishery bye-laws as drafted 
by the Thames Conservators, as being contrary 
to the sport of angling and the preservation of 
the fish in the river Thames. This meeting, 
therefore, respectfully urges the Conservators 
not to abolish the netting licence now issued 
to riparian owners, as the angling societies, 
both up river aud London, stock the river 
with fish at their own expense; and to make 
it illegal to set night lines for eels, as many 
trout and coarse fish are thus caught. AVe 
further urge the Conservators, that from its 
splendid sporting qualities, the chub is totally 
unfit for live-bait; and we would also recommend 
that the standard for gudgeon be still maintained. 
We think that pike ought, in the true interests of 
sport, not to be retained under 24in., and that 
when angling for this fish, the gaff be still per¬ 
mitted. Owing to the numerous complaints 
made of the speed of steam launches, and the fact 
that they cause great destruction to fish spawn, 
we further suggest that a clause should be intro¬ 
duced into the new bye-laws—laws wdiereby the 
speed of the launches would be considerably 
moderated during the close season for coarse fish. 
And that a copy of this resolution be forwarded 
to the Board of Thames Conservancy.” The 
chairman, and Messrs. J. P. Wheeldon, Crisp, 
Baldwin, Hibble, La Feuillade, Newbury, and 
others, took part in the discussion, and the resolu¬ 
tion was agreed to unanimously. 
OXFORD ANGLING AND PRESERVATION 
SOCIETY. 
At an influential meeting of the above society 
on Tuesday last, at the Three Cups Hotel, the 
following resolutions were passed respecting the 
new’ Thames bye-laws: 
1. That this society strongly protests against 
the increased facilities given to owners and occu¬ 
piers of fisheries, and trust the conservators 
will retain the clause that all riparian owners, 
before placing a net of any kind in the river, 
shall be required to obtain a special licence for 
such netting, and that the eight-inch mesh be 
retained. 
2. That the use of the gaff be retained for pike 
fishing. 
3. That this society respectfully ask the con¬ 
servators to extend the fence months from 
Jan. 3n till June 15. 
4. That this'society strong recommends the 
sizes of fish 1o be increased, viz.—jack, 20in.; 
perch, 9in.; roach. Sin.; chub, 12in. 
C. IIeheekt, asst. sec. 
A copy of the foregoing has been foiwvarded to 
the Board of Conservators. 
THE MANCHESTER SEWAC^E 
SCHEME. 
DECISION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT 
BOARD. 
[ Communicated]. 
Fniveksal satisfaction has been caused in 
angling circles in Sheffield and Nottinghamshire 
by the ilecision of the Local Government Board, 
in the matter of the Manchester Sewage Scheme. 
It is (|uite certain that whatever measure of 
popularity this authority has hitherto enjoyed 
among anglers, will in no way bo diminished by 
the common sense view it has taken of the jiroject 
mentioned. BrieH}’ put, this jiroject was as 
follows ; The Manchester Corporation sought to 
acquire pow'ers to obtain possession of the Ramp- 
ton Manor Estate, near Retford, at a cost of 
£'G0,000, for purposes of sewage disposal. The 
estate in question belongs to Colonel Eyre, late 
il.P. for Gaiusbro’, aud is contiguous to the 
Trent, in one of the most healthful, and, at the 
same time, one of the most agricultural, portions 
of Nottinghamshire. It was the intention of 
the Corporation, if they secured the estate, 
to turn it into a vast manure heap. The whole 
of the refuse and the filth from the great city of 
Manchester was to be conveyed there in trucks 
and laid upon the ground, in daily instalments, 
the consignments being brought the seventy 
miles journey in water-tight waggons. In all, 
20,000 ions of manure—part lic[uid and part 
solid—would be laid upon the land each year. 
When first the proposal was made indignation 
ran high. The Trentsiders rose as one 
man and protested against it. Their beauti¬ 
ful country was to be s])oiled, their wells 
were to bo ruined, their noble river Trent 
was to be still further polluted, and their own 
surroundings w’ere to be made objectionable. 
Why could not Manchester find another 
outlet for its sewage ? AVhy should the inhabi¬ 
tants of a distriot who could not possibly have 
any interest in Manchester, be saddled with so 
enormous an amount of filth every year almost 
at their own doorsteps ? These were the cjuestions 
that were asked, and this was the feeling the 
Nottinghamshire people had towards the pro¬ 
posal. Then there was another class of people 
who were greatl;;^ interested in the motion—the 
angling community. It was only too clear that 
if the scheme were carried out the Trent W’ould 
suffer from it. ffhe sewage was to be laid upon 
the land, which, owing to its porous nature, 
would, according to the Manchester people, 
easily absorb it. A"ery possibly, but what then ? 
AYould it not ultimately find its way into the 
ditches, into the wells, and, in short, would it not, 
in time find an outlet in the Trent ? The anglers 
thought it would, and they were not alone in this 
opinion, for the Gaiusbro’ authorities, whose 
people use the w’ater of the Trent for drinking 
purposes, opposed the scheme with might and 
main on that very account. The result of it all 
was a Local Government Board inquiry, at 
which evidence for and against was given. 
The advocate retained by the Manchester Cor¬ 
poration did his best to pi’ove that the scheme 
could not possibly injure the Trent, and, so 
pretty was his wit, and so earnest his plead¬ 
ing, that he almost painted a picture of the 
little fishes standing on their heads and 
wagging their tails with ecstatic glee at the 
magnanimity of the Corporation in providing 
them with such bountiful stores of wholesome 
provender! 
The matter has since then been under the con¬ 
sideration of the Board, and at last the report has 
been sent out. This document states that, 
“ looking to the distance of the estate from the 
city, the mode and conditions of the convej’ance 
of the filth and refuse, and the nature, situation, 
and surroundings of the estate, the Board is not 
able to satisfy itself that the scheme is one which 
ought to be carried into effect, and that, under 
these circumstances, the Board is not prepared to 
sanction a loan for the purchase of the land and 
the works proposed by the Town Council of 
Manchester.” 
This decision is interesting to the angler in 
more w’ays than one. AVhile it forbids tlie Cor¬ 
poration of ^Manchester to purchase the Rampton 
Manor Estate for the purposes to which they 
intended putting it, it is also an important pro¬ 
nouncement on the subject of river pollution. 
Too long have the authorities winked at this kind 
of thing; too long have they, by conferring 
almost unlimited powers on corporations, 
given them carte blanche to do as they 
liked with the rivers over which they had 
jurisdiction. AV'hat corporation is there in this 
country that can lift up their heads and say, 
without fear of contradiction, that they have 
done nothing to pollute and spoil the streams 
contiguous to their municipalities? Is there one 
that can lay claim, on the other hand, to having 
done their best to preserve the natural purity 
and beauty of the streams witlun their gates ? 
It is to be feared not. Therefore, it is that the 
decision of the Local Government Board is 
taken as a pronouncement on this important 
question, and will, in the end, lead anglers 
to renewed diligence in seeing that their rights 
and privileges are not encroached upon by 
corporate concerns, who have “ neither souls 
to save nor bodies to kick.” 
