A 
 
 CAUTION TO ANGLEES 
 
 ' THE PRACTICAL ANGLER' 
 
 AND ' THE MODERN PRACTICAL ANGLER 
 
 COMPARED 
 
 BY W. C. STEWART 
 
 AUTHOR OF 'THE PRACTICAr, ANGLER' 
 
 EDINBURGH 
 ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK 
 
 Price One Shilling.
 
 OR 
 
 ' THE PRACTICAL ANGLER 1 
 
 AND ' THE MODERN PRACTICAL ANGLER' 
 
 COMPARED 
 
 WITH 
 
 REMARKS UPON THE DECREASE OF TROUT 
 AND PROPOSED REMEDIES 
 
 BY W. C. STEWART 
 
 AUTHOR OF 'THE PRACTICAL ANGLER' 
 
 EDINBURGH . 
 
 ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK 
 1871
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 THAT Mr. Pennell should write a book, whether 
 he had any information to impart or not, is a 
 matter of which no one can complain. That he 
 should call that book, however, by a title so 
 similar to mine, my publishers complained of 
 to his, and requested them to alter it, as the 
 similarity or title might lead to purchasers 
 getting the one book when they wished the other. 
 As they declined to do this, and I am afraid 
 that, in spite of the discovery of a previous 
 Practical Angler, any confusion in this way 
 might be chiefly detrimental to The Practical 
 Angler which goes by my name, I publish 
 this pamphlet portions of which have already 
 appeared in the Field to show that the simi- 
 larity is almost entirely confined to the title, 
 and that no two systems of fly-fishing could be 
 more different than those advocated in The 
 Practical Angler, and The Modern Practical 
 Angler. 
 
 I am further stimulated to what is somewhat 
 an ungracious task, by not having seen any 
 
 2OG7046
 
 IV PREFACE. 
 
 review of The, Modern Practical Angler, which 
 thoroughly tears to tatters the web of absurdities 
 in which Mr. Pennell has involved himself ; 
 most reviewers giving them the go-by lightly. 
 The Scotsman, indeed, remarked that Mr. 
 Pennell might safely be left to the mercy of his 
 own arguments, and if all his readers were 
 thoroughly qualified anglers it would be difficult 
 to imagine a severer punishment ; but as more of 
 the readers of angling works are learners than 
 proficients, and as they cannot so readily dis- 
 tinguish between the genuine and the counter- 
 feit, I propose for their benefit criticising the 
 system of fly-fishing and flies which its author 
 expects to " revolutionise fly-fishing," and " write 
 the epitaph of the present system of artificial 
 flies." 
 
 I have also some grounds of complaint against 
 The Modern Practical Angler, which will be 
 fully stated in the following pages, and upon 
 which I court the opinion of the angling 
 community. 
 
 EDINBURGH, 17th March 1871.
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR OF THE FIELD. 
 MODERN AND ANCIENT (?) PRACTICAL ANGLERS. 
 
 SIR In your paper of the 17th ult. I notice a letter 
 from Mr. H. Cholmondeley-Pennell, in which he 
 backs up the views of fly-fishing down stream which 
 he has advocated in his book, The Modern Prac- 
 tical Angler. As Mr. Pennell has alluded to me 
 frequently in his book, and almost entirely in his 
 letter, as an exponent of up-stream fishing, perhaps 
 you will allow me space to say something in reply 
 to his letter, and also to make a few remarks upon 
 his book. First, then, for the letter. In it Mr. 
 Pennell says the arguments in favour of up-stream 
 fishing are : 
 
 " 1. That, as trout always lie head up stream, 
 the angler fishing from below is less likely to be seen 
 than one fishing from above." 
 
 " Answer. The position of the eye of a trout is 
 such as to enable him to see much more readily any- 
 thing above or on one side than in front of him ; 
 and in rippling water, such as trout streams usually 
 
 B
 
 2 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 consist of, the angler making moderately long casts 
 will, for all practical purposes, be out of ' ken' of the 
 fish, whether he stands above or below." 
 
 If Mr. Pennell in his rather vague answer 
 means that trout see as well behind as in front, why 
 does he in his book instruct anglers to throw a foot 
 above a rising fish 1 ? why not throw a foot behind 
 him 1 If Mr. Pennell admits, what every angler 
 knows to be a fact, that trout see better in front than 
 behind nature having formed them for looking out 
 for their food the way it comes, down stream why 
 does he attempt to answer the argument at all ? 
 
 " 2. That the angler striking from below is likely 
 to strike the hook into the fish's jaws, whereas the 
 angler striking from above is likely to ' pull the flies 
 straight out of his mouth.' " 
 
 " Ansicer. This is true as an abstract proposi- 
 tion, but as applied to the question of fly-fishing up 
 stream is quite untrue. When the fly is being 
 drawn straight down stream, the trout, rising from 
 below, is forced, owing to the position of the gut, to 
 turn round before lie can take the fly ; so that at the 
 moment of rising the fish would be in precisely the 
 same position with regard to the angler, whether the 
 latter was fishing up or down." 
 
 In answer to Mr. Pennell's answer, it may be 
 pointed out that an up-stream fisher never draws his 
 flies at all, but allows them to float down as the 
 natural insect does; also, that he very rarely casts
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLEKS. 3 
 
 directly above him, but generally up and across. 
 Mr. Pennell says (upon what grounds it is difficult 
 even to imagine) that " the position of the gut com- 
 pels the trout to turn round- before he can take thf 
 fly." That is, that the trout sees the fly coming 
 down stream, but also sees the gut is in his way 
 so he either bolts up stream or waits till the fl} 
 passes him, and then turns round with his head 
 down stream and catches it. It is by no mean.' 
 clear why the gut should be more in the trout's way 
 in the one position than the other ; but most 
 anglers will be of opinion that if the trout saw the 
 gut he would not put himself to so much trouble to 
 take the fly. Had Mr. Pennell stated that trout 
 turned a summersault or two before taking the fly, 
 it would be quite as probable in theory and correct 
 in fact. 
 
 Mr. Pennell's answer to the third argument will 
 be fully replied to subsequently, in taking notice of 
 his flies and system of fishing. 
 
 Mr. Pennell in his letter adds : 
 
 " Even, therefore, if it could be proved that some- 
 what more fish were to be taken by fishing up than 
 down stream, anglers might well hesitate before they 
 adopted the system. My own experience, however, 
 leads to an opposite conclusion, and it is an expe- 
 rience corroborated, as I believe, by that of the 
 great majority of anglers. Indeed, Mr. Stewart him- 
 self practically admits this when he states that
 
 4 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 ' ninety-nine anglers out of a hundred fish down ;' 
 and in a subsequent (fourth) edition that, notwith- 
 standing what he has written, ' fishing up stream 
 with the fly has not been adopted by a large portion 
 of the angling community.' " 
 
 I do not doubt that Mr. Pennell and the majority 
 of anglers may catch more fish fishing down than 
 up probably for the reason mentioned at page 67 
 of the fifth edition of TJie Practical Angler, which, 
 as all your readers may not have a copy beside them, 
 I will quote : 
 
 " Fishing up is much more difficult than fishing 
 down, requiring more practice, and a better acquaint- 
 ance with the habits of the trout ; and we believe 
 that a mere novice would, on a large water, catch 
 more trout by fishing down than up, because the 
 latter requires more nicety in casting ; but to attain 
 anything like eminence in fly-fishing the angler 
 must fish up," etc. 
 
 Mr. Pennell says that I practically admit the 
 benefit of down-stream fishing when I say that 
 ninety-nine anglers out of a hundred fish down. 
 I published The Practical Angler thirteen years ago 
 for the sole purpose of showing that the ninety-nine 
 anglers fished wrong ; and how Mr. Pennell can. so 
 distort my statements and misrepresent my ideas as 
 to say that I " practically admit to be right" what I 
 spent weeks in labouring to prove wrong, I cannot 
 understand. The unblushing coolness of the state-
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. O 
 
 ment is enough to take away one's breath. Mr. 
 Pennell continues : " And in a subsequent (fourth) 
 edition, that, notwithstanding what he has written, 
 fishing up stream with the fly has not been adopted 
 by a large portion of the angling community." 
 Picking out a few lines here and there, without 
 giving the context, is not the fairest way of repre- 
 senting a question ; and if Mr. Pennell intended 
 quoting the passage at all, he should have finished 
 it. It is too lengthy to give here, but the reader 
 will find it in pages 67 to 71 of The Practical Angler. 
 The number of up-stream fishers, however, has 
 greatly increased of late years, as you are no doubt 
 aware ; and they will continue to increase, in spite 
 of Mr. Pennell's backsliding to the old system. 
 
 Although I think I have reason to complain of 
 some things in Mr. Pennell's book, I should never 
 have thought of writing to any newspaper upon the 
 subject had I not been attacked ; having been at- 
 tacked, however, I suppose I may be " permitted to 
 speak for myself," and if in doing so I require to 
 make more reference to The Practical Angler than 
 I like, I hope your readers will excuse me. I offer 
 no excuse to Mr. Pennell for making remarks upon 
 his book, because it is a volume with very consider- 
 able pretensions, and his writing again shows that 
 he courts rather than shuns criticism. 
 
