Chapter II: Part 2

In one of the clauses of the bill (I do not remember which, and I have not the bill at hand to refer to) you require that a grating, the bars of which shall not be more than three inches distant from each other, and which shall be placed at the junction of the tail- goit with the river, as well as in front of the wheel. This I presume is to prevent any fish being injured by the wheels, but I assure you that during the twenty-two years in which I have had the management of the works here, I never knew an instance of a Salmon being either killed or hurt by the wheels. Indeed, I do not know half-a-dozen instances of Salmon ever ascending the tail-goit to the wheel, and I must have seen many instances if this was a common occurrence. This may, however, happen, and the fish may be occasionally injured where there is much fall lost, and a strong stream running from a wheel constituted in the old way with open float boards. But the objections to such a plan on the part of the manufacturers will be insuperable, in fact, the accumulation of sticks and leaves in the autumn, and ice in the winter, will be so great at the grating in the tail-goit, that the wheels will be thrown into back water and the works stopped, and all this loss and inconvenience will be incurred because of the possibility of a Salmon being killed or hurt by the wheel. There is not much probability of this frequently happening, because, as I said in my other letter, Salmon seldom migrate except where there are freshes in the rivers, and then there is so much water flowing down the usual course of the stream, that the fish have no inducement to leave it to seek for a passage elsewhere. I would, however, suggest that power be given to conservators to go at all times up the tail-goits and into the wheelhouses, to see that there are no illegal contrivances in them for catching the Salmon and Smolts in their migration, as I have certainly heard of such things occurring.

In Sir Thomas Winnington's note to my friend, he says we have difficulty enough in endeavouring to obtain support for one day's clear course; two we could not carry, however desirable. Allow me to suggest, that in endeavouring to carry so little you rouse up your opponents, while there is not enough to stimulate the zeal of your friends, for it will be in vain to look for the zealous co- operation of the proprietors on the upper part of rivers unless you give them some inducement. This one day in the week will not effect, and besides this, you make it illegal to catch Smolts, even with the rod, which is destroying one of the greatest amusements of the anglers, and depriving them of the most delicate of fish, and for no object: because, if the provisions of your bill are carried (without this clause), there will be an abundant supply of fish for all purposes, even after the anglers have enjoyed their sport. I do not see the propriety and utility of prohibiting the killing of Smolts, because if they lived they would become Salmon, any more than I see the propriety of prohibiting the eating of eggs, because if they were hatched and lived long enough they would become barn-door fowls.

Let the legislature and the estuary fisheries give the upper proprietors a fair share of Salmon when in season, and they will be glad to see the angling for Smolts abolished; but it is rather too bad for the estuary fisheries to catch all the good Salmon, and then grudge to the upper proprietors the angling for Smolts.

In conclusion, allow me to urge on you the propriety of endeavouring to obtain such a bill as will give the proprietors of land on the upper parts of rivers a strong inducement to support you, and at the same time that it does this will not injure the mill-owners; and, with the modifications I have pointed out, I think this may be accomplished. I speak on this subject as a practical man, having some knowledge of the habits of Salmon, and superintending a mill driven by water-power which employs nearly a thousand people; so that if a bill like yours could be worked in a satisfactory manner here, on so small a stream as the Ribble, it may anywhere in the kingdom. But if you make a tinkering job of it, and ask for too little, you will rouse your opponents and discourage your friends. By all means go for a free passage for the fish every night from sunset to sunrise in all cases where this does not interfere with manufactories, and then there will be some inducement to support you.

I refer you to some papers which I wrote on this subject in the Magazine of Natural History, in the year 1834, and if you think it worth while to ask for further information on the subject, I shall be happy to give you any I may possess.

* * * * *

LOW MOOR, _July 1st_, 1846.

To the Editor of "The Times."

The attempt which is now making to amend the laws relating to the Salmon fisheries, appears to run such a great risk of failure, from the opposition of interested persons, that I think a short sketch of the defects of the present laws and their effects on the breed of fish, and a comparison of them with the proposed amendment, may be interesting to some of your readers, and may, perhaps, induce some influential gentlemen to throw their influence into the right scale, in the approaching discussion on this subject.

The Salmon fisheries in former times appear to have supplied food for a large portion of the people, as there are still traditions current on the banks of various rivers in the north, that the indentures of apprenticeship always stipulated that the apprentice should not be compelled to eat Salmon more frequently than three days a week, and however exaggerated this story may appear at the present day, I hope to succeed in showing that it is neither improbable that it has been so, nor impossible that it may be so again,--if good laws are made for their protection, and these laws are properly enforced. At present there is no doubt the fisheries are rapidly declining, and in some rivers which used to have a good many Salmon in them, and which used to swarm with Smolts (or fry) in the spring within my remembrance, they are now rarely seen. To show their scarcity I may mention a circumstance which occurred in the Wharfe, which was formerly one of the finest rivers in Yorkshire for Salmon. A few years ago a pair of Salmon were seen on a spawning bed in the Wharfe, about forty miles from its mouth. This became known at the anglers' club, and it was deemed so important to preserve them, that the club divided themselves into three or four watches, and guarded the spawning bed night and day, whilst the fish were spawning, and this spawning lasted about a week.

