measure destroyed.  Since Ramsbottom returned from Scotland he has visited the river Dee, about forty miles from Chester, and there he found the spawning beds (ridds as Salmo Salar calls them) silted up with mud and sand, and the ova buried in them to the depth of eighteen inches.  How or when were the newly hatched fish (supposing, which is very improbable, that they ever did hatch) to make their escape from such a heap of filth?  It would be quite impossible.

In conclusion, it seems desirable and quite necessary to say a few words as to the priority of discovery of this process of fish propagation.  The French claim it; the Irish seem to claim it; the Messrs. Ashworth take great credit for it; and now Salmo Salar says he first suggested it.  Allow me, as there are so many claimants in the field, to suggest one or two more.  In the year 1832, without knowing that such a thing had ever been done or even thought of, I made some experiments on the spawning of fish and the artificial impregnation of their ova, which I communicated to “Loudon’s Magazine of Natural History,” in which they appeared.  After that came the Duke of Buccleuch’s game-keeper, Shaw, whose experiments were both satisfactory and conclusive.  This was in 1836 or 1838.  Then after my experiments at home, I induced Mr. Fawkes to take up the matter in 1841, and they were resumed in 1842, and again in 1848 and 1849, both with Salmon and Trout.  It was at this period that Ramsbottom came into the field.  At Mr. Fawkes’s request I instructed him in the art, and sent him to Farnley, where he was perfectly successful; and since then, I believe he has had more experience and been more successful than any other propagator in the kingdom.

The principle of this system is very easily comprehended; but success depends on many niceties of manipulation, and much experience in judging whether the fish, both male and female, are in the proper condition for operating upon.

This experience is not gained without much practice.  This practice Ramsbottom has in great perfection.  There is no doubt the artificial breeding of fish will be found exceedingly beneficial, if properly carried out; and I hope to see the time when Salmo Salar may catch half-a-dozen of his namesakes at Whitewell, any good day in the season.

I am, Sir,
Yours very truly,
THOMAS GARNETT.

* * * * *

ARTIFICIAL BREEDING OF FISH—­(CONTINUED).

CLITHEROE, 9th January, 1854.

To the Editor of the “Manchester Guardian.”

SIR,—­As I believe that Salmo Salar is quite as desirous of increasing the breed of Salmon as myself, the controversy between us may be reduced to very narrow limits.  He believes that Trout eat very few of the Salmon ova, and therefore cannot do much harm.  I will just mention a few facts which make me think otherwise.  When Ramsbottom was in Galway he caught in one night twenty-five Trout on the spawning