 The first subject which Mr. Pennell lays much 
 stress upon is the form of hook a subject which he 
 correctly considers of great importance and intro-
 
 6 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 duces what he calls the Pennell hook, " the result of 
 some thought and experiment." If your readers will 
 compare pages 7 to 10 of The Modern Practical 
 Angler with pages 47 and 48 of The Practical Angler, 
 I think they will be forced to the conclusion that 
 Mr. Pennell's hook need not have cost him any 
 thought or experiment. The illustrations and reason- 
 ing in both cases are almost identical, the only 
 difference being, that he has made the turn of the 
 hook at a more acute angle, rendering it more liable 
 to break, and the barb of the hook longer, rendering 
 it more difficult to fix. 
 
 Mr. Pennell's system of flies and fly-fishing, how- 
 ever, is what he prides himself upon, and but for it 
 his " book would certainly not have been written." 
 Upon these points there is something both new and 
 old ; the flies are new with a vengeance ; the system 
 is a return to the ancient. Fly-fishers he divides 
 into two classes, formalists and colourists, which he 
 pits against each other, and then pitches into each 
 by turns. By the formalists Mr. Pennell seems to 
 mean the school so ably represented by Mr. Francis 
 Francis, who believe that an exact imitation of the 
 fly on the water will prove more killing than any 
 other. This school may very well be left to answer 
 Mr. Pennell for themselves. It is not quite so easy 
 to know what he means by the "colourists." The 
 following is his reply of the "colourists" to the 
 " formalists " :
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 7 
 
 " Your theory supposes that trout can detect the 
 nicest shades of distinction between specimens of flies 
 which on a summer's afternoon may be numbered 
 actually by hundreds, thus crediting them with an 
 amount of entomological knowledge which even a 
 professed naturalist, to say nothing of the angler him- 
 self, rarely possesses ; whilst at the same time you 
 draw your flies up and across stream in a way in 
 which no natural insect is ever seen, not only adding 
 to the impossibility of discriminating between 
 different species, but often rendering it difficult for 
 the fish to identify the flies as flies. The only thing 
 a fish can distinguish under these circumstances, be- 
 sides the size of fly, is its colour. We therefore re- 
 gard form as a matter of comparative indifference, 
 and colour as all-important." 
 
 As the first part of this extract is almost word for 
 word the same as Tlie Practical Angler, I am entitled 
 to suppose that Mr. Pennell classes me as a colourist. 
 The last two sentences of the passage quoted are Mr. 
 Pennell's own ; how far they agree with The Practical 
 Angler the following quotation will show : 
 
 " We must now consider what it is necessary to 
 imitate, or what do trout take, or rather mistake, the 
 artificial fly for. As before stated, we believe that, 
 deceived by an appearance of life, they take it for 
 what it is intended to imitate a fly, or some other 
 aquatic insect. In proof of this, artificial flies are 
 not of much use unless the trout are at the time
 
 8 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 feeding on the natural insect ; and an artificial fly 
 will kill twenty trout for one which the feathers com- 
 posing it, rolled round the hook without regard to 
 shape, will. Nay, more, a neatly made, natural- 
 looking fly will, where trout are shy, kill three trout 
 for one which a clumsy fly will. . . . The great 
 point, then, in fly-dressing, is to make the artificial 
 fly resemble the natural insect in shape." 
 
 Having put, as he expresses it, " both formalists 
 and colourists out of court," Mr. Pennell proceeds to 
 have his innings. Some miscellaneous remarks 
 follow ahout dry and wet flies, imitating nature, 
 and simulating life ; these processes being accom- 
 plished as follows : " It is of the utmost consequence 
 that the fly should be as ' fly-like ' and characteristic 
 as possible, so that, notwithstanding its rapid and 
 unnatural movements, it may be at once and unmis- 
 takably identified as a fly." Mr. Pennell backs this 
 up by the statement that " ninety-nine men out of a 
 hundred find it best to give a slight movement to 
 the fly in the water." Did it never occur to Mr. 
 Pennell, and the ninety-nine men out of a hundred 
 who, he says, keep him company, that the chances 
 of the said fly being "at once and unmistakably 
 identified as a fly " would be considerably improved 
 by a natural instead of an unnatural movement? 
 Mr. Pennell, be it observed, says men, not anglers. 
 How the men may fish I cannot say , but for the 
 anglers on this side the Tweed (and they are very
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 9 
 
 bad to beat), I have fished with all the best of them, 
 and not one gives any motion to his flies. 
 
 There is one point upon which a large number of 
 the very best anglers will agree with Mr. Pennell : 
 that is, " general shape, general colour, and size, are 
 all that can be distinguished by the fish. These are 
 the points, therefore, to be kept in view in the con- 
 struction of artificial trout-flies." He then proceeds 
 to construct what he calls three typical flies upon 
 these principles, and his method of doing so, or 
 " imitating nature," is profoundly original and 
 thoroughly amusing. " As regards form or shape, no 
 question can arise, as the selected families are all 
 unmistakably and characteristically flies in the proper 
 sense of the term, having wings, legs," etc. A little 
 farther on : " The great majority of the most favourite 
 river flies belong to the order Neuroptera, or nerve- 
 winged insects, the wings of which, being filmy and 
 transparent, cannot be really imitated by feathers, or 
 by any other available material. Wings, therefore, 
 are merely an incumbrance to the artificial trout-fly, 
 and should be entirely rejected." Having estab- 
 lished, on page 72, that " it is doubly important that 
 the imitation insect should be as characteristic and 
 fly-like as possible," and further established that all 
 flies have wings, Mr. Pennell commences to imitate 
 nature by dispensing with wings altogether. The 
 reader must not suppose, however, that the fly is to 
 be left almost naked. Not at all ; this is not the 
 way Mr. Pennell imitates nature. The deficiency
 
 10 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 thus caused is to be filled up by giving the fly three 
 times the number of legs to which it had a natural 
 right, or what he himself describes (his own words) 
 " as an unnatural quantity of legs." 
 
 Having now got a fly as "fly-like as possible," 
 with no wings and an unnatural quantity of legs, he 
 proceeds to the next great desideratum colour. And 
 here I may remark that, when I reduced the list of 
 artificial flies to six (three winged flies and three 
 spiders), I thought I had done quite enough in that 
 way ; but Mr. Pennell, having hit upon the making 
 of flies without wings, has an obvious advantage 
 over me, and reduces them to three, what he calls 
 typical flies, and selects what he says are the three 
 colours most usually predominating in river insects. 
 These colours are first, dark green ; second, fiery 
 or cinnamon brown ; third, darkish golden olive. If 
 any reader will look at the illustrations of these flies 
 in Mr. Pennell's book, he will at once come to the 
 conclusion that Mr. Pennell has been singularly ap- 
 propriate in his choice of a name for them, as, not 
 being an imitation of anything at present existing, 
 they must be typical of something to come. 
 
 Such are the methods of imitating nature in the 
 construction of flies, and simulating life in the work- 
 ing of them, which are to revolutionise fly-fishing. 
 On coming to some of the passages quoted, a horrid 
 suspicion crossed the writer's mind that Mr. Pennell 
 who is very fond of a joke might be in fun ; but 
 no, he is evidently terribly in earnest ; and if no
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 11 
 
 other person believes in his system, he at least 
 believes in it himself, as the following modest quota- 
 tion will show : 
 
 " Indeed, when I think now great that ingenuity 
 has been, how much has been written, and charm- 
 ingly written, for the last two centuries, to teach how 
 to make and use what I have been exhorting my 
 readers to discard as useless ; and what a compli- 
 cated and nicely-balanced system has been thereon 
 elaborated ; it is not without a pang of regret I have 
 undertaken the ungracious task of writing what may 
 perhaps eventually prove to be its epitaph." 
 
 So much for Mr. Pennell's theory of fly-fishing ; 
 and now to take a look at his practice. He says his 
 system, has been " worked out, tested, and re-tested 
 by myself during some twenty years' practical experi- 
 ence of fly-fishing on many of the principal rivers 
 and lakes of the three kingdoms." As a proof of 
 this he writes : 
 
 " Local prejudices are by no means confined to 
 professional fishermen. Even first-rate amateur per- 
 formers are often imbued with the notion that no 
 flies but those they have been accustomed to consider 
 the correct thing on particular rivers and streams 
 will kill in them. I remember once fishing the 
 most famous trouting loch in Scotland, in company 
 with two of her most celebrated (and justly cele- 
 brated) anglers, and when I showed them the flies I 
 meant to use, they assured me that they ' would never
 
 12 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 kill fish in Lochleven ! ' At the end of the first 
 day, however, my basket, which included seven trout, 
 weighing 14 lb., was found to be heavier than both 
 theirs." 
 
