April 8, 1893] 
THE EISHINH GAZETTE 
255 
Cormyonirmc 
[We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions 
expressed by our Correspondents.2 
“ One of the charms of angling is that it presents an 
endless field for argument, speculation, and experi¬ 
ment.”—T. E. Peitt. 
REPORTED CAPTURE OF MONSTER 
IRISH SALMON. 
Deak Sih,—I n your issue of March 25, your 
correspondent,under the heading “From Ireland” 
(page M6), writes : “ From almost every quarter 
news comes of an abundance of fish and of 
splendid quality. Take for example the Shannon 
river (the largest in Ireland), and we find it 
recorded last week that one magnificent salmon 
weighing 601b. was caught in the nets below 
Limerick, whilst two other huge fish, weighing 
641b. and 701b. respectively, were also killed.” 
A friend has forwarded me an extract from an 
Irish newspaper, which also states that salmon of 
the above-mentioned weights were taken in the 
Shannon this year. 
I have every reason to believe that the infor¬ 
mation forwarded to you, with the exception of 
that in reference to the 601b. fish, is not correct. 
A well known gentleman residing near Limerick, 
whose connection with the salmon fisheries of 
the Shannon for a number of years gives him 
special opportunities for verifying the weights of 
all the large fish taken in the district, writes tome 
to say that he also heard of the reported capture 
of 701b. and 641b. salmon. He says, “ but from care¬ 
ful inquiry I could not verify the report.” He 
adds, “ I do not believe such fish as you mention, 
701b. and 641b., were taken in the Shannon this 
year. There was a 601b. fish taken. I had it 
weighed myself in order that I might specially 
write and report it to you. It was taken about 
the 1st of February and was exposed in a 
Limerick shop, and weighed 601b. Crowds went 
to see it. I believe it was a poached fish, as the 
netting season did not open here until the 12th, 
and I would have been certain to hear if any 
angler had caught it.” 
Would your correspondent kindly say if he 
properly verified the weights of the fish he says 
were taken in the Shannon this year, or did he 
forward you the information merely on hearsay ? 
The promulgation of the capture of mythical 
fish is very mischievous, and causes a vast amount 
of trouble to those who are anxious to preserve a 
correct record of monster salmon. When the 
Fishing Gazette is made the medium of circulating 
airy statements of reported monsters the mischief 
is intensified. 
We, sir, have every faith in your keen desire to 
render good service to all fishermen, and I trust 
your correspondent will be able to satisfy our 
minds as to the capture of the 701b. and 641b. 
salmon, which he says were taken in the Shannon 
this year. The year, so far, along the Shannon 
has been, my correspondent informs me, “ a year 
of big fish.” One taken in the nets lately 
weighed a little over 511b. Henry Feennell. 
[We have called our correspondent’s attention 
to Mr. Ffennell’s letter.—Eu.] 
TROUT FISHING LICENCES IN 
SHEFFIELD. 
Important to Anglers. 
We have been asked to publish the following 
correspondence. It may be explained that the 
ca,se of George v. Carpenter was an appeal on a 
case stated by two justices of Montgomeryshire 
on the demand of the Severn Board of Conser¬ 
vators whereby the Liverpool Conservation sus¬ 
tained their contention that the Severn Board 
had .no authority over their water in the Vyrnwy 
Lake and river above. The case was decided on 
February 7 last in the Queen’s Bench Division. 
The report sent to Mr. Phillips was that which 
appeared in the Fishing Gazette on Feb. 18 : 
Victoria Villas, Upperthorpe, Sheffield, 
March 9,1893. 
Sir, —I beg to call your attention and that, of 
your board to the case of George v. Carpenter, re 
River Vyrnwy, and to inquire how far your board 
are prepared to adopt its principles with reference 
to waters under similar conditions situate within 
their district ? 
It would seem in the case referred to that, on 
the dictum of Justices Lawrence and Henn Collins, 
by the erection of a dam across the Ri .''er Vyrnwy 
and the construction of a waterworks reservoir 
known as Lake Vyrnwy, this river and lake above 
the line of the dam ceased to be a tributary of the 
Severn,and the right of the Severn Fishery Board 
to enforce the taking out of trout licences therein 
was put a stop to. 
You will probably be aware that in the neigh¬ 
bourhood of Sheffield there are a number of 
waterworks reservoirs erected upon tributaries of 
the river Don, and presumably within the York¬ 
shire Fishery District, to wit, upon the streams 
known as the Rivelin, theLoxley, and the Ewden, 
under what would appear similar conditions, and 
whereby, according to the above ruling, your 
board have no right to claim to enforce licences 
for trout fishing in those reservoirs and in the 
feeders thereof above the respective waterworks 
dams. 
In view of the above decision it would be im¬ 
portant for those who have hitherto been in the 
habit of fishing in these reservoirs and feeders 
to know if your board will still insist upon their 
holding licences from the Yorkshire Board in 
case of their fishing these waters in the coming 
season. 
You -will be aware also that in the neighbour¬ 
hood of Sheffield there are on the tributaries 
named, and also upon the Porter and the Sheaf, 
and also main river the Don, other dams erected 
for the impounding and storage of the waters of 
those streams in reservoirs for furnishing motive 
power to mills and works which, though existing 
in most cases from time immemorial, their owners 
have had their rights thereto recognised and con¬ 
firmed by Acts of I’arliament. 
It is, therefore, also important to know whether 
your board are prepared to admit them into the 
same category, and whether if they abandon their 
claim in the case of the waterworks they will also 
abandon their right to enforce licences on these 
reservoirs and the feeders thereof above the 
lowest dam respectively. 
As the time for commencing to fish on these 
waters will shortly be here, it is very important 
that an early reply should be given and a general 
understanding come to. 
