THE EISHING GAZETTE 
1G5 
Makch 11, 1893] 
CON TEN T S . 
N.B.—All rights reserved in articles published in this 
paper. 
The Preservation of the Thames Fisheries .165 
The Piscatorial Society .166 
Scotch Notes .168 
Notes and Queries .169 
The Spring Salmon Rivers of Scotland .170 
Trout and Grayling Streams on the Welsh Borders 
The Tome .171 
Waltoniana.172 
Waterproof Leather Boots .172 
Correspondence. 173 
- N OTIC E. - 
Communications relating to the Literary Department, 
Pishing Tackle for Notice, Books for Review, &c., 
should be addressed to R. B. Marston, Editor of 
the Pishing Gazette, St. Dunstan’s House, Petter- 
lane, London. 
'E'epmei of Su'bscx'lption. 
The Gazette can be had by sending Postal Order or 
Stamps to Messrs. Sampson Low, Marston, and Co., 
Limited, the Proprietors, St. Dnnstan’s House, 
Fetter-lane, London, to whom all money payments 
should be made. 
For One Year, post free to any part of Great 
Britain and Ireland . 10s. 6d. 
,, Six Months ditto ditto 5s. 4d. 
„ Three Months ditto toto 2a. 8d. 
To America and the Continent, annual sub¬ 
scription, including postage. 12a. 6d. 
Jl.dvex*4iisen*.ei3.<:s. 
Applications respecting advertisements should be ad¬ 
dressed to the Manager of the Pishing Gazette, St. 
Dunstan’s House, Fetter-lane, London. 
Telegraphic Address.—“BIVSAM, London.” 
TELEPHONE No. 2679. 
- Wljt — 
,JisWn0 
SATURDAY, MARCH 11th, 1893. 
THE PRESERVATION OF THE 
THAMES FISHERIES. 
PETITION TO THE QUEEN IN COUNCIL. 
A CKOWDED and representative meeting of 
London and Upper Thames anglers was held on 
Wednesday night, at the Foresters’ Hall, Clerk- 
enwell, to “discuss the proposed alterations as 
regards the riparian owners and the Thames bye¬ 
laws, and to pass resolutions, and draw up a 
petition to the Privy Council.” Mr. R. B. 
Maeston, Editor of the Fishing Gazette, was 
voted to the chair, and amongst those present, 
as far as our reporter was able to ascertain, 
were Mr. C. H. Cook (“ Templar ”), Messrs. 
W. R. Lawes and Windred (Deptford United 
Brothers), Mr. R. Murphy (Good Intent), Mr. 
R. Ghurney (Secretary of the Anglers’ Asso¬ 
ciation), Mr. E. S. Shrubsole (Angling Editor, 
Rod and Gun), Messrs. H. Heath, E. V. 
Powell, and G. H. Wright (Richmond Pisca- 
torials), Messrs. C. H. Woodall and G. New- 
son (Friendly Anglers), Messrs. Arthur C. Butler 
and F. Brown (Vice-President and Secretary 
respectively, Reading and District Angling Asso¬ 
ciation), Mr. J. B. Close (Anglers’ Association), 
Messrs. J. Tayler, A. W. Parker, and J. Hearn 
(Gresham Angling Society), Messrs. W. J. Wade, 
T. Crumplen, and Medcalf (Central Association 
of London Anglers), Mr. G. H. Howard (Editor of 
Angling), Mr. F. Roberts (Royal Windsor and 
District Piscatorial Society), Messrs. H. Sargent 
and J. C. Hewlett (Windsor and Eton Angling and 
Preservation Society), Mr. E. F. Goodwin (Junior 
Fly-fishers), Mr. J. McDermott (Good Intent), 
Mr. W. H. Beckett (Vice - president, London 
Anglers’ Association), Mr. R. J. Lupton (Hatcham 
Brothers), Mr. W. Hutchings (Cobden), Mr. W. 
Ryan (Barbican), Mr. C. Watling (Great Northern 
Brothers;, Messrs. J. Kelly and Williams (Silver 
TrouQ, Mr. E. B. Ridgway (President, Eagle 
Angling Society), Mr. A. E. Baldwin (Secretary, 
New Albion Piscatorials), Mr. A. Wright ( Amicable 
Waltonians), Mr. J. Harwood (Sundial), Mr. W. H. 