 This passage has been already answered in the 
 Scotsman newspaper, but, as all your readers may 
 not see the Scotsman, I quote it : 
 
 " We have heard something about that great na- 
 tional overthrow and humiliation. There is evidence 
 extant to the effect that those two luckless amateurs 
 whom Mr. Pennell came to Scotland to put to shame, 
 said, not that his flies would not kill fish, but that 
 they were not so suitable to kill fish at that place 
 as some other flies. Also it is averred that though 
 it is true that in two or three hours' evening fishing 
 Mr. Fennel], with his miraculous flies, did happen 
 to kill seven large trout, whilst his companions and 
 victims happened to alight on fewer or smaller it 
 is also true that on the next day, which was a much 
 longer and consequently fairer trial, one of the 
 vanquished, with the flies common to the place, did 
 better than Mr. Pennell and the flies in which he 
 puts all his trust, by something like fourfold. Of 
 course this is but a trifling incident ; but just for 
 that reason, as well as for another, it cannot, as stated 
 by Mr. Pennell, be admitted as evidence of his 
 theory." 
 
 As one of the occupants of the boat on this cele- 
 brated occasion, I may be permitted to add that Mr.
 
 A CAUTION TO AXGLEES. 13 
 
 Pennell who, it is as well to mention, was mostly 
 using winged flies, and not of the typical colour 
 thought his flies very superior, and was assured by 
 me that neither flies nor fishing mattered much on 
 Lochleven, as the very best anglers were frequently 
 disgracefully beaten by parties who had never thrown 
 a fly before. 
 
 What Mr. Pennell calls the first day's fishing 
 commenced at 6 P.M., and terminated shortly after 
 8 P.M., when Mr. Pennell had seven trout, one of 
 his companions six, and the other five. He, how- 
 ever, was fortunate in securing a three-and-a-half- 
 pounder, so that his basket weighed more than either 
 of the others. The wording of the passage, " His 
 basket, which included seven trout," would lead to 
 the supposition that he had other trout besides, which 
 was not the case : seven was the entire take. Now, 
 what I complain of is, that Mr. Pennell should mis- 
 represent the statements of his companions, suppress 
 the fact of there being a second and whole day's 
 fishing in which, as well as on the gross time, he 
 was very much behind one of his companions and 
 proceed upon this to claim superiority for flies, which, 
 if he was using at all, I never saw. Such conduct 
 needs no comment ; and if it was only a slip of 
 memory, Mr. Pennell has had plenty of time to put 
 matters right since the above appeared in the Scots- 
 man. It may be as well to mention, what the 
 Scotsman's reviewer has omitted, that, as we were 
 fishing three in a boat, and Mr. Pennell was a
 
 14 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 stranger, he had always an. end of the boat to him- 
 self ; and, as he either could not or would not cast 
 but from his right hand, he was half the time cast- 
 ing over the centre of the boat, thereby considerably 
 lessening the chances of the occupant of that station, 
 who had always to watch his opportunity to cast 
 when Mr. Pennell was not. 
 
 The question of up or down stream fly-fishing Mr. 
 Pennell passes over very lightly, merely assuming 
 that the latter is correct the reason, I suppose, that 
 he has attempted to strengthen his position by his 
 answers in The Field. As the arguments in favour 
 of up-stream fishing are the same in Mr. Francis's 
 book as in mine, and much more concisely stated, I 
 take the liberty of quoting them : 
 
 " And now a word or two about the much-dis- 
 cussed point as to fishing up stream or down ; 
 though what there is to discuss in it, or how any 
 difference of opinion can exist, I am at a loss to 
 understand. The angler should never fish down 
 stream if he can by any possibility fish up. The fish 
 lie with their heads up stream. They see the flies 
 coming down towards them, and they rise to meet 
 them. The angler is far behind them, and of course 
 they are not so likely to see him. If a fish takes 
 the fly fairly, then the angler will, if he strikes pro- 
 perly, hardly ever miss his fish, because he pulls the 
 fly towards, and as it were into, the fish's mouth ; 
 whereas in fishing down he will perpetually pull it
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLEKS. 15 
 
 out of his mouth. Added to this, in fishing down, 
 every fish for twenty yards can see him coming, and 
 the best will cease rising and take shelter under 
 some weed. Again, if he hooks a good fish that 
 requires play, he must take it down over unfished 
 ground, disturbing every fish for some distance, or 
 create much disturbance of the water, and risk 
 breaking the hold on the tackle. . . . But to 
 cast down stream, and work the fly up, is not fly- 
 fishing." 
 
 At page 68 of The Practical Angle?- there is the 
 following, alluding to anglers of Mr. Pennell's 
 stamp : 
 
 " As no amount of mere argument will convince 
 such, we offer to find two anglers who, on a water 
 suitable for showing the superiority of fishing up, 
 will be more successful than any three anglers fish- 
 ing down after the ordinary method." 
 
 This passage has remained for thirteen years un- 
 challenged, but has probably escaped Mr. Pennell's 
 notice. However, to bring the matter to a practical 
 test, if he will fish himself under the before-men- 
 tioned conditions, and use his typical flies, I will 
 find an angler to fish against him, and will bet a 
 considerable sum of money, to be given to any 
 charity the winner may choose, that the said angler 
 will catch two pounds' weight of trout for his one ; 
 and, until the question is put to the proof, it is use- 
 less writing more upon the subject.
 
 16 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 In his chapter on worm-fishing, Mr. Pennell in- 
 troduces a new worm-tackle, by reducing the three- 
 hook tackle, which usually goes by my name, to two, 
 and making the hooks a little larger. The following 
 are the reasons, pro and con, as given in the Scots- 
 man : 
 
 " In the first place, he mistakes when he repre- 
 sents that tackle as consisting always of four hooks. 
 Mr. Stewart, we think, once wrote somewhere 
 ' three or four ; ' but three has been the understood 
 and adopted number for many years. In the second 
 place, when advocating his own plan of two hooks, 
 Mr. Pennell gives five reasons, every one of which 
 admits of being smashed : (1) ' It is baited in less 
 than half the time/ The time cannot possibly be 
 less than half, and, as a good deal of the time em- 
 ployed in the operation, such as taking from the bag 
 and bringing the bait into a proper position, must be 
 employed whether the hooks are two or four, the 
 time saved by omitting two hooks must be quite in- 
 finitesimal. (2.) ' The worm lives much longer.' 
 In both cases the worm lives quite long enough for 
 the purpose, and it dies by being drowned, not by 
 being transfixed. (3.) ' Its appearance is much more 
 natural and lively.' Quite the reverse ; with 'two 
 hooks the greater proportion of the worm must either 
 be left entirely unarmed, or a large and clumsy 
 ' bulge ' or ' slack ' must be left between the two 
 hooks, whilst with three hooks the bait can be
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 17 
 
 thrown into any form the angler chooses. (4.) ' The 
 hooks are comparatively unseen.' Again quite the 
 reverse ; Mr. Pennell admits that his two hooks must 
 be larger than Mr. Stewart's three, and two large 
 hooks are much more easily detected than three tiny 
 ones. (5.) ' They are ' disgorged' in half the time.' 
 That would be true if in the one case the trout were 
 always caught by two hooks, and in the other by 
 four, which is very rare, and not the common case." 
 
 In addition, I may mention that I tested the two 
 hooks thoroughly fourteen years ago, fishing half- 
 hour about with the two hooks and the single hook, 
 and found the latter killed most. 
 
 The chapter on Mayfly-fishing, in The Modern 
 Practical Angler, is entirely copied from The Prac- 
 tical Angler, as your readers may see for themselves 
 by comparison ; indeed, in this case so closely has 
 Mr. Pennell stuck to his text, as to raise the suspi- 
 cion that he is practically unacquainted with what 
 he was writing about, and was afraid to introduce 
 any novelty for fear of "putting his foot in it" 
 Would it be asking too much of Mr. Pennell to let 
 us know how often he fished with the creeper and 
 Mayfly, and what he caught ? 
 
 By the way, it is rather curious to find Mr. Pen- 
 nell, who lays considerable claims to ichthyology, 
 and would have every angler be an ichthyologist, 
 making a mistake in the ichthyology of the prin- 
 cipal fish he is writing about. The salmon or kipper, 
 he says, " is a male salmon after spawning; " whereas 
 c
 
 18 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 a kipper means merely a male fish, whether clean, 
 foul, or kelted. A baggit, he says, is a female fish 
 just after spawning; whereas a baggit as Mr. Pen- 
 nell might know from the meaning of the word is 
 a female fish immediately before spawning. 
 
 To bring my lengthy, and I am afraid tedious, 
 letter to a conclusion, I have endeavoured as much 
 as possible to confine my remarks to those points on 
 which The Modern Practical Angler and The Prac- 
 tical Angler are at variance. I mentioned pre- 
 viously that I thought I had some grounds of com- 
 plaint against Mr. Pennell ; these are, to state them 
 briefly, that he has distorted my statements, sup- 
 pressed facts which were against him, borrowed my 
 ideas and information, and made an appropriate con- 
 summation to the whole by borrowing my title. 
 And, not content with that, he prefixes to my ori- 
 ginal title the word " Modern," thereby conveying 
 the insinuation that mine is ancient in fact, adding 
 insult to injury. Your readers will probably per- 
 ceive that I am not pleased with Mr. Pennell ; 
 whether "I do well to be angry" or not, I leave you 
 and them to judge, and also the materials on which 
 to form a judgment. 
 
