How Custom Became a Crime on the River Nore: Cot Fishing At

How Custom became a Crime on the River had this happened?' Nore: Cot Fishing at Bennettsbridge How the public's right to fish became a crime 1837-95 Among the earliest concerns about the salmon fishing on Marilyn Silverman the inland, non-tidal Nore was the illegal fishing which took place because numerous mill, salmon and eel weirs were being Writing in 1801, William Tighe of Woodstock, naturalist used to catch salmon in ways which the law had defined as and landlord commented on how the rivers of southern County illegal Thus, people might fix nets onto the weirs to trap Kilkenny we~e 'celebrated for their salmon' and that the right salmon; they might close the gap which had been bnilt into the to fish was 'free by custom to the inhabitants of the shores.' weirs to allow migrating salmon to pass or they might relocate However, he also pointed out that such freedom to fish was gap in an ineffectual place; they might set nets in the gap circumscribed by legislation which aimed to ensure a good frighten the fish to prevent them from passing through; they supply of fish to the inhabitants. For example, legislation to might fish, either by cot and snap net, or by rod and line, too protect salmon fry, or young fish, as they swam down river to ,close to the gap and, therefore, too close to where the salmon the sea, had been passed in 1635, 1716, 1726 and 1778. So too, to pass; they might fish their salmon weirs during closed in 1758, was there legislation which established a 'closed tti:mes; or they might build a salmon weir without having a legal season' during which fishing was prohibited. Tighe also noted to do so. The perpetrators of these breaches came from all that unfortunately, such laws were seldom enforced. As a classes. This was because so many people were salmon result, salmon fry were destroyed in mill weirs; weirs often did .. fis,hiIlg for sport, for profit or for both: landlords, gentlemen not have gaps to allow the fish to pass through; cots fished at tanners, estate agents), farmers, shopkeepers, all times; illegal nets were used; people fished out of season. labourers and, of course, cotmen. The result, wrote Tighe, is that the 'quantity of salmon has 1837, a case was brought against Nicholas Coyne, very much decreased within the last forty years." ""moc, Bennettsbridge 'for having a net set for the destruction In the decades after Tighe wrote, the decline of the salmon fish.' The charges were brought by private water bailiffs who fisheries became a growing and 'general complaint' in the themselves fishermen and who, when giving evidence, United Kingdom.' After 1825, the government increasingly dmitt.,d to fishing illegally on occasion. One of them, when intervened - passing new laws, introducing more bureaucracy ""VIr'" evidence, also admitted that he expected a portion of the and extending the role of the courts. The aims were to ensure as payment for his work in 'the business' of enforcing the that the salmon flourished - to satisfy the demands of :'tishel-Y laws. The bailiffs sought a penalty of £5, 'as directed by sportsmen and the export market - and, then, to ensure that Act for such an offence' (Case 1). the people who fished obeyed the laws. In the inland wate~ of the river Nore, these interventions took three forms. Flrs~, ************:,:*** more and more restrictions were placed on when and where It was legal to fish and on what eqnipment and tools could be Nicholas Coyne, Bennettsbridge Miller, at the used. Second, by restricting the times, places and tools, the Sessions in 1837 laws gradually restricted who could fish. Third, these new first witness for the complainants was Philip Doyle. He restrictions were increasingly enforced - initially by private that he, along with James Doolan and Edmond Bryan, parties and, later, by the police who summoned people to the to Mr. Coyne's mill in the night of the 14th September last; petty sessions court on charges of illegal fishing. The result was crossed the river and got on the island where the net that, by 1884, the public right to fish had become a crime. How set on the waste gate of the mill; he took it up and has it 66 67 pe,ynten.t, nor does he expect any part of the fine; never got more now in Court; did not see Coyne after he took it up that night; his travelling charges; often cross-{1.Shed; believes it is the net was set to take all sorts of fish, for not even Salmon fry contrary to Act of Parliament to do so. could escape; found about a dozen eels in the net when he took 'James Doolan examined - Was with Doyle when he found it up. net on the waste gate of the weir; the net was so set as to 'Cross-examined - Witness expects his portion of the fine, if either fish going up or down; the net was set in the inflicted, but is swearing to what he saw and is s.wearing in the strongest part of the current, and the salmon always face it. truth; is not swearing for the purpose of collectmg the money, 'Cross-examined - Is also a fisherman, and has often cross but he expected part of the fine. !