For your information I enclose you a local 
newspaper cutting of the case referred to, and 
from what I hear privately I believe the Severn 
Board have abandoned any intention of appealing 
against the decision. 
I am. Sir, yours faithfully, 
William H. Lester. 
John H. Phillips, Esq., 
Secretary, Yorkshire Fishery Board, Scarbro’. 
Yorkshire Fishery Board, Scarbro,’ 
March 18, 1893. 
Dear Sir, —I am ashamed to think your letter 
of the 9th has been so long unreplied to, but the 
pressure of other fishery matters and the dis¬ 
semination throughout our extensive district of 
trout rod licences—upwards of eleven thousand 
—has been no trivial matter. 
I have a slight knowledge of Lake Vyrnwy, 
having travelled through the district whilst the 
reservoir was in course of construction, and 
therefore have a slight knowledge of the locality 
where the dam is erected. Not being a lawyer 
myself my law will be called into question when 
I assert that the public or those persons who 
have leave to fish on the lake are as liable to pay 
licence duty as when the River Vyrnwy was a 
running stream. 
It does appear somewhat singular that a per¬ 
son should be liable to pay licence for fishing in a 
river, and then in a line beyond the dam, where 
the river ceases to be a tributary, and it becomes 
a lake, any licence duty ceases to operate. It 
appears to me a very curious proceeding. What 
is the intention of the Fresh-water Fisheries Act 
but a statute to raise funds by which fresh-water 
fisheries might be watched over, preserved, and 
protected, and diversion extended to the working 
man ? But here the public demand—and rightly, 
too—a supply of water, and with a view of carry¬ 
ing their intentions into effect, resolve to build a 
wall and dam the water, so that the public wants 
shall be supplied ; but for this wall there shall be 
a difference in Dhe taxation for the right of fish¬ 
ing, does appear to me an extraordinary anomaly, 
and one which one can hardly tolerate. 
I do say — and do so dispassionately — that 
common sense dictates the utterance, that there 
can be no difference in the waters, so far as 
regards fishing, whether you fish on one side of 
this dam or the other, and whoever exercises his 
diversion on either side is liable to pay the 
licence duty. 
This dictum of mine is contra to the opinion of 
the learned judges, but this I cannot help.— 
Believe me, very faithfully yours, 
Jno. 11, Phillips. 
W. H. Lester, Esq. 
Victoria Villas, Upperthorpe, Sheffield, 
March 20, 1893. 
Dear Sir,—I am much obliged by yours of the 
18th, I fancy your anticipation that your “ law 
will be called into question,” is not an incorrect 
one, seeing that you admit that your dictum “ is 
contra to the opinion of the learned judges.” 
If you will allow me, I should like to point out 
that, irrespective of what may have been the 
intention of an Act of Parliament, the legal 
definition of that act will be found to be that 
which the courts have placed upon it. The 
decision of the Court of Appeal in this case, there¬ 
fore, will stand as the law I do not doubt, until 
it is reversed by some higher court, and the 
Severn Board and all other boards will, I think, 
have to accept it as such, unless they determine 
to carry the question further. Until you are able 
to show the cases I have put before you are 
different from that which was presented for the 
Liverpool waterworks, your board, I take it, have 
no more right to impose licences on trout fisher¬ 
men there than the Severn Board have over those 
on Lake Vyrnwy, and I very much question 
whether any bench of magistrates will be found 
to convict if they are asked to do so, until that is 
done. 
It is rather an unusual position to take up to 
endeavour to enforce that which at present there 
are good grounds for deeming illegal. I should 
be glad if you would at the earliest opportunity 
kindly ascertain if your board will endorse your 
views and let me know the result. 
Inasmuch as this is a very important matter 
for the anglers of Sheffield, I propose to send this 
correspondence to the newspapers, so that, should 
those interested think well they may test the 
question.—Thanking you for your courtesy, 
1 am, dear Sir, yours sincerely, 
William H. Lester. 
John H. Phillips, Esq., 
Secretary, Yorkshire Fishery Board, Scarbro’. 
RECOLLECTIONS OF FISHING IN 
IRELAND. 
Sir, —I had not seen Fishing Gazette of 7th 
and 28th January until ye.sterday. In“ Recollec¬ 
tions of Fishing in Ireland,” published 7th 
January. I appear to say that I took a salmon in 
Lough Ennel, co. Westmeath, which I never did, 
and probably no man ever will do. 
The explanation is simple. 
Either I omitted a paragraph, when “ copying 
fair” from my rough notes, or you. Sir, in the 
e-vercise of your undoubted right, “ cut out” a 
sentence, or your printer accidentally “ dropped” 
a line or two, which set forth the change of venue 
from Lough Ennel to Lough Melvin, in Leitrim. 
The salmon was caught in the latter lake. 
In reply also to Mr. W. F. Thomas’s friendly 
strictures in your issue of Jan. 28, I may say it is 
many years since I have been in Ireland, and that 
it is quite possible I have forgotten the intona¬ 
tion of the rich brogue and the exact vernacular 
of the peasant lads 1 have attempted to describe. 
Regarding the receptacles in which the May¬ 
flies were often imprisoned at the date of which I 
wrote, I believe young officers in a garrison town 
are considered fair game for every one, and I can 
well remember when leaving the barrack gates of 
Mullingar, bound on a fishing expedition, my 
fellow greenhorns and I were always assailed by 
bare-footed youngsters who certainly did not 
confine the baits for sale in the regulation cow- 
horns used by experienced anglers. I can assure 
Mr. Thomas that I accept his remarks in the 
same kindly spirit they exhibit, and that I am 
gratified by having apparent “ slips ” pointed out 
by so courteous a critic.—I am. Sir, yours truly, 
L. S. G. 