 . W. C. STEWART. 
 
 EDINBURGH, October 1.
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 19 
 
 MODERN AND ANCIENT PRACTICAL ANGLERS. 
 
 SIR "Tantaene animis cselestibus iras?" Your 
 excellent correspondent and my very good friend Mr. 
 Stewart is in a passion, and the fact is so patent 
 throughout the three columns of invective which 
 you publish in your last number, that it was almost 
 a labour of love on his part to wind up with a solemn 
 declaration of the fact. As, however, I am not 
 aware that in my book, with which he is so angry, I 
 have ever mentioned his name except in terms of 
 marked (and deservedly marked) eulogy, I am driven 
 to conclude that it must be my matter, and not my 
 manner, that has excited his wrath. In other words, 
 he has paid niy arguments the proverbial compli- 
 ment of losing his temper at them. 
 
 Whether he has any other just grounds, or any 
 grounds whatever, for doing so, I will, with your 
 permission, briefly examine, and I shall at once pass 
 to the personal questions at issue between us, though, 
 for my own part, I detest personalities, if for no other 
 reason than that they possess so small a share of 
 interest for the public at large. Mr. Stewart, how- 
 ever, drives me to the argumentum ad hominem, and 
 I am reluctantly obliged to follow. 
 
 On the original casus belli, Up or Down stream 
 fishing, I shall not dwell, as I have nothing to add 
 to the arguments which I adduced on this subject in
 
 20 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 T/ie Field of September 24. Mr. Stewart has now 
 equally fully stated his views ; and both having 
 been supplemented and commented upon in a num- 
 ber of able letters from your correspondents, amongst 
 whom I recognised with pleasure so excellent a 
 fisherman and sportsman as Col. Whyte, the question 
 may be said to be fairly before the High Court of 
 Anglers, and they will no doubt be able to form 
 their own judgment on the point. The same obser- 
 vations apply to the theory of trout flies, and how 
 they should be used. If those who care about the 
 subject will look at my book, The Modern Practical 
 Angler, they will find the whole question carefully 
 examined, and most of Mr. Stewart's arguments 
 refuted by anticipation. 
 
 The first point on which Mr. Stewart falls foul of 
 me personally is the form of hook now manufactured 
 under my name, and which Mr. Stewart says in 
 effect is copied from one recommended in his book. 
 This hook of mine more nearly approaches the 
 sneck than any other kind. On turning to the 
 pages to which he refers in The Practical Angler, 
 
 find that Mr. Stewart recommends, as the result of 
 his investigations, the ordinary " round-bend " hooks 
 which have been manufactured by Messrs. Bartlett 
 and Addlington for many years, and suggests on his 
 own account no improvement or modification in them 
 whatever. Mr. Stewart's hook, which he accuses me 
 of plagiarising, must therefore be pronounced a 
 myth.
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLEES. 21 
 
 Another subject of attack is the title of my book 
 Ttie Modern Practiced Angler in which Mr. 
 Stewart complains that I have " appropriated " that 
 of his own. Is Mr. Stewart in earnest, or is he per- 
 petrating a little joke to test the angling erudition 
 of the readers of TJie Field ? Can he really be 
 ignorant that he has himself actually transferred 
 bodily to the first page of his own volume the exact 
 title of another book published some fifteen years 
 before The Practical Angler, by " Piscator " (Simp- 
 kin and Marshall, 1843 and 1846) and which 
 has subsequently passed through several editions'? 
 Further, can Mr. Stewart be unaware that during the 
 last half-century there have been no less than thirteen 
 angling books published, of the titles of which the 
 word " Practical" forms part ? But Mr. Stewart has 
 not only plagiarised the title of another author, he 
 has also falsified his own, inasmuch as the term 
 Practical Angler implies a treatise on angling 
 generally, whilst his is admittedly only a monograph 
 a treatise, that is, on one subject. I am sorry to be 
 obliged thus to turn the tables on Mr. Stewart, but 
 ne has challenged the rejoinder. 
 
 Mr. Stewart objects that in my chapter on 
 Creeper and May-fly fishing I have borrowed from 
 him. If any one else, after comparing the two books, 
 should be of the same opinion, I shall be surprised. 
 I willingly admit my obligations to Mr. Stewart, 
 for many valuable suggestions, both on this and 
 other points ; but I fancied that in this instance I
 
 22 A CAUTION TO ANGLEKS. 
 
 had sufficiently acknowledged them, by recommend- 
 ing all anglers to study Mr. Stewart's "excellent 
 chapter on the subject." 
 
 Again, as regards his worm-tackle, Mr. Stewart 
 complains that, in contrasting it with my own, I 
 have represented it as consisting of four hooks, when 
 the real number which he recommends is three. 
 
 In reply, I have only to observe that in his Prac- 
 tical Angler, which I have now before me, the 
 illustrative diagram of his worm-tackle shows the 
 number of hooks as four, and that I have, when 
 referring to this subject in the Modern Practical 
 Angler, actually taken the trouble of giving a fac- 
 simile of the tackle in question, adding, that " I give 
 Mr. Stewart the greatest credit for the originality of 
 this idea, which belongs to him alone." In the 
 name of common sense, what can Mr. Stewart find 
 here to take exception to ? Are not these repeated 
 and specific acknowledgments, with others of a 
 similar character, sufficient to satisfy the most exact- 
 ing requirements of the most irritable of the irritabile 
 genus ? 
 
 But the greatest stumbling-block of all to Mr. 
 Stewart appears to be the account which I have 
 given of a case in which flies of the colours I 
 advocate for lake fishing viz. green and yellow 
 were found on Lochleven to be more successful than 
 those of two other anglers. I did not, of course, so 
 far violate the canons of courtesy as to mention either 
 of these gentlemen by name, or give any clue by
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLEKS. 23 
 
 which they could be identified ; but, as Mr. Stewart 
 has " put on the cap," I am happy to acknowledge 
 that he was one of the "justly celebrated anglers" 
 referred to in my book as having been on this occa- 
 sion the victims of local prejudice a result which I 
 took trouble to emphasise, " I attribute, of course, 
 solely to the flies, not, be it well understood, to the 
 fisherman." My memory of all the circumstances of 
 this " fly-match," if I may so for the moment charac- 
 terise it, differs materially from Mr. Stewart's on 
 almost every one of the important points to which he 
 alludes ; as, for example, the day on which the fish- 
 ing in question occurred, my remembrance being that 
 we fished on three distinct days, and not two, and 
 that it was on the second or complete day that my 
 creel outweighed his ; the number of the trout com- 
 posing my basket on the day in question ; the propor- 
 tionate weight of Mr. Stewart's basket on the day 
 following, when I do not think either of the takes 
 were weighed at all ; and so on. 
 
 However, be my memory in those matters right or 
 wrong, it is but of little consequence. The one point 
 that I do remember distinctly, and which I most 
 gladly recall, is the very charming visit to "the most 
 famous loch in Scotland," for which I was indebted 
 to the friendly courtesy and kindness of two of her 
 most famous anglers. In the hope of recalling such 
 a pleasure, I so far accept Mr. Stewart's challenge 
 that I will gladly, when the opportunity presents 
 itself, fish a match with him in the same boat, and
 
 24 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 on the same loch, each to use his own flies tied by 
 himself. This will be a better test of the merits 
 of our respective flies than a burn-side match, in 
 which so much more must depend upon the relative 
 skill of the performers ; and if I should lose, " as 
 lose full well I may," I am sure that I cannot "take 
 my death from a nobler hand." 
 
 H. CHOLMONDELEY-PENNELL. 
 WEYBRIDGE, October 10. 
 
 SIR I observe in your paper of 15th inst. which, 
 owing to being from home I did not see sooner 
 a letter from Mr. Pennell, to which you will 
 perhaps allow me a few final words in reply. I 
 thought I had made my grounds of complaint suffi- 
 ciently plain, but Mr. Pennell, who does not believe 
 my statements, and has a remarkable knack of glori- 
 fying himself, will have it that I have paid him the 
 compliment of getting in a rage at his arguments. The 
 whole tenor of my letter made it sufficiently plain 
 that I considered his arguments much more calcu- 
 lated to provoke merriment than wrath ; and, so far 
 as they are concerned, Mr. Pennell, as the Scotsman 
 remarked, might safely be left to the mercy of his 
 own arguments. But there are one or two other 
 matters which I cannot pass over without remark. 
 I do not intend discussing with Mr. Pennell
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 25 
 
 whether he has borrowed or not I gave the neces- 
 sary references, and your readers can judge for 
 themselves but would merely remark in passing 
 that upon the subject of Creeper and May-fly fishing 
 he has not, as requested, informed us when he used 
 these baits, and what he caught with them. His 
 silence upon this point might lead to the supposi- 
 tion that he had seldom or never fished with them, 
 as Mr. Pennell does not, as a rule, " hide his light 
 under a bushel ;" and if this supposition that he has 
 little or no practical experience should be correct, 
 and he did not borrow his information, most people 
 would have some difficulty in making out how he 
 got it at all. 
 