Here in the Ribble the Salmon fisheries are not quite so near extinction (though they are rapidly progressing in that direction), for although we are very seldom allowed to see or catch fish in seasonable condition, a good many come up the river to spawn, though very few of them ever do so, and very few of those that do ever reach the sea again. The reason is obvious, no one here has any interest in preserving the spawning fish, and they are openly killed by the poachers, who never dream of being prosecuted for it. I am credibly informed that in a stream not five hundred yards from where I write, sixty spawning fish were killed last winter. Some years ago one gang of poachers killed three hundred Salmon on the spawning beds in one season, and sold potted Salmon roe (which is a most destructive bait for Trout) to the value of L20.

In the Lune the proprietors of the fisheries near Lancaster sent men to protect the spawning fish in the streams above; but these men were warned off by the landed proprietors, who said, If you catch all the good fish you must at least allow us to catch the bad ones. In the Tweed and its tributaries it used to be quite as bad (what the new Scotch law has done I do not know), but a poacher who gave evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons in 1825 said that he had assisted to take four hundred Salmon at one haul in close time in the Tweed.

Sir Walter Scott's vivid description of burning the water, which occurs in "Guy Mannering," shows that he knew how to kill Salmon in close time. In fact, his account, and that of Hogg (the Ettrick Shepherd), show that both were regular black fishers.

There are various devices for killing the fish in close time: they are speared, netted, and hooked on the spawning beds, and when the rivers get low, gangs of idle fellows range up and down on the banks, stoning and beating the water by poles, or, what is more effective still, a large bone, or horse's skull, and by fastening a cord to it, one end of which is passed to each side of the river, they draw this skull up and down in the pools where they know there are Salmon, and the fish are so foolish and timid, that they thrust their heads under any stone or cover they can find, and are taken without trouble; it being common enough in such cases to slip a noose over the tail, then tightening it, and the fish is hauled out immediately.

Then again, gentlemen who want to have the reputation of being skilful anglers, employ their game-keepers to find the Kippers (Scottice Kelts) or spawned fish in the pools, which is a very easy matter in low water, and dropping a hook baited with a lob worm before their noses, it is greedily taken, and the poor fish (which are unfit for food) are caught. It is then trumpeted forth to the angling world that Mr. A. B. has had splendid sport--he has caught a dozen Salmon with the rod in a single day, meaning it to be understood that these fish have been caught with the fly. I by no means uphold these practices, neither do I think them very deserving of censure in the present state of the law, for all the good fish are taken near the mouths of the rivers.

This leads me to consider the defects of the present law, which is by no means adapted to protect and increase the breed of Salmon.

In the first place, the close time is too short. It commences in the Ribble nominally (for in reality the fish are openly killed all the year through) on the 15th September, and ends on the 31st of December; whereas it ought to extend to the end of April, for the following reasons. A very large proportion of the fish are spawning in January and February, and I have even seen a spawning fish as late as the 3rd of April. In the evidence given before the House of Commons in 1825, it was proved by a fisherman from the Tweed, that in March for one clean fish that was caught there were ten caught that were not so, as they were either fish that had not spawned, or Kelts, that is, fish which have finished spawning but have not returned to the sea, and are then flabby, unwholesome, and unfit for food. A very large proportion of these Kippers or Kelts do not go to the sea until April, and not then without there is a fresh in the river, for, like the Smolts, they seem disposed to remain in the rivers until they can avail themselves of the assistance of a flood, to enable them more easily to reach the sea.

Another defect in the present law is that it fails to secure a supply of good fish to the upper proprietors. There are no provisions in it (or they are not enforced) for giving the fish a free passage, no prohibition of nets, traps, or devices for stopping them in their progress up the rivers. No daily or weekly close time, but everywhere there is so short-sighted a selfishness, that it is completely realizing the fable of the man who killed the goose which laid the golden egg. The fisheries are declining so rapidly, that unless something is done, and done quickly, the breed of Salmon will be extinct in the rivers in this neighbourhood.

Again, there is no power to appoint or pay conservators, and without their assistance there is no chance of preserving Salmon in the spawning beds. Game-keepers are most certainly not to be depended upon.

