allowed free
access to the banks of the river elsewhere; but I have a strong
objection to be made the subject of offensive exceptional
legislation. Are not gamekeepers as likely to need looking after
as mill-owners?

Again, the bill does not touch on minimum penalties. This it ought
to do, for in some districts (Wales, for instance) there is a
strong animus against all attempts at preserving the Salmon, and
notorious poachers, duly convicted of offences against the act of
1861, in some instances have been fined a shilling, in others a
farthing.

To W. H. Hornby, Esq., M.P.

* * * * *

REMARKS ON A PROPOSED BILL FOR THE BETTER PRESERVATION OF SALMON.

CLITHEROE, _August 27th_, 1860.

HENRY GEORGE, ESQ.

DEAR SIR,--I am favoured by the receipt of your letter of the 25th
inst., and the accompanying draft of a proposed bill "for the
better Preservation of Salmon," and proceed at once to offer such
remarks and suggestions as occur to me, and shall be glad to learn
that they meet with your approval.

In the third clause (section) you give an interpretation of the
names under which you wish to include all fish of the Salmon kind.
Does not this include common Trout? You specially include Char by
name. Would it not be better to limit your intentions to all
migratory fish of the Salmon kind, to wit, Salmon, Grilse, &c.
&c.? I think also the meaning of a fixed net wants defining more
rigorously. As it now stands it appears to me that it would
include any net which should be fastened on a root or stone whilst
it was being drawn through a pool, if the men employed in doing
this were to let go the cords whilst they loosed the net from the
obstruction.

Fourth clause.--I quite agree with you on the period allotted to
annual close time, but think there ought to be a penalty for
buying, selling, or having in possession Salmon roe (save and
except for the purpose of artificial propagation).

Seventh.--I do not agree with you at all on the subject of the
weekly close time, which in my opinion ought to be for one-half of
every day, except Sunday, and the whole of that day. Why should
the owners of fisheries at the mouths of rivers, who are at
neither trouble nor expense in breeding or preserving the spawning
fish, have all the benefit derivable from their increase? Why
should the upper proprietors act the part of brood hens for these,
hatching and preserving the fish for the benefit of those who take
no trouble about thes