 Now, as to the title of my book, I must confess 
 my ignorance. I was quite unaware of the existence 
 of any other Practical Angler. In what Mr. Pen- 
 nell would call this extreme want of erudition, how- 
 ever, I do not stand alone. Every angler to whom 
 I have spoken was in the same position ; so, I sup- 
 pose, were the great majority of the readers of The 
 Field ; so, in August 1869, was Mr. Pennell himself. 
 In that month Mr. Pennell mentioned to me that he 
 intended writing a book upon angling, in which he 
 meant to go in extensively for general fishing, said 
 I had monopolised the best title, and asked me if I 
 thought The General Angler would be a good title 
 for his. Perhaps Mr. Pennell will kindly inform us 
 when he discovered the existence of The Practical 
 Angler, published in 1843.
 
 26 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 I charged Mr. Pennell with misrepresenting 
 matters about an excursion to Lochleven. This, he 
 correctly says, "appears the greatest stumbling- 
 block of all," and the reason is plain enough. The 
 other differences between us might be matters of 
 opinion, but this is a matter of fact. Mr. Pennell, 
 who appears generally to stick to his statements 
 or rather misstatements but does not seem quite 
 sure about his memory, seems to think there were 
 three separate days, and that the trout were not 
 weighed on the day he was beaten. There was just 
 one evening's fishing, as I stated, and the following 
 day till about four o'clock ; and the occupant of the 
 boat who beat Mr. Pennell in the proportion of 
 something like four to one weighed his take, because 
 it was the best he ever got on the loch 26 Ibs. Mr. 
 Pennell and the other occupant did not weigh, 
 not having much to weigh. It is quite common for 
 anglers on Lochleven who have got little not to 
 weigh ; for instance, Mr. Pennell was the only one 
 who weighed his fish on the previous evening. 
 
 Mr. Pennell says that he " did not violate the 
 canons of courtesy." If putting words into your 
 companions' mouths which they never used, misre- 
 presenting the facts of the case, and upon this accus- 
 ing your two companions in print of being the 
 victims of local prejudices, be not violating the 
 canons of courtesy, then our ideas of courtesy on 
 this side the Tweed need modernising as much as 
 our principles of angling.
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 27 
 
 Mr. Pennell appropriately reserves a crowning 
 absurdity for the conclusion of his last letter, when, 
 in answer to a challenge to test the merits of up and 
 down stream fishing, he accepts it so far as to test 
 the merits of his flies by a day's fishing on a loch 
 where neither flies nor fishing matter much. It 
 would occur to any one but Mr. Pennell that both 
 flies and fishing would be much better tested on 
 some stream where the trout are wary, and where 
 great care is required in the selection of flies, and 
 great skill in the using of them. His reason for 
 changing from stream to loch is that it requires more 
 skill on a^stream, or, as he himself puts it, " a burn- 
 side match, in which so much more must depend 
 upon the individual skill of the performers." 
 
 When I suggested in my last that the reason why 
 Mr. Pennell had not succeeded in up-stream fishing 
 was want of skill, I had an idea I was pretty near 
 the mark, but was certainly not prepared for a con- 
 fession of the same from him ; but, since he does 
 not consider himself good enough, I am quite willing 
 to allow him to fish by deputy, and upon flies I will 
 give him his own way (he can tie the flies of the one 
 party, and I will tie those of the other) ; and surely 
 he can find among the great majority of anglers who 
 keep him company one to do battle in his behalf. 
 I thank you for your insertion of my last letter on 
 this subject, and hope that next time I address you 
 it may be on a more agreeable topic. 
 
 W. C. STEWART. 
 EDINBURGH, October 22.
 
 28 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 SIR From his letter of October 26 it seems that 
 Mr. Stewart is very far from "pleased" with my 
 book, The Modern Practical Angler ; and this time 
 his wrath is somewhat more intelligible. It must 
 doubtless be not a little irritating, when a man has 
 gratuitously provoked a personal controversy, to find 
 himself thrown hopelessly on his back at every one 
 of his intended standpoints. 
 
 Mr. Stewart twits his antagonist with copying the 
 pattern of his hook. His antagonist mildly replies 
 that, after careful search, no such pattern can be 
 found anywhere in Mr. Stewart's writings ; in fact, 
 that Mr. Stewart has not, and never had, any 
 " pattern of hook " whatever, from which to copy. 
 
 Mr. Stewart taxes his opponent with plagiarising 
 his worm-tackle, and misrepresenting it for his own 
 purposes. His opponent gently refers to chapter 
 and verse where he has published a facsimile of Mr. 
 Stewart's tackle, and accorded to its author the entire 
 credit of the invention. 
 
 Mr. Stewart charges his adversary with appropriat- 
 ing the title of his book ; and his adversary blandly 
 retorts that " Mr. Stewart's title " is not Mr. Stewart's 
 at all, but somebody else's, from whom Mr. Stewart 
 has bodily appropriated, whilst at the same time 
 falsifying it. 
 
 Finally, Mr. Stewart attributes his competitor's
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 29 
 
 success in beating him on a particular occasion to 
 "chance," and the publishing of the fact (N.S., 
 without names or dates) to "want of courtesy ;" to 
 which his competitor rejoins, still with perfect 
 suavity, that whatever personal publicity had 
 occurred in the matter had been given wholly by 
 Mr. Stewart himself that it was perfectly true that 
 he did happen to beat Mr. Stewart on the occasion 
 in question and further, that he will have pleasure 
 in backing himself to do the same thing again. 
 
 All this, I say, must naturally have been irritating 
 to Mr. Stewart, who has from the outset been some- 
 how rather exercised in his temper ; for though I 
 wished, for the sake of former acquaintance, to do 
 my "spiriting as gently" as possible a courtesy 
 which, I regret to observe, has been wasted on my 
 opponent, who does not seem to have any eye for 
 what are called the " amenities of literature " still 
 facts are facts, and sometimes cannot but be sadly 
 unpalatable, however politely they may be stated. 
 It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that in his 
 last letter Mr. Stewart should endeavour, by stirring 
 up a great cloud of verbal dust, and executing the 
 manoauvre known as "holding and spurring," to 
 mystify the direct issues which he originally raised, 
 and thus to ride off with some show at least of 
 dignity. 
 
 I gladly help to make a bridge for a flying foe, and 
 forbear to press him further by commenting, as I 
 rnight, upon the somewhat peculiar notions of
 
 30 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 courtesy and modesty which have prompted Mr. 
 Stewart not once, but a dozen times during this 
 correspondence to attribute to me a want of literary 
 good faith, and of angling skill as compared with his 
 own, for which there is an utter absence of justifica- 
 tion in our relative antecedents, literary or piscatorial. 
 Nor do I care to notice, except perhaps by a passing 
 smile, the comical tone suggestive somehow of 
 canes and pedagogues in which he has thought fit 
 to catechise me as to the extent of my experience 
 and qualifications in "creeper fishing," "May-fly 
 fishing," "up-stream fishing," and what not. Mr. 
 Stewart is very welcome to his own opinion (however 
 erroneous) on these points, as I am unconscious of 
 meditating any immediate application to him for an 
 angling diploma. 
 
 In the same way I abstain from amplifying what 
 I have already written with regard to Mr. Stewart's 
 challenges to fish a match always by deputy be it 
 observed either against myself or a friend, on a 
 Scotch burn-side. Such a contest would prove 
 nothing, and convince nobody. Enough that I am 
 prepared, as I have stated, to back my rod against 
 Mr. Stewart's in a repetition of the only match, if it 
 can be called such, that has been practically in 
 question during this controversy, and the accuracy 
 of my account of which he has disputed. But no 
 " deputies," bien entendu. As they say on the turf, 
 "owners up." 
 
 I must apologise for this (last I hope) trespass on
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 31 
 
 your courtesy in these merely personal matters, of 
 which your readers must long ere this be as weary as 
 I am ; and, wishing Mr. Stewart a more manageable 
 theme and a less unmanageable opponent for his next 
 controversial debut, I am, etc., 
 
 H. CHOLMONDELEY-PENNELL. 
 WEYBRIDGE, November 1. 
 
 [We do not see the possible use of permitting this 
 controversy to continue, and therefore we now close 
 it. ED.] 
 
 When I announced in my last letter that I did 
 not intend writing again to TJie Field, I by no means 
 intended that Mr. Pennell was to be allowed to ride 
 off in triumph. I made the announcement with the 
 view, as it were, of unearthing Mr. Pennell, and get- 
 ting him to show his true colours. Any one can see 
 the difference in style between his first two letters 
 and his last, though few would have expected that 
 when he thought there was to be no further castiga- 
 tion, he would have indulged in such an astounding 
 amount of assertion and impertinence. Assertion is 
 not argument, and impertinence is not proof ; and 
 as I have no intention of following his lead in this 
 way, I shall answer his letter in detail. 
 