In pointing out the defects of the present laws I have, in fact, given an opinion how they should be remedied. I would extend the close time from the end of September to the end of April. I would establish a daily close time, allowing no net, device, or engine to be employed in taking Salmon between sunset and sunrise above tideway in any river; and below, I would only allow nets to be set for twelve hours per diem. I would appoint conservators, whom I would pay by a tax on the fisheries on the whole course of the river, which tax should be determined by a valuation of the fisheries, and paid accordingly. I would fine every one who sold, used, or had in his possession any potted or prepared Salmon roe for the purpose of angling, and I would give conservators the power of examining all mill goits and races, for the purpose of seeing that no unfair practices were resorted to for the taking of Salmon or Salmon fry; and I would give the upper proprietors the power of making any alterations in mill weirs and dams which did not impair their stability or the efficiency of the water power. If some such enactments as these were made and properly enforced, there is no doubt Salmon would swarm in every river, for their fecundity is such, that a very few Salmon spawning in a river under favourable circumstances stock it abundantly with Smolts. A large Salmon having not less than 25,000 eggs in it, how soon, with a little forbearance and care, would every river swarm with this delicious fish, even to such a degree as to be a cheap food for the poor! But to obtain such results it must be made the interest of every person to protect them.

In reading over the evidence on the Salmon fisheries, which was given before the House of Commons in 1825, I was exceedingly amused by the reasons given by the tenants of some of the fisheries in Scotland why there should be no weekly close time, and the shifts and evasions practiced by others. One said he paid L7,000 a year rent to the Duke of Gordon for his fishery, and if one day in the week were allowed for close time he would lose L1,000 a year. Another said he kept the close time, but he would allow nobody to go and see whether he kept the free gap open or not. Another proved that he kept open the free passage, but it was also proved that he had a crocodile placed in the gap, painted with very glaring colours, in order to frighten back any fish that attempted to pass. Another sent his boats to break down the stake nets which were set in the estuary, but acknowledged that he kept his own nets set across the river day and night. There would be no difficulty in stocking every suitable river in the kingdom with Salmon, either by putting into them a few pairs of breeding fish, or by artificially fecundating the eggs, and placing them in artificial spawning beds. It is a plan I have frequently adopted, and sometimes successfully; but in other experiments I have failed, from the difficulty of choosing a suitable locality in the river. If too rapid a stream was chosen, the eggs and gravel were all washed away; and if too calm and still a place was selected, the gravel was filled up with sand and mud, and the eggs rotted instead of hatching. I am even of opinion that where there is already a breed of Salmon fry in a river, it is not absolutely necessary that any male Salmon should come up the river in the spawning season, the male Par, or Penks, as we call them in the Ribble, being sufficient to fecundate the eggs. If this is doubted, I would ask how it happens that in the autumn they have fluid milt in them? for as nature makes no unnecessary provisions, for what purpose is this, if not to provide for the possibility of a female Salmon coming alone? These Pars swarm on the Salmon spawning beds.

* * * * *

SUGGESTIONS FOR AN ALTERATION IN THE LAWS REGARDING SALMON.

CLITHEROE, _October 12th_, 1851.

To the Editor of the "Gardeners' Chronicle."

As the amusement of fly-fishing is one which holds a first place in the opinion of every one who understands it, and as the Trout and the Salmon are the only fish which afford genuine sport to the angler, and as I believe that the latter in some of the southern counties is nearly extinct, whilst the former is far from being abundant, I wish to call the attention of such of your readers as are possessed by the true _piscatorial furor_, to the facility with which these fish can be bred artificially. And as many experiments have been made under my direction, and having witnessed the results, I unhesitatingly say that there is little risk of failure, if due care be taken.

The experiments of Shaw and Agassiz, my own also included, have proved that fish can be bred artificially. The experiments of Boccius I have not yet tried, although he proposes to arrive at the same result in another manner, and acting in the manner recommended by them, Trout and Salmon have been bred by thousands during the last ten years.

As the season for making the experiment will shortly be here, I hope that those who intend to try the plan will lose no time in looking after their supply of breeding fish.

