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 themselves, they would look on with great composure. No; if we are to be taxed, let us tax ourselves, and not leave it to those who will have no interest in the matter, and who may involve us in litigation and expense over which we shall have no control.