 "Facts are facts," says Mr. Pennell; and with 
 Pennellian inconsistency commences his letter with 
 a gross misstatement of fact, by accusing me of
 
 32 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 having gratuitously provoked the controversy. He 
 really must suppose his readers very defective in 
 memory, if he suppose they have already forgotten 
 that it was in answer to a personal attack by him in 
 The Field I first wrote a reply. 
 
 By looking at page 47 of TJie Practical Angler, 
 Mr. Pennell will find the pattern of hook which I 
 recommend, and also the passage from which I 
 accuse him of having borrowed the ideas upon Avhich 
 he has constructed the Pennell hook ; " the result of 
 some thought and experiment." I got hooks made 
 after that pattern for my own use, but for reasons 
 which Mr. Pennell cannot be expected to understand 
 did not think of calling them Stewart. 
 
 I did not accuse Mr. Pennell of plagiarising my 
 worm-tackle. I said that he had introduced a new 
 worm- tackle by reducing the three-hook tackle, which 
 usually goes by my name, to two, and making the 
 hooks a little larger. I distinctly charged Mr. Pen- 
 nell with appropriating the title of my book, and 
 charge him with it still. When Mr. Pennell called 
 his book The Modern Practical Angler, he did not 
 know of the existence of any other Practical Angler 
 but mine ; and though his subsequent discovery 
 may lessen the legal guilt, it has no effect upon the 
 moral bearings of the question, and in no degree 
 diminishes the shabbiuess of Mr. Pennell's conduct 
 to me. 
 
 I certainly did attribute Mr. Pennell's catching 
 seven trout to my six in two hours' evening fishing
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 33 
 
 to chance, and cannot possibly see why he should 
 find fault with that, when I also attributed my 
 catching 26 Ibs. weight to his about 6 Ibs. in a whole 
 day's fishing next day to chance also. Whether 
 there is a want of both honesty and courtesy in Mr. 
 Pennell's statement of his Lochleven excursion, 
 the reader can judge for himself. My statement is 
 correct, and I have witnesses to prove it. 
 
 Mr. Pennell charges me with having no eye for 
 the amenities of literature. If the amenities of 
 literature mean something like the following letter, 
 which I select from his own correspondence, we are 
 likely to differ upon this point also ; and that the 
 reader may thoroughly understand the matter, I give 
 the letter which drew forth this gentlemanly and 
 extremely argumentative reply. 
 
 FLY-FISHING UP AND DOWN STREAM. 
 
 Sm Mr. Pennell's letter in reply to Mr. Stewart 
 strikes me as being, in reference to the main point 
 under discussion, singularly feeble and evasive. One 
 would have thought that a letter so exhaustive on 
 this point as Mr. Stewart's would not have been 
 answered by Mr. Pennell, having " nothing to add 
 to his arguments of September 24." The only pos- 
 sible inference is that, as regards the casus belli, Mr. 
 Pennell is judiciously abandoning an untenable 
 position. 
 
 D
 
 34 A CAUTION TO ANGLEKS. 
 
 May I ask Mr. Pennell if he seriously contends 
 that a fish can see behind as well as he can see be- 
 fore 1 and why he sanctions fishing up in " shallow 
 waters with a sun and no ripple on them 1 " or how 
 a stream should be fished with a rapid " draw" on, 
 but no ripple 1 
 
 Formerly a down-stream fisher myself, I have been 
 for many years a convert to a great extent to Mr. 
 Stewart's plan, and have at least half-a-dozen friends 
 (some of them crack hands) who have changed their 
 modus operandi with marked success. 
 
 Applied to sea-trout fishing, when a river is low 
 and clear I will undertake to kill three fish to Mr. 
 Pennell's one. In a medium-sized water my bag 
 would be three to his two. In a big water I readily 
 concede that fishing down is preferable, and always 
 do so. Wading is much easier, consequently more 
 ground is covered. 
 
 Mr. Francis has written excellent sense upon this 
 subject, and, although books alone will never make 
 anglers, I should recommend all who want a wrinkle 
 or two about up and down stream fishing to read 
 his concisely-stated remarks. LILLYHOLME. 
 
 SOUTHPOKT, October 17. 
 
 FLY-FISHING UP STREAM. 
 
 SIR Your correspondent, signing himself " Lilly- 
 holme," has thought it necessary to add to the already
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 35 
 
 voluminous correspondence which you have pub- 
 lished on the up or down stream fishing, his princi- 
 pal object being apparently to take nie to task for 
 my reticence in replying to the numerous observa- 
 tions which have been made on the propositions 
 contained in my article of the 24th of September on 
 this subject. I really ought to feel very grateful to 
 " Lillyholme " for being so good as to instruct me 
 how to conduct my correspondence. Let me prove 
 my gratitude by making in his case an exception to 
 my general rule of passing sub silentio the attacks of 
 anonymous writers, and I select with the more 
 pleasure this mode of discharging my obligations to 
 your correspondent, inasmuch as his letter furnishes 
 a very fair illustration of one of the principal reasons 
 of my reticence in this matter viz. the total irrele- 
 vancy of most of the arguments used by my critics. 
 " Lillyholme," who is doubtless the victim of that 
 very prevalent modern disease, the "itch for writ- 
 ing," evidently does not understand how any one 
 can resist an opportunity for rushing into print, or 
 so far possess his argument in patience as to de- 
 cline unnecessary weekly recapitulations and taxes 
 on space which would be otherwise better occu- 
 pied. 
 
 Now, I repeat that my original propositions 
 which were neither crude nor hasty productions, but 
 the result of much thought and consideration 
 have never been fairly met or logically controverted, 
 my opponents having usually adopted the very con-
 
 36 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 venient mode of argument tuigallantly attributed by 
 a satirist to the softer sex 
 
 She'll argue with you a whole summer's day, 
 And she'll refute whatever you don't say ! 
 
 I have noticed that " Lillyholme's " letter is a 
 very fair instance of this kind of logic. Let me 
 point out to him why I think so, taking sentences 
 of his letter seriatim, 
 
 1st sentence. Mr. Pennell declines " to add to 
 his arguments of the 24th Sept. ;" therefore, it is 
 evident that he " is judiciously abandoning an un- 
 tenable position." 
 
 2d sentence. Mr. Pennell having stated that 
 "the position of the eye of a trout is such as to 
 enable him to see much more readily anything above 
 or on one side than in front of him " " Lilly holme" 
 begs to " ask Mr. Pennell if he seriously contends 
 that a fish can see behind as well as he can before." 
 
 3d sentence. " And why he sanctions fishing up 
 in shallow waters with a sun and no ripple on them ?" 
 the sense of which question (having reference to 
 juxtaposition and to my argument) appears to be about 
 equal to that of the celebrated rigmarole, " "What ! 
 no soap ? So he died, and she very imprudently 
 married the barber." 
 
 The remainder of " Lillyholme's " letter consists 
 of a melange of small personalities, and great trumpet- 
 blowings of his own many angling achievements 
 in posse, and of how many more big fish he, the
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 37 
 
 critic, could catch., under various conditions of wind 
 and water, than I, his unfortunate author an 
 enumeration in which (must I acknowledge it to my 
 confusion T) I find myself literally nowhere. 
 
 Perhaps "Lilly holme" will now have some glim- 
 mering why I do not think it necessary to be per- 
 petually armed cap-dt-pie, and ready to rush into 
 conflict with every adventurous cavalier, known or 
 unknown, who may wish to splinter lances under 
 the safe shield of a nom de plume ; and if this letter 
 should act in future abatement of the annoyance 
 (which I observe I am not singular in expressing) of 
 illogical as well as irresponsible criticism, the result 
 apparently of mere love of contradiction, poor 
 "Lillyholme" of Southport will not have been 
 gibbeted in vain. 
 
 H. CHOLMONDELEY-PBNNELL. 
 
 Mr. Pennell is again in error when he says I at- 
 tributed to him a want of angling skill as compared 
 with my own. Mr. Pennell attributed want of skill 
 to himself, when he declined to fish a match in a 
 stream because " more must depend upon the relative 
 skill of the performers." I have never in the whole 
 correspondence said a single word about myself as an 
 angler ; a fact of which he is aware, for he accuses 
 me of always offering to fish by deputy. When I 
 offered to bring a person to catch 2 Ibs. weight for 
 Mr. Pennell's 1 lb., I certainly intended to fish my- 
 self ; and if that is his only objection to the match,
 
 38 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 by all means let us have the up or down stream ques- 
 tion practically tested, " owners up," as he expresses 
 it ; and I by no means limit it to a Scotch burn, but 
 will fish in any stream in England of the kind de- 
 scribed. As for the match proving nothing and con- 
 vincing nobody, I differ from that conclusion en- 
 tirely; it would prove Mr. Pennell's flies useless, and 
 his method of using them ridiculous. I thought it 
 quite impossible that any one who knew anything 
 of fly-fishing in clear water could write such non- 
 sense as he has done. It seems, however, that there 
 are some anglers who have courage to try anything 
 new, however ridiculous, and at least one old angler 
 equipped himself with some of the typical flies. Of 
 course he fell a victim to his temerity, but let him 
 speak for himself. 
 