To begin with Trout:--Catch as many as you can conveniently obtain upon the spawning beds, [6] and examine them carefully one by one, to see that the spawn and milt are in a fit state for exclusion; and also to enable you to separate the males from the females. If they are in a fit state to be operated upon (which may be known by the facility with which the milt and the roe run from them on a slight pressure), squeeze the milt of the males into a little water, and when you have obtained all the milt you can get, add so much water that the mixture remains slightly opalescent--say about equal in colour to a tablespoonful of milk mixed in a quart of water; pour this into a deep dish or bowl, large enough to hold the largest of your female Trouts; take one of these and put it into the water so prepared, and gently squeeze the roe from it whilst the vent is immersed in the water. [7] Do this as quickly as possible, and return the fish into fresh water, and then pour off the water containing the impregnated roe, through a strainer, carefully preserving it for the remaining fish, and immediately return the roe into fresh spring or brook water. Repeat the operation for every female Trout, and you will then have a quantity of impregnated roe, which if properly managed will hatch with great certainty. Have ready as many boxes as you are able to stock with spawn (three feet long, two feet broad, and six inches deep). Fill them to the depth of two inches of river sand, which ought to be previously so well washed that there is not a particle of mud left in it, and upon that put two inches of river gravel, also exceedingly well washed, the pebbles varying in size from a hazel nut to a pigeon or pullet's egg. These boxes must be so placed that the water from a spring will flow into the first, and from the surface of that into the second, and below the whole nest of boxes there ought to be a small reservoir made--say three yards by two and eighteen inches deep, and well gravelled at the bottom. All these matters having been previously arranged, and the water flowing nicely over the gravel, sprinkle the impregnated roe equally over the surface of the gravel, say a quarter of a pint to each box, and it will roll down into the interstices of the gravel and find a bed in which it will remain snugly until the spring, when, about March, if all has been properly managed, you will find, on a careful examination, that the young Trout are coming to life by hundreds. I am very particular in recommending spring rather than brook water, for several reasons. In the first place, brooks are liable to be flooded, and are sometimes so overcharged with sand and mud that the gravel in the spawning-boxes is completely choked with it and the spawn is lost, as I know to my great and frequent disappointments. At other times all is washed away together. In the second place, the gravel of brooks swarms with water-lice (shrimps) and the larvae of aquatic insects, as well as bull-heads and loaches, all of which prey upon the spawn of the Trout and Salmon. In the third place, if you put your spawning-boxes in a brook, you will find it difficult to prevent the escape of the fry when hatched, and you are left in doubt as to the success of your experiment. With spring water all these inconveniences are avoided. But if your watercourse should contain water-lice or aquatic larvae, it is a very easy matter to destroy them before putting in your boxes, with a little salt or quicklime. It is also desirable to cover your spawning-boxes with a wire grating, to exclude the light, and to protect them in severe weather from the chance of being frozen.

When they begin to hatch, open a communication between the boxes and the little reservoir below, and if this communicates with a watercourse in which aquatic plants are growing, so much the better. The fry, as soon as they are strong enough, will make their way into this ditch, and will find abundance of food among the water plants; thence they ought to be able to make their way into the brook, river, or lake which it is intended to store with them. All ducks, wild and tame, should be driven from this ditch, or few of the Trout will be allowed to find their way to their final place of destination.

These rules, with some modification, are applicable to the breeding of Salmon as well as Trout; the only difference being in the mode of placing the female fish, when obtaining the roe, and the size of the gravel in which the spawn is deposited in the boxes. The Salmon is too large a fish to put into the vessels in which the diluted milt is placed, but I think that she should be held by an assistant, in such a manner that the tail and lower part of the body up to the vent are immersed in the water containing the milt. And it is also very necessary to hold her firmly, otherwise a large fish, in the struggles which it makes to get free, is apt to upset the vessel containing the milt, and then the experiment is at an end, at least for the time. Being held firmly by the assistant, as above stated, the belly of the fish must be gently pressed by the hands to promote the exclusion of the spawn, which on exclusion must be gently stirred in the diluted milt, to bring every grain into contact with it; but the roe ought not to remain in contact with the milt a minute, if it can sooner be got out, as I have found that if the diluted milt be too strong, or if the ova remain too long in contact with it, they become opaque, and never hatch at all, apparently because they are over-impregnated. In the ordinary way in which Salmon and Trout are bred, the milt must be largely diluted with water, and the contact between the milt and ova can only be momentary, for the streams in which these fish spawn (particularly the Salmon) are so rapid, that the milt on exclusion must be carried away immediately.

There is another method, which is preferred by Ramsbottom, to the one I have been describing, and it is certainly less troublesome. This is to take the ova from the female fish in the first place (taking care to exclude the air from it, by immersing the fish into water up to the vent), and when all the roe has been collected into a large bowl or basin, then mix the milt with it, the same diluted in the proportion which has been before described, namely, until the water which covers the roe becomes lightly opalescent.

I am quite aware that there is another theory which assumes that impregnation takes place twelve months before the exclusion of the ova. [8] But a very careful and long continued examination of the spawning of minnows and lampreys (I have never been able closely to examine the spawning of Salmon), convinces me that it is not a correct one. Besides, did any one ever succeed in hatching the ova of a fish which had not been allowed to come in contact with milt after exclusion? If they have, when, where, and how has this been accomplished, and where is it recorded? I know that I could never succeed, although I have often tried the experiment. On the other hand, it is the easiest thing imaginable, with due care and a suitable situation, to hatch those which have been properly impregnated after exclusion. But if, to avoid argument, I admit that this theory is correct, it will not at all interfere with artificial breeding of Trout and Salmon; on the contrary, it will materially facilitate it. It will only be necessary to catch female fish with the ova ready for exclusion, and place these ova in clean gravel in a box, as before described, but there will be no occasion for males. But supposing Trout and Salmon can be bred in this manner, which I by no means believe, there would be no means of breeding hybrids, which I consider a far more important achievement, and to which I will now refer.

