It is owing to this unconquerable instinct we are indebted for the few salmon we get in the upper Severn. At the spawning season they make their appearance in the estuary, and, so long as they meet with no insurmountable obstruction to their progress, will traverse miles for the deposition of their ova. Slight obstacles in the way will not deter them, and it is only after repeated failures they give up; they swim through rapids, leap from seven to ten feet high, and push on to their destination through powerful floods of descending water; and it is only at insurmountable barriers to their progress that they fall a prey to the rapacity of poachers, who have been known at one time to have taken cart loads with spears.
Since the above was in type Mr. Frank Buckland and Mr. S. Walpole, as Inspectors of Salmon fisheries, have issued their report, wherein we learn that the Severn is much polluted in its upper waters by refuse from mines, and in the middle and lower waters by the refuse from manufactories and town sewage; and that out of the 290 miles of spawning ground which the Severn possesses, only 75 are accessible to the fish. Mr. Willis Bund, the chairman of the Severn Board, supplied Mr. Buckland with the following figures as to the value of the Severn salmon fisheries. The figures show the value of the fish caught:
| 1869 | £8,006 |
| 1870 | 13,000 |
| 1871 | 11,200 |
| 1872 | 8,000 |
| 1873 | 10,000 |
| 1874 | 10,500 |
| 1875 | 10,590 |
| 1876 | 14,560 |
| 1877 | 12,880 |
| 1878 | 8,978 |
As regards the future prospects of the Severn, Mr. Buckland confesses he does not feel quite happy, but adds that the exact cause of the non-increase of the produce of the river during recent years may possibly depend upon the peculiar conditions of the river between the first navigation weir and the sea. The fish having such a long estuary to traverse before they can get beyond the tidal nets are often unable to pass the lower weirs, and being obliged to fall back with the tide, run a second chance of being caught by the nets. The fish taken in the Severn are usually very large. For the last five years the average has been over 14 lbs. each; last year a great many varying between 30 and 40 lbs. were captured, and some even exceeding the latter weight. The largest recorded, weighing 50 lb., was taken in a draft net on the 18th March, 1878, by Mr. Browning, of Longney, Gloucestershire. The fish spawn in the Severn as early as, if not earlier than, in any other river. During the past year, 1878, Mr. Buckland says fishing was not prosperous, and he gives the number of salmon taken as 12,450, and the weight as 86 tons, against the 16,000 fish, weighing 115 tons, given on a former page, as being the take in 1877. Mr. Buckland adds that the Severn is the largest salmon river in England, and he enumerates the weirs which greatly obstruct the lower part of the river.
Shad were formerly taken in considerable numbers at the fords, by bargemen chiefly, who caught more than they could consume, and sold them to others; and in a commercial point of view, in this portion of the river, they were even more important than salmon. They were caught at night, generally by moonlight, by men who stood at the fords, watching for them as they ascended the river. Their approach was marked by a phosphorescent light, or “loom” in the water. They were difficult to catch in the daytime, as they would either go over or under the net, and fix themselves with their heads in the bed of the river, tail upwards. When in proper condition they were well flavoured fish, and attained a large size, sometimes two and three feet in length.
The flounder was another fine fish, and was as abundant as any in the Severn, affording good sport to “bottom fishers,” with rod and line. Since the locks and weirs were made they have, like the shad, ceased altogether. Lampreys too, which formerly were considered even of more importance than salmon, and which also were caught in this part of the Severn, are fish which have altogether ceased to visit us since the erection of the first weir in 1842.
Again, the rich and oily flesh of the eel formed the staple diet of dwellers along the river banks; and even the well-to-do, whose roomy chimney corners were hung with salted swine flesh, and on whose tables fresh meat appeared only at intervals, esteemed eels a luxury. Eels, like shad, were migratory, and before locks and weirs were placed upon the river myriads of minute eels in spring made their way from the brackish waters of the estuary of the Severn, keeping close to the shore. They formed a dark dense mass, like a sunken rope, and were called Elvers, a word said to be of Saxon origin, and a corruption, it is supposed, of Eelfare, meaning to travel, as in wayfare, thoroughfare, and seafaring. In this state they were caught, bushels of them, and sold at a small sum, whilst the remainder were used for manure or pig-wash. Vast numbers of these eels, when left to their instinct, found their way into the upper Severn and its tributaries.
An Act of the 30th of Charles II. for the preservation of fishing in the river Severn, imposed a penalty on all persons taking elvers; an Act of George III., but repealed so much of the former, as related to the penalty on persons taking elvers for their own use only, and not for sale; whilst the Salmon Act of 1861, repealed the 30th of Charles II. altogether; and left no law to prevent the destruction of young eels, which was carried on in Gloucestershire in what was called the elver season on a large scale.
The Severn Board of conservators, under the powers granted by Mr. Mundella’s Fresh Water Fishing Act, (41 and 42 Vic. Cap. 39) passed a resolution in March, 1879, making it the duty of eel fishermen to pay a sum of ten shillings for an annual license to use their lines. Considerable opposition was offered to this on the part of the Ironbridge and other fishermen; a memorial was drawn up and signed at a meeting of these and others from Bridgnorth and Shrewsbury, and a deputation appointed to present it to the Severn Board of Conservators at their meeting at Shrewsbury.
Mr. Yale who presented the memorial said: One complaint was in regard to the license put upon the rod-and-line. It was only 1s., it was true, and that was not much, but it involved a principle which they thought might be carried further at some future day, and to a very oppressive extent. The greatest grievance, however, was the imposition of licenses upon the use of night lines. He did not believe that the scarcity of fish was owing to the anglers or to the netters, for it was a matter of experience that when men were allowed to go and catch as many as they thought proper there were plenty of fish, but it was not so now. He used to think it a very bad day if he could not catch 20 lbs. of fish, and now, perhaps he would not take 10 ozs. That was not caused by the rod-and-line, or by the use of nets, upon which it is now sought to place these restrictions. He believed, as Mr. George had told him the other day, that the scarcity of fish was owing to the pollutions, and not to the taking of fish.
Samuel Sandals, made a statement to the effect that he worked all the hours he could at his usual work and spent the rest in fishing, and he thought it very hard to put a license upon the night lines. As to the trout taken with night lines, it was very rare indeed that they could take a trout in that way, except in the spring when the water was muddy: he believed the ducks destroyed “a sight” of the spawn on the fords.
Mr. Watton said he did not for a moment dispute what the last speaker had said with respect to his not catching trout on night lines. There might possibly be some very good local reasons for his non-success, but, speaking from his own observation, he knew well enough that the night lines were the destruction of the trout. They were laid zig-zag fashion for a great distance down the river, and swept every trout off the fords at night, and they were most destructive engines.
Mr. H. Shaw said he quite agreed with what Mr. Watton had said, and he could bring evidence to prove that an immense quantity of trout was taken upon night lines, and a very large number of small fish were destroyed in baiting the lines. To take these baits stones were rooted up and the young salmon were frequently disturbed and got devoured by large fish. No less than 3,000 or 4,000 bait were caught each day in and around Shrewsbury to supply the night lines, and that must be a very serious drawback to the stock of fish in the river.
The Chairman said it seemed to him that the gentlemen who had attended the meeting of the Board objected to the principle of issuing licenses, and if it was so, so far as he understood the matter, that Board could do nothing.