 MR. PENNELL ON FLY-FISHING. 
 
 SIR Most men who are fond of a sport like reading 
 the experiences of others on that subject, and books 
 on hunting and shooting contain ideas tolerably 
 similar to those held by the rest of the hunting and 
 shooting world. But writers on fishing (fly-fishing 
 especially) seem to try how far they can set aside all 
 acknowledged theories. 
 
 I read a book on fishing by Mr. Pennell some 
 short time ago that out-herods Herod in this respect. 
 I have been a fisherman with fly for twenty years,
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 39 
 
 and during the last five years have fished, I believe, 
 as much as any man in England, and my experience 
 is that fish take the artificial fly for the natural one. 
 I see no difficulty in proving this by the water-side, 
 but wish to say a word with regard to the three 
 curious devices that Mr. Pennell in the above work 
 recommends as typical flies. 
 
 Having procured some of different sizes (from one 
 of his accredited agents), I tried them for grayling 
 on three rivers the Teme, Lugg, and Arrow in this 
 manner : I made up a cast, with one of the typical 
 flies as stretcher and another as drop, and between 
 these I put on a third fly, in imitation of the one the 
 fish were then taking. I killed a fair amount of fish 
 each day, but every single fish on the imitation of 
 the natural fly, not getting one rise to any of the 
 three flies of Mr. Pennell's pattern. 
 
 There is a mention made in the book of Mr. Pen- 
 nell's personal experience of the Leintwardine water 
 on the Teme, although no statement of any take of 
 fish by him there. I should like to know whether 
 he ever killed any grayling of a takeable size on that 
 water, using only his own three flies. I do not be- 
 lieve they would kill either brown trout or grayling 
 on any river in the world that throws up any insect 
 life, and even for lake fishing and white trout they 
 could not hold their own with the ones generally 
 used. The three salmon flies recommended in the 
 book are all of one sort. Any salmon fisherman, if 
 restricted to that number, could pick out of his book
 
 40 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 three more adapted to different conditions of water. 
 I think most fishermen will agree with me that it 
 is rather presumptuous in Mr. Pennell to write epi- 
 taphs, as he says, on the system of fly-fishing that our 
 experience has proved right. DRAGOON. 
 
 Inconvenient questions Mr. Pennell declines to 
 answer, and passes by with a few slang expressions ; 
 and when charged with borrowing without leave a 
 whole chapter on May-fly fishing, etc., seems to think 
 I am most unreasonable in complaining of his con- 
 duct, because he has always spoken in praise of my 
 book, and recommended his readers to study certain 
 portions of it. I do not suppose that Mr. Pennell 
 would have borrowed unless he had approved ; but 
 if every one who plagiarises is to be held guiltless on 
 these principles, a little further application of them 
 would do away with the crime of theft altogether, 
 as no one ever steals unless he admires the article. 
 Had Mr. Pennell asked permission to make use of 
 any portion of The Practical Angler, he would have 
 been as welcome to it as on a former occasion. 
 
 It is quite as well Mr. Pennell has no immediate 
 intention of applying to me for an angling diploma, 
 for he would most assuredly be plucked in his pre- 
 liminary examination ; but, if he will study The 
 Practical Angler carefully, and practise the precepts 
 therein contained, there is no saying but something 
 might be done in this way ultimately. 
 
 I feel duly grateful to Mr. Pennell for his kind
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 41 
 
 wish that I may meet with a more manageable 
 theme and a less unmanageable opponent for my 
 next controversial debut ; but I would " meekly " 
 point out to him that I cannot make a debut in con- 
 troversy twice, and in return would " blandly" sug- 
 gest to him that, when he again indulges in contro- 
 versy, it might be expedient to confine himself to 
 the use of words of which he understands the mean- 
 ing. I am, however, quite pleased with my oppo- 
 nent. Not being accustomed to writing, it is, I 
 suppose, as well for me that I have had a feeble 
 antagonist, with a hopeless cause, to commence with ; 
 and it is so easy to answer one like Mr. Pennell, 
 who lays himself so delightfully open to attack 
 who, in fact, rushes " with bare bosom on the spear." 
 In the preface to his book Mr. Pennell challenged 
 the opinion of what he called the general parliament 
 of anglers. I suppose the general parliament of 
 anglers may be considered pretty fairly represented 
 by the readers of The Field newspaper, and these in 
 turn by the writers to that paper. Well, letter after 
 letter appeared, but no writer had a single word to 
 say in defence of Mr. Pennell's theories on flies. 
 The verdict which the general parliament of anglers 
 has unanimously pronounced against him he proceeds 
 to reserve in his own favour, and with the most 
 amusing gravity states generally what a giant in con- 
 troversy he (Mr. Pennell) is, and how careful any 
 one should be of attempting to break a lance with 
 him how he has gibbeted this one, thrown another
 
 42 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 hopelessly on his back, and generally routed all his 
 foes. Ill-natured people might remark that all this 
 might have come better from a neutral party or a 
 friend than from Mr. Pennell himself ; but then 
 to borrow the expression which this stickler for the 
 amenities of literature used to " Lillyholnie " what 
 could poor Pennell do 1 the neutrals were all against 
 him, and his friends if he has any probably 
 thought it would be a work of supererogation to say 
 anything in praise of a person- so eminently qualified 
 to act as his own trumpeter. One reviewer re- 
 marked that he hoped in the next edition of Mr. 
 Pennell's book to see it better, which Mr. Pennell 
 can easily accomplish by deleting a little more of 
 what is original, and substituting borrowed in- 
 formation. However, to be done with The Modern 
 Practical Angler : 
 
 " Hope, like the glimmering taper's light, 
 
 Adorns and cheers the way ; 
 And still, as darker grows the night, 
 Emits a brighter ray." 
 
 And, even in this compound of plagiarism, absurdity, 
 and self-conceit, the reader may discover one gleam 
 of comfort, which he will find in the preface, where 
 Mr. Pennell announces he has " probably addressed 
 an angling audience for the last time." 
 
 The up or down stream question having been 
 thoroughly discussed if it can be called a discussion, 
 with about a score of evidently able anglers arguing 
 and stating experiences on one side, and Mr. Pennell
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 43. 
 
 asserting on the other the general opinion may be 
 summed up as follows : That in all small streams 
 it is absolutely necessary to fish up. That in 
 medium-sized streams, unless when large and dis- 
 coloured, it is much better to fish up ; but that in 
 large streams, where it is almost impossible to wade 
 up, more fish may be taken by fishing down, because 
 more water can be covered. That these are exactly 
 the views embodied in " The Practical Angler, or the 
 Art of Trout-fishing, more particularly applied to 
 Clear Water," the following quotations will show : 
 
 " When the water is of a dark colour, it conceals 
 the angler from view, and disguises his tackle, and 
 so he meets with fair sport. If the body of water, 
 though clear, is sufficiently large to conceal him from 
 the sight of the trout, as in Tweed, Tay, and other 
 first-class streams, he may still meet with tolerable 
 success. But in all our small rivers and waters, 
 when they are low and clear, riot one angler out of 
 twenty meets with much sport, and the reason of it 
 is, because the clearness of the water either allows 
 the trout to see him, or enables them to detect the 
 artificial nature of his lure ; and to meet these diffi- 
 culties as far as possible, is the great object to be 
 aimed at in fly-fishing. 
 
 " The great error of fly-fishing, as usually prac- 
 tised, and as recommended to be practised by books, 
 is that the angler fishes down stream, whereas he 
 should fish up. 
 
 " We believe we are not beyond the mark in
 
 44 A CAUTION TO ANGLEES. 
 
 stating that ninety-nine anglers out of a hundred fish 
 down with the artificial fly ; they never think of 
 fishing in any other way, and never dream of attri- 
 buting their want of success to it. Yet we are 
 prepared to prove, both in theory and practice, that 
 this is the greatest reason of their want of success 
 in clear waters. In all our angling excursions we 
 have only met one or two amateurs, and a few pro- 
 fessionals, who fished up stream with the fly, and 
 used it in a really artistic manner. If the wind is 
 blowing up, anglers will occasionally fish up the 
 pools (as for fishing up a strong stream they never 
 think of it) but even then they do not do it pro- 
 perly, and meet with little better success than if 
 they had followed their usual method. They will 
 also, if going to some place up a river, walk up, not 
 fish up to it their plan being to go to the top of a 
 pool, and then fish it down, never casting their line 
 above them at all. 
 
 " We shall now mention in detail the advantages 
 of fishing up, in order to show its superiority over 
 the old method. 
 