Ever since my attention was turned to the artificial breeding of fish, it has always appeared to me exceedingly desirable and important to breed hybrids between the Trout and the Salmon. The fry of the Salmon, which, by-the-bye, is perhaps the most delicately flavoured fish that exists in this country, although it lives and thrives in fresh water for two or three years, if kept in a locality where it cannot escape to the sea, yet, if kept longer than that time, pines away and dies. If, therefore, we could obtain a hybrid fish, bred between the river Trout and the Salmon, we should probably produce a fish which, being a mule, would be always in good condition; being crossed with a river fish, it would probably never require a visit to salt water to keep it in good health. Being crossed with a Salmon, it ought to get to a good size in a comparatively short period; and, if it would rise at the artificial fly, or the minnow, ought to afford first-rate sport to the angler.

There does not appear to be a greater specific difference between the Trout and the Salmon than there is between the horse and the ass, between the mallard and the musk duck, or between a cabbage and a turnip. But hitherto, in all my experiments, I have never succeeded in producing a hybrid between the Trout and the Salmon. [9] Yet I do not despair of doing so, for there was always a something to complain of, and to doubt about, in every one I tried, and I still think I shall succeed by perseverance. Even if I shall succeed, the result may not prove quite so favourable as I anticipate, but may turn out as unfortunately as the marriage of the gentleman in the story, which relates that, being good- tempered but ugly himself, he married a handsome ill-tempered wife, hoping that his children would have his good-temper and their mother's good looks; but when they came, they were as ugly as the father and as ill-tempered as the mother. So it may prove with these hybrids--they may not always thrive in fresh water; they may not grow to a good size; they may not rise at the artificial fly; they may be worthless for the table. Nevertheless, it is desirable if possible that this should be ascertained. The progeny of a male Salmon and a female Trout may be much better or much worse fitted for a continual residence in fresh water than the descendants of a male Trout and a female Salmon; but this can only be determined by experiment. Dr. Lindley says, in his introduction to the "Guide to the Orchard," that in the cross fertilization of fruits, the seedlings always partake more of the character of the male than of the female parent. But I believe that in breeding mules it is found more desirable that the father should be an ass than a horse. In my poultry yard I breed hybrids between the musk duck and the common duck, and I find that I have a much better progeny from the musk drake and the common duck than from the common drake and the musk duck. In the latter cross, although the males are fine birds, the females are not larger than a widgeon, and fly about almost like wild ducks. This may not always be the case, but it has proved so with me.

But to return to the fish. If any gentleman who is interested in such matters will do me the honour to read this paper, and wishes for further information on the subject, I shall be happy to give it, so far as I am able. Very sure I am that the sportsman who once fairly starts as a fly-fisher, and is so fortunate as to hook a Salmon or a large Trout, will thenceforward despise or lightly esteem corks and floats, ground-bait and trimmers, punts and Perch fishing, and will fairly wish them all exchanged for a nice stream well stocked with Trout--as a gentleman lately said to me, fly- fishing is a perfect infatuation! He was quite right. The extreme avidity with which it is followed by the thoroughly initiated, can only be explained on that supposition; to the casual observer, there does not appear to be any strong excitement in it. But that is a great mistake. Let me get to the bank of a river well stocked with Trout in a good humour, early in the morning, and I feel neither hunger, thirst, nor fatigue if I fish until dark without tasting of anything. And the excitement of hooking a ten or twelve pound Salmon is not much inferior to that produced by a long run after the hounds.

I cannot conclude without calling the attention of all interested, and who are able to render assistance in remedying the evil, to the great falling off in the quantity of fish there is in all the Salmon rivers in England. With those in Scotland and Ireland I am not acquainted, but believe that matters are not in a much better state there. I believe that the unsatisfactory state of the laws has a great deal to do with this decline in the value of the fisheries, and I also believe that it is quite possible so to alter the law as to very greatly improve them, and that without improperly interfering with what is of far more importance--I mean the manufactories of the country. As the law stands at present the proprietors of the upper parts of rivers have not the slightest interest in the preservation of the fish in the breeding season, for, as they are seldom allowed to see a fish when it is fit for the table, why should they look after the poachers in close time? Why should they be put to much expense and trouble, as well as the risk of the lives of their game-keepers, merely to breed fish for the proprietors of stake nets and estuary fisheries, who don't spend a farthing in the preservation of the fish when breeding, and yet reap all the benefit? I had occasion, some years ago, to examine the evidence on this subject given before the House of Commons in 1825, and was exceedingly amused at the schemes resorted to to evade the law, moderate and inefficient as was the law at that time. (Since then the law has been altered both in Scotland and Ireland, but I do not know what are the provisions, nor what has been the effect of the new law.) It required that there should be a free passage for the fish (Salmon) through all the traps, nets, weirs, and devices that were used to catch or detain them, from sunset on Saturday night to sunrise on Monday morning. One man said he paid L7,000 a year for his fishery, and should lose one-seventh of his catch. Another said he allowed a free passage on Sundays, but would not permit anybody to go and examine for themselves. A third proved that he allowed the fish a free passage on Sundays, but his neighbours proved that he placed in the gap a crocodile, painted red. And a fourth was convicted of breaking down the stake nets in the estuary of a river--at the same time he had a net stretched entirely across the river above, both day and night. And so with many others, every one striving with all his might to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs.