/t, .•""a but not in the prohibited time; does not act for the sahe of At this point, solicitor Scott, appearing for defendant penalty; the net was not set immediately near the wheel; it Coyne, interjected that, because Doyle had a vested interest in was in another place. - Case closed here '" the Magistrates the outcome he 'was an incompetent witness, and ... was retired. On returning into the court the Chairman [Greene] incapacitated by the Act.' On the bench, the, resident magistrate, .9tated that they were unanimously of[the] opinion that the case Joseph Greene, 'differed with Mr. Scott, and said that h,s was fully proved. They considered the conduct of Mr. Coyne, evidence was not excluded by the Act. the notice he had received, and from the threats made use 'Cross-examination [ofDoyleJ resumed -Is a City Constable by him, very reprehensible, more particularly as coming from and should remain in the City at night, except when he obtained person in his rank of life; and therefore they were determined the liberty of the Magistrate; has been only one night out on 'the the full penalty of £5 should be forthwith inflicted, and business' during the last six months; has often been absent m •.• ·~'oo,"o they hoped would prove a salutary example to others." the day-time; cut off the net and brought it home with the eels; was in a public house that night before he left town and drank ***********';'>!:*** either a pint or a tumbler of beer, and took a glass of wh1.Skey m another public house; he also drank some spirits out of a bottle Doyle, Bryan and Doolan were fishermen who had taken it at Maddoxtown. Mr. Coyne's was not the last he v1.S,ted that themselves, for a share of the fine (Doyle), because Coyne night· prosecutes for the good of the public and for himself; he is interfering with 'their' fish or because they had been hired a fisherman, and was asked three years ago to undertake this gentry anglers (Bryan and Doolan),O to search out and business; has cross-fished himself in the season; the net was prose,cu·te both illegal weirs and those people, such as millers, about 20 yards off the mill wheel; the net was set m a rush of were using their legal weirs for illegal fishing. Thus, in water. , numerous gentry, including the earl of Carrick (Mount 'Edmund Bryan examined - Didn't go across the river that William F. Tighe (Woodstock), Sydenham Davis night, but saw the net brought by the other two men; witness ;'!(lDang:an, Summerhill), John Nixon (Brownsbam) and Edward served the summons afterwards on Coyne for the offence; went ;.i.tlUIlt (Jerpoint) were charged with weir violations. What this to his house; met him in the mill-yard but did not then know of course, is how the different interests of people in him; Coyne asked what he wanted; witness told him and he 'diiffereIlt classes were colliding: weir owners or weir tenants made use of abusive language; witness then went to the millers, farmers) were opposed by dwelling-house and served the summons; when going away g~~~:~~';f;~';;.::::~~ who angled for sport and by cot Coyne said if he had known when they were there before he ;(i who netted for food and profit. Each would have peppered them well as had fire-arms well prepared. .beHe·.ed that the others were taking too much fish and were 'Cross-examined - When witness undertook the business he doing so illegally. had no promise of payment; he took up the business as a The 1837 case also shows that the enforcement of the law fisherman and for the public good; was never prom,sed 69 68 in the inland fisheries was the result of actions by private apply to the navigable, albeit non-tidal, river Nore. individuals who had vested interests in the fisheries. The Over the next decades, the inhabitants continued to fish, constabulary, with their veneer of neutrality and respectability, even as additional interventions were legislated. In 1844, the were not yet involved. This meant that the magistrates at the constabulary was given more rights to interfere in fishing petty sessions had to decide which private citizens were telling offences.

Load more