Potter (Amicable Brothers), Mr. Armstrong (Ber¬ 
mondsey Brothers), Messrs. G. Watling and F. 
Vanhegan (Funny Folks),Mr. E. Martin (Anglers’ 
Pride), Messrs. Webster, Watling, and Wood 
(Lincoln), Mr. Thorling (St. John’s), Mr. F. May 
(South Hornsey), and many others. 
The Chairman, who was received with cheers, 
in opening the proceedings read the circular 
convening the meeting, and said that he had 
sent the circular to all the Thames Preservation 
Societies up the river, and to the clubs enrolled 
on the London Anglers’ and Central Associations. 
In response to that circular they had met there 
that evening. He might say with regard to the 
Thames bye-laws generally, that the anglers had 
been rather successful in getting certain altera¬ 
tions made in them as a result of the agitation 
they had carried on. He (Mr. Marston) had 
avoided including in the circular any matters 
likely to create dissension there that evening, 
and he asked those gentlemen who intended 
speaking, to kindly confine themselves to the 
object for which that meeting had been called. 
He (the chairman) was decidedly opposed to 
depriving riparian owners of rights, when those 
rights clearly existed, but at the same time he was 
most strongly opposed to riparian owners who 
set up rights which they did not possess, and he 
thought it was their duty, not only in the 
interests of the anglers of to-day, but in the 
interests of future generations, to see that they 
handed down to their sons the rights of fishing 
in the Thames as they now existed. (Hear, 
hear.) He found that the various angling 
associations had expended the sum of between 
£25,000 and £30,000, in placing fish into the 
Thames and protecting that river, and they 
had been relying on the bye-laws to protect 
them, when the riparian owners appeared 
on the scene, and said we will take out the 
fish you have put in. But their object, as 
anglers, was to prevent that taking place. Their 
motto should be “ Defence not defiance,” and 
when they had heard the various speakers, he 
felt convinced that they would agree that they 
had been right in calling that meeting. The bye¬ 
laws referred to had been altered by the con¬ 
servators, and published in the Times, and they 
had had notice there that those who objected to 
them must, within a limited time, inform the 
conservators accordingly, and petition Her 
Majesty in Council. In order to defeat the bye¬ 
law they had taken objection to, it would, in his 
opinion, be necessary to draw up a petition for jire- 
sentationtotheQueen,andhehad much pleasure in 
telling them that such a petition had been drawn up 
by their friend Mr. Cook (cheers), barrister-at-law, 
and hon. sec. of the Henley and District Angling 
Society. As they were aware, Mr. Cook was the 
“ John Bicker.dyke ” of the Field, and “ Templar ” 
of the Fishing Gazette, and they must all know 
how hard he had worked to carry that matter 
forward to a successful issue—work for which 
they were greatly indebted to him. (Cheers.) 
As he (the chairman) had just remarked, Mr. 
Cook had prepared a petition, which had been 
approved by the joint committees of the Henley 
and Reading Angling and Fish Preservation 
Societies. Although the proposed increased 
riparian privileges would affect all anglers, they 
would chiefly affect the associations above the 
City Stone at Staines. It had been adopted by 
two important associations after most careful 
consideration, and he felt, therefore, it would be 
such a petition as that meeting would recommend 
the societies they represented to sign. He 
thought a temperate and earnest prayer to Her 
Majesty, when signed by a number of associations, 
was bound to receive the most attentive, and, he 
felt sure, the most favourable, consideration from 
Her Majesty’s Privy Council and Her Majesty 
herself, especially as Her Majesty was Patron of 
the Windsor and Eton Association, and the Prince 
of Wales and the Duke of Edinburgh were Pat¬ 
rons of the Thames Angling Preservation Society. 
(Cheers.) If the London County Council had 
been represented on the Board of Conservators 
he thought the riparian owners would not have 
had it quite all their own way. He said 
that because the rights of fishing in the Thames 
up to within not so long ago were under the care 
of the Lord Mayor and the Corporation of London 
all the way up the river, and if the civic autho¬ 
rities had had the drawing up of those bye-laws, 
they could depend upon it the riparian owners 
would not have received the favourable con¬ 
sideration as was the case at the present time. 