This is not the way to improve the Salmon fisheries. To do this effectually the upper proprietors must have a strong interest in the preservation of the breeding of fish, and in order to give them this interest they ought to have an ample supply of fish when they are in the best condition; but to give them this supply the law ought to be altered. At present I believe the law does not require a free passage for the fish (at least in English rivers) except from Saturday night to Monday morning; in many of them I believe this is not insisted upon; whereas the law ought to prohibit fishing for or obstructing the passage of the fish every night from sunset to sunrise, and this regulation ought to be rigorously enforced. This would give the upper proprietors a chance of having good fish, and a corresponding inducement to take care of them. Nobody would be so much benefited as the owners of fisheries at the mouths of rivers; they would be the first takers, and would still get the lion's share of all the fish that ascended the river. If this regulation were enforced, the expenses of conservators might be defrayed by levying a small tax, in the shape of a licence for angling, which all true sportsmen would be glad to pay if it gave a reasonable prospect of a well-stocked river. Now matters are getting worse every day, and notwithstanding the enormous fecundity of the Salmon (a large one producing 25,000 ova in a season), they are now extinct in some rivers where they used to be found in my recollection, and in others where they were once abundant they are now very scarce. No one need to wonder at this, when he is told that gangs of poachers are on the look-out for them all through the spawning season. In one winter, some years ago, I am credibly informed that two hundred Salmon were taken in one stream within five hundred yards of the spot where I am now writing. It is nobody's business and nobody's interest to prevent this, and therefore it goes on openly night and day.

Are there no influential gentlemen in the House of Commons who will take up this matter and endeavour to get an equitable and comprehensive law passed for the preservation and increase of the breed of Salmon? It is a matter of even national importance, and if duly provided for and properly attended to, I see no improbability in the supposition that Salmon would again be as abundant as they were when the apprentices on the banks of the Ribble stipulated that they should not be compelled to eat Salmon oftener than three days in the week. The apathy of country gentlemen in this matter is to me unaccountable. I have some reason to believe, however, that Government have at all times been so far from lending their influence to the promotion of any attempts to amend these laws, that they have obstructed rather than assisted them, most probably from an idea that the preservation of the fish would interfere with manufactories. If I thought that this would be the case, I should not say a word on the subject; but I am very far from holding such an opinion. So far from this being the case, I assert without hesitation that weirs need form no obstruction to the free passage of fish, and that without impairing the efficiency of the water power. With the poisonous and filthy mixtures sent by some manufactories down the rivers, the case is far different, and where this is done the case is hopeless. Salmon and Trout will rapidly disappear from such rivers, never to be seen there again, so long as these noxious contaminations are permitted to flow into them.

* * * * *

ARTIFICIAL BREEDING OF FISH.

CLITHEROE, _December 26th_, 1853.

To the Editor of the "Manchester Guardian."

SIR,--I have read with some interest the letter of your correspondent, Salmo Salar, on the artificial breeding of fish; and knowing, as I do, the great interest which the writer feels in the preservation and increase of his namesakes, I shall be most happy if my humble efforts in the same cause throw any more light on the same subject, and in any degree contribute to the same end.