 "The first and greatest advantage is, that the 
 angler is unseen by the trout. Trout, as is well 
 known, keep their heads up stream; they cannot 
 remain stationary in any other position. This being 
 the case, they see objects above and on both sides of 
 them, but cannot discern anything behind them ; so 
 that the angler fishing down will be seen by them 
 twenty yards off, whereas the angler fishing up will
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 45 
 
 be unseen, although he be but a few yards in their 
 rear. The advantages of this it is impossible to 
 over-estimate. No creatures are more easily scared 
 than trout ; if they see any object moving on the 
 river's bank, they run into deep water, or beneath 
 banks and stones, from which they will not stir for 
 some time. A bird flying across the water, or the 
 shadow of a rod, will sometimes alarm them ; and 
 nothing connected with angling is more certain than 
 this, that if the trout see the angler they will not 
 take his lure. He may ply his minnow in the most 
 captivating manner, may throw his worm with con- 
 summate skill, or make his flies light softly as a 
 gossamer all will be unavailing if he is seen by his 
 intended victim. 
 
 " The next advantage of fishing up we shall 
 notice, is the much greater probability of hooking a 
 trout when it rises. In angling down stream, if a 
 trout rises and the angler strikes, he runs a great 
 risk of pulling the flies straight out of its mouth ; 
 whereas, in fishing up, its back is to him, and he 
 has every chance of bringing the hook into contact 
 with its jaws. This, although it may not seem of 
 great importance to the uninitiated, tells consider- 
 ably when the contents of the basket come to be 
 examined at the close of the day's sport ; indeed no 
 angler would believe the difference unless he himself 
 proved it. 
 
 " Another advantage of fishing up is, that it does 
 not disturb the water so much. Let us suppose the
 
 46 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 angler is fishing down a fine pool. He, of course, 
 commences at the top, the place where the best 
 trout, and those most inclined to feed, invariably 
 lie. After a few casts he hooks one, which imme- 
 diately runs down, and by its vagaries, leaping in 
 the air, and plunging in all directions, alarms all its 
 neighbours, and it is ten to one if he gets another 
 rise in that pool. Fishing up saves all this. The 
 angler commences at the foot, and when he hooks a 
 trout, pulls it down, and the remaining portions of 
 the pool are undisturbed. This is a matter of great 
 importance, and we have frequently, in small streams, 
 taken a dozen trout out of a pool, from which, had 
 we been fishing down, we could not possibly have 
 got more than two or three. 
 
 " The last advantage of fishing up is, that by it 
 the angler can much better adapt the motions of his 
 flies to those of the natural insect. And here it 
 may be mentioned as a rule, that the nearer the 
 motions of the artificial flies resemble those of the 
 natural ones under similar circumstances, the greater 
 will be the prospects of success. Whatever trout 
 take the artificial fly for, it is obvious they are much 
 more likely to be deceived by a natural than by an 
 unnatural motion. 
 
 " No method of angling can imitate the hovering 
 flight of an insect along the surface of the water, 
 now just touching it, then flying a short distance, 
 and so on ; and for the angler to attempt by any 
 motion of his hand to give his flies a living appear-
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLEKS. 4*7 
 
 ance is mere absurdity. The only moment when 
 trout may mistake the angler's fly for a real one in 
 its flight, is the moment it first touches the water ; 
 and in this respect fishing down possesses equal 
 advantages with fishing up. But this is the only 
 respect, and in order to illustrate this, we shall give 
 a brief description of fly-fishing as usually practised 
 down stream. 
 
 " The angler, then, we shall suppose, commences 
 operations at the head of a pool or stream, and, 
 throwing his flies as far as he can across from where 
 he is standing, raises his rod and brings them 
 gradually to his own side of the water. He then 
 steps down a yard or two, repeats the process, and 
 so on. Having dismissed the idea that the angler 
 can imitate the flight of a living fly along the sur- 
 face of the water, we must suppose that trout take 
 the artificial fly for a dead one, or one which has 
 fairly got into the stream and lost all power of re- 
 sisting. A feeble motion of the wings or legs would 
 be the only attempt at escape which a live fly in 
 such a case could make. What then must be the 
 astonishment of the trout, when they see the tiny 
 insect which they are accustomed to seize as it is 
 carried by the current towards them, crossing the 
 stream with the strength and agility of an otter ] 
 Is it not much more natural to throw the flies up, 
 and let them come gently down as any real insect 
 would do 1 
 
 " In addition to drawing their flies across the
 
 48 A CAUT10X TO ANGLERS. 
 
 stream, some anglers practise what is called playing 
 their flies, which is done by a jerking motion of 
 the wrist, which imparts a similar motion to the 
 fly. Their object in doing this is to create an 
 appearance of life, and thus render their flies more 
 attractive. An appearance of life is certainly a 
 great temptation to a trout, but it may be much 
 better accomplished by dressing the flies of soft 
 materials, which the water can agitate, and thus 
 create a natural motion of the legs or wings of the 
 fly, than by dragging them by jumps of a foot at a 
 time across and up a roaring stream. Trout are not 
 accustomed to see small insects making such gigantic 
 efforts at escape, and therefore it is calculated to 
 awaken their suspicions. 
 
 " We believe that all fly-fishers fishing down must 
 have noticed that, apart from the moment of alight- 
 ing, they get more rises for the first few yards of 
 their flies' course than in the whole of the remainder ; 
 and that when their flies fairly breast the stream they 
 seldom get a rise at all. The reason of this is clear : 
 for the first few feet after the angler throws his flies 
 across the stream they swim with the current ; the 
 moment, however, he begins to describe his semi- 
 circle across the water, they present an unnatural 
 appearance, which the trout view with distrust. 
 Experienced fly-fishers, following the old method, 
 who have observed this, and are aware of the great 
 importance of the moment their flies alight, cast very 
 frequently, only allowing their flies to float down a
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLEKS. 49 
 
 few feet, when they throw again. We have seen 
 some Tweedside adepts fill capital baskets in this 
 way ; but, as we have before stated, it will only 
 succeed when the water is coloured, or when there is 
 a body of clear water sufficiently large to conceal the 
 angler from view." 
 
 I mention, subsequently, that when wading is 
 an objection, the angler should fish down ; and also, 
 " The only circumstance in which fishing down 
 has the advantage of fishing up, is when the water 
 is so dark or deep that the fish would not see, or 
 if they did see, would not have time to seize the 
 flies, unless they moved at a slower rate than the 
 stream." 
 
 In my first letter, I accused Mr. Pennell of 
 quoting a few lines without giving the context, so I 
 give quotation and context here. 
 
 "We must confess, however, that fishing up 
 stream with fly has not been adopted by a large 
 portion of the angling community, and that for 
 various reasons. In spite of the strong manner in 
 which we cautioned our readers about the difficulties 
 of fishing up stream, numbers who read the argu- 
 ments for it, and were struck with the soundness of 
 the theory, thought they saw at a glance the cause 
 of their previous want of success, and that in future 
 the result would be different. Having equipped 
 themselves la Practical Angler, and even taken a 
 copy of that excellent work in their pockets, they 
 I
 
 50 A CAUTION TO AXGLEKS. 
 
 started with high hopes on their new career, but the 
 result was not different, and after one or two trials 
 with no better success, not a few have condemned 
 fishing up stream as erroneous and ourselves as im- 
 postors ; though we imagine the fault lies with them- 
 selves. We have met with anglers fishing down 
 stream and this is no supposititious case, but one 
 which we have seen over and over again with a 
 copy of this volume in their pockets, who complained 
 that they had got everything herein recommended, 
 and were getting no sport. On pointing out to them 
 that there was one important mistake they were com- 
 mitting, in fishing down stream instead of up, they 
 stated that when they came to a pool they fished it 
 up that is to say, they first walked down the pool 
 and showed themselves to the trout, and then com- 
 menced to fish for them. 
 
 ' ' ' The trout within yon wimplin' burn 
 
 Glides swift, a silver dart ; 
 And, safe beneath the shady thorn, 
 Defies the angler's art.' " 
 
 " John Younger objects to this as incorrect, but we 
 rather think that Burns is right and the angler 
 wrong ; as it is evident the poet alludes to a trout 
 that has caught sight of the angler, and safe he is, 
 at least pro tern., as our pupils who first frighten the 
 fish by walking down a pool-side, and then fish up 
 it, will find to their cost. 
 
 " Others object to fishing up stream, as requiring
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 51 
 
 too frequent casting, being too fatiguing, and because 
 they have been accustomed to fish down, and would 
 prefer fishing in that way, even though they do not 
 catch so many trout. If any angler prefers catching 
 five pounds weight of trout fishing down stream, to 
 ten pounds weight fishing up, we may wonder at his 
 taste, but it is no concern of ours. Our duty is to 
 point out how most trout can be captured in a given 
 time ; and that is by fishing up stream, and such is 
 now the method adopted by all the best fly -fishers of 
 the day. 
 
 "Those anglers who have adopted fishing up 
 stream are principally those who were adepts in the 
 old system, and who were possessed of all the nicety 
 in casting, and other knowledge so essential to suