to him how far these alterations are from
meeting their wishes. Supposing that the new bill (as published in
the "Field" newspaper, and explained and commented on by Mr. Eden)
is to be understood as a government measure and one in which they
will allow of no alterations, I maintain that it is very
objectionable both from what it omits and what it purposes to do.

To begin with the former, or, in other words, to take the
recommendations of the Worcester meeting as the groundwork of new
legislation, it does not touch on several of them; they were, so
far as I remember (for I have no memoranda to refer to) an
extension of the weekly and annual close time--minimum penalties:
--a close time for Trout, and a right of way on the banks of
Salmon rivers for all water-bailiffs, duly appointed, without
their being deemed guilty of trespass; and a tax on fishery nets
and implements, for the purpose of defraying the expenses of
protection.

Now, so far as I understand the bill as proposed, the only one of
these recommendations included in it is the tax. I am wrong in
this--the taxation is not included in the bill, but was suggested
by Mr. Eden at the meeting he attended lately at Chester. The bill
proposes that the choice of conservators shall be vested in the
magistrates at quarter sessions, and the conservators shall have
power to expend all the funds raised by voluntary subscriptions
for certain purposes mentioned in the act. But Mr. Eden suggested
at Chester that if these funds were inadequate the conservators
should have the power of supplementing them by a rate on the
owners and lessees of fisheries in proportion to their extent. Now
one man may have an estate on the banks of a river extending for
miles from which he derives little or no revenue; while another
may have a fishery not extending more yards than the other does
miles, but from which he derives a revenue of as many pounds as
the other does pence. If Mr. Eden's meaning is lineal extent, I
feel very sure it will not meet with the approval of the upper
riparian proprietors. Again, why should the magistrates in quarter
sessions (nine-tenths of whom know nothing of Salmon or Salmon
rivers) choose the conservators? What, for instance, would the
magistrates meeting at Wakefield know of the Ribble or the Hodder?
What would they care about the matter? They would choose the men
who had power to tax the riparian proprietors and lessees; but as
they would not be taxed them