In order to show how jealous the City of London 
once was of its jurisdiction over the Thames, he 
would read them an extract from a most interest¬ 
ing work published by T. Longman in 1758. It 
was as follows :—■ 
Numerous are the instances of their ancestors’ care 
and vigorous defence herein, when, on many occasions 
this said jurisdiction and conservancy of the Thames 
has been attempted to be invaded or disputed ; for read 
only the following essay, and you will there find that 
the City of London was always so anxious, nay, so well 
persuaded, of their rights herein, and the common 
benefits resulting to the public thereby, that they con¬ 
tended for and defended the same, not only against the 
encroachments of private persons, but with archbishops, 
lords, high admirals, and even with kings themselves ; 
and is it to be imagined they will now suffer so valuable 
an authority and jurisdiction to be thus trampled upon ; 
or so groat and general a good as the fishery of this 
river thus daily to be destroyed ? 
The Chairman proceeded to say that he had 
received a visit that day from Mr. Gough, 
the secretary of the Thames Conservancy, who 
had informed him that the new bye-law to 
which they were opposed was practically 
more in the anglers’ interests, and less in 
favour of the riparian owners’ than the present 
bye-law. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Marston) said, 
“ Well, if that’s the case, why do you object to 
go back to the present bye-law ? ” Mr. Gough 
said the bye-laws had been drawn up by a 
gentleman of known ability, had been adver¬ 
tised in the Times, and altogether had cost £150 
to get out, and to alter them would require the 
expenditure of another £150. He (Mr. Marston) 
then called in Mr. Cook, and Mr. Gough and 
he went at it “hammer and tongs.” (Laughter.) 
Indeed, he was afraid at one time he should have 
to call in the police to them. (Laughter.) How¬ 
ever, it was a very friendly sort of enmity, and, 
he (the Chairman) and Mr. Cook later on in the 
day decided to take counsel’s opinion, and 
accordingly went to an eminent Q. C., who, after 
carefully studying the matter, said the new 
bye-law would give the riparian owners per¬ 
mission to do just what they liked, and he 
advised them to fight it out. (Cheers.) Well, 
fortified with that opinion, he had come among 
them that night—(cheers)—and he should ask 
them to pass the resolutions which would shortly 
be proposed. (Cheers.) 
Mr. C. H. Cook, who was very warmly received, 
next addressed the meeting, and referred to the 
representative character it had taken. Not only 
were the two London anglers’ associations fully 
represented, but with them that evening were 
delegates from the Richmond, Windsor, Oxford, 
Reading, Henley, and the Thames Angling 
Preservation Society; and Mr. Russell, C.C., of the 
Maidenhead Angling Society, had asked him to 
tell them that they were totally opposed to net¬ 
ting in any shape or form up the Thames. He 
believed that when the London County Council 
was represented on the Board of Conservators 
they should be much better looked after than they 
had been in the past. (Cheers.) He did not think 
the riparian owners would have it quite their own 
way then. (Hear, hear.) At the present time 
riparian owners’ interests were being looked after, 
and the anglers’ were not. They had secured 
many improvements in the bye-laws, but, when 
they came to read them through, they would find 
all manner of restrictions on anglers. No doubt 
the various deputations to the conservators had 
been received in a very courteous manner, but, 
when they came to look at the conservators’ 
performances, not their promises, they discovered 
that instead of a bye-law being made to meet 
the wishes of the anglers, it had been 
drafted strongly in favour of those persons 
claiming fisheries in the Thames. He (Mr. Cook) 
said he had been working ten years in the in¬ 
terests of Thames fishery preservation, and had 
probably spent between £200 and £300 for fish 
for the river at Henley, and now the riparian 
owners had come forward and induced the con¬ 
servators to make bye-laws which would undo all 
the work, not only in that district, but at 
Reading and all the way up the river. The bye¬ 
laws would also interfere with the work of the 
T.A.P.S. Of course there were no private rights 
on the waters of the T.A.P.S., but it must not be 