But Mr. Salmo Salar is quite wrong in saying that, with the exceptions of the experiments made on the banks of the Hodder, by Ramsbottom, no efforts have been made to increase the number of Salmon by providing artificial breeding-places. Passing over my own numerous experiments here for the last fourteen or fifteen years (which you, Sir, are aware of, though the fishing world is not), I may refer to the extensive experiments made by Mr. Fawkes, of Farnley, in 1841 and 1842, and renewed again in 1848 and 1849; and the whole of which (with the exception of a portion of these in 1842) were successful. The experiments of Salmo Salar were not made until 1851 and 1852, and were intended merely to test the accuracy of an assumption that the impregnation of the ova takes place long prior to their exclusion; which experiments terminated in a complete failure. Salmo Salar says that the quantity of Salmon fry in the river is enormous; and that he has caught five pounds of them in a single pool in a single day. I have known three times that quantity caught in the same way. But still this proves nothing at all, for it is well known that almost all migratory animals, however solitary their general habits may be, are gregarious at the time of migration. Witness swallows, fieldfares, and even woodcocks. Witness also the clouds of small Eels ascending the rivers in May and June; and if we are to believe the accounts of travellers, the enormous flocks of antelopes in Africa, and of bisons in America, are proofs of the same general law. No doubt Salmo Salar will find, as he says, that the Samlets are exceedingly abundant in some of the pools, when they have flocked together for the purpose of migration; but he may perhaps travel for miles either up or down the river before he will find any more. It is notorious that, in the tributaries of the Hodder, they are walled in, in many places, for the purpose of detaining them, that unscrupulous anglers may get as many of them as possible before they go to the sea. Salmo Salar is in error also when he says that Ramsbottom deposited 40,000 in the ponds of Galway, of which 20,000 are expected to be fruitful. The fact is, that he deposited 40,000 in December, 1852, of which above 20,000 are now alive and in the ponds, varying from four to five inches long to two or three, notwithstanding that experiment was made under very unfavourable circumstances; for there was so much mud in the stream that supplied the spawning-boxes, that when Ramsbottom left Galway he was afraid all the ova would be choked by it.

Salmo Salar seems to think that almost all the ova deposited naturally come to life, and that very few of those deposited artificially do so. This, however, is quite contrary to my experience, and I think that if Salmo Salar will listen to the evidence he will change his opinion. It is well known that Salmon are very fond of particular streams, their instinct no doubt informing them which are suitable to their purpose; and when one pair of fish have finished spawning, another pair will come and occupy the same place. Now, what takes place under such circumstances? The ova which were deposited by the first pair are rooted up by the second, and their specific gravity is so near that of the water, that they roll down out of the loose gravel and are picked up by the Trouts, Par, and other fish that are always lying in wait just below for that purpose. When Ramsbottom was in Galway he caught a large Trout, out of whose throat he squeezed a thousand ova, which were deposited in a spawning-box, many of which came to life notwithstanding the pit they had escaped from. The extraordinary avidity with which Trout take Salmon roe as a bait is also a proof (if that were needed) of their preying upon it in the spawning beds. Yet, in addition to them, are all the Par, Bullheads, Eels, Loaches, and aquatic larvae which may be found swarming in every spawning bed by any one who will look for them. In addition to these enemies, millions of the ova are destroyed by being washed away by heavy floods, and as many more are destroyed by being choked with mud and sand in the spawning beds as well as by being left dry at low water owing to the Salmon spawning in places which frequently become quite dry in early spring. No doubt many of the Salmon fry when they have reached the sea are destroyed by enemies there, of which we know nothing. But still, if 500,000 are bred, in addition to all that are reared naturally, it will represent a larger proportion of the whole than Salmo Salar seems to suppose; otherwise, how is it that in rivers where Salmon are protected, or still more in unsettled countries, the Salmon are so numerous? The Salmon in the Columbia river, on the north-west coast of America, are cast dead upon the shores by myriads after the spawning season, and these are merely the fish dying from exhaustion, as a small portion always do here. How numerous, then, are those which ascend the river to spawn, and go down again to the sea afterwards! No doubt the grand object to be attained is to make Salmon abundant, and the most important step towards the attainment of this object will be to give an efficient protection to the spawning fish, and the only way to do this effectually is to give the upper proprietors of rivers such an interest in the Salmon fisheries as will make them worth attention. At present this is far from being the case. Now the upper proprietors are merely considered as so many clucking hens, whose business and whose duty it is to hatch Salmon for the proprietors of fisheries at the mouths of rivers, who do not in many cases spend a farthing in their protection when spawning, and who grievously begrudge the upper proprietors every fish that is able to pass their nets and other engines of destruction. Let the upper proprietors of Salmon rivers bestir themselves so to amend the law as to give them a chance of having a supply of Salmon when they are in season. They cannot and will not have a more efficient ally than Salmo Salar. Salmo Salar is in my opinion quite right when he says that the fish kept in ponds will not be quite so well able to take care of themselves as fish which have been bred and lived all their lives in the river. Nor do I think that this is necessary for any longer period than until the young fry get rid of the umbilical vessel; after which they are quite able to take care of themselves. Before that time they are scarcely able to move, and thousands of them fall a prey, not only to the other fish, but to the larvae of aquatic insects which prey upon them very greedily. As I happen to know from my own observations, the larva of the stone fly (May fly of Lancashire) and those of all the larger ephemera (drakes), to say nothing of the fresh-water shrimps, swarm in all the spawning beds, and no doubt destroy myriads of the ova. All these would be saved by proper precautions and well formed spawning-boxes, with good supplies of spring water to feed them.

I think Salmo Salar has very greatly over-estimated the quantity of Salmon fry that go down to the sea from the rivers. He speaks of them going down by millions. Now we will take the river Hodder as a river with which both Salmo Salar and myself are well acquainted, and I will venture to say that, so far is this an over-estimate, that if he would take the hundredth part of the number he would be much nearer the truth. The Samlets when they go to the sea may be reckoned to weigh eight to the pound, and two millions would at that rate weigh one hundred and ten tons. Does Salmo Salar think that one ton and a tenth of Smolts go down the river Hodder to the sea on an average of years? I have more favourable means of judging of the quantity that go down the river Ribble than I have of those of the Hodder, and I believe I should very greatly exaggerate their numbers if I estimated them at any such weight as a fourth of that quantity. Again, the Hodder and the Ribble are, in some respects, far more favourable for spawning than many other rivers; for partly owing to the country through which they pass, and partly owing to the rapidity of their streams, the gravel is large and very suitable for spawning in; there is also far less mud and sand in them, and the spawning beds are much less liable to be choked up than they are in many other rivers. No doubt the Salmon will make the best selection in their power, but they can only select from such places as there are; and if those are not suitable the ova must be in a great measure destroyed. Since Ramsbottom returned from Scotland he has visited the river Dee, about forty miles from Chester, and there he found the spawning beds (ridds as Salmo Salar calls them) silted up with mud and sand, and the ova buried in them to the depth of eighteen inches. How or when were the newly hatched fish (supposing, which is very improbable, that they ever did hatch) to make their escape from such a heap of filth? It would be quite impossible.

In conclusion, it seems desirable and quite necessary to say a few words as to the priority of discovery of this process of fish propagation. The French claim it; the Irish seem to claim it; the Messrs. Ashworth take great credit for it; and now Salmo Salar says he first suggested it. Allow me, as there are so many claimants in the field, to suggest one or two more. In the year 1832, without knowing that such a thing had ever been done or even thought of, I made some experiments on the spawning of fish and the artificial impregnation of their ova, which I communicated to "Loudon's Magazine of Natural History," in which they appeared. After that came the Duke of Buccleuch's game-keeper, Shaw, whose experiments were both satisfactory and conclusive. This was in 1836 or 1838. Then after my experiments at home, I induced Mr. Fawkes to take up the matter in 1841, and they were resumed in 1842, and again in 1848 and 1849, both with Salmon and Trout. It was at this period that Ramsbottom came into the field. At Mr. Fawkes's request I instructed him in the art, and sent him to Farnley, where he was perfectly successful; and since then, I believe he has had more experience and been more successful than any other propagator in the kingdom.

The principle of this system is very easily comprehended; but success depends on many niceties of manipulation, and much experience in judging whether the fish, both male and female, are in the proper condition for operating upon.

This experience is not gained without much practice. This practice Ramsbottom has in great perfection. There is no doubt the artificial breeding of fish will be found exceedingly beneficial, if properly carried out; and I hope to see the time when Salmo Salar may catch half-a-dozen of his namesakes at Whitewell, any good day in the season.

I am, Sir, Yours very truly, THOMAS GARNETT.

* * * * *

ARTIFICIAL BREEDING OF FISH--(CONTINUED).

CLITHEROE, _9th January_, 1854.

To the Editor of the "Manchester Guardian."

SIR,--As I believe that Salmo Salar is quite as desirous of increasing the breed of Salmon as myself, the controversy between us may be reduced to very narrow limits. He believes that Trout eat very few of the Salmon ova, and therefore cannot do much harm. I will just mention a few facts which make me think otherwise. When Ramsbottom was in Galway he caught in one night twenty-five Trout on the spawning ground, which had on the average not less than five hundred ova in each of their stomachs; from one of their throats he squeezed a thousand. As the net would not take a fish of less than two pounds, how many had passed through it? When he was at Knowlmere, in sweeping the river for spawning fish he caught nine Par, two Trouts, and a Sprod on the spawning bed, all of which were gorged with Salmon spawn; when he went into the brooks there he never found a pair of Trout spawning without also finding a number of smaller fish behind, some of which he caught, and in all such cases found them gorged with roe up to the throat; the male Trout would occasionally drive them off, but as soon as he returned to the female they were again close in the rear.

In the "Perthshire Courier" of the 22nd December is the following statement: The men employed in taking the breeding fish secured a Whitling on Tuesday about three-quarters of a pound, and as they observed Salmon ova coming out of his mouth he was brought to the office of Mr. Buist for examination; on being opened, upwards of three hundred impregnated Salmon ova were taken from his stomach quite undigested. It may be, therefore, fairly presumed, that this youngster had taken this quantity for his breakfast; if he dined and breakfasted in the same style each day during the breeding season, it is difficult to estimate the expense of his keep. Such is the amount of loss of impregnated roe in one morning from one trifling fish; what must it be throughout the season from the various enemies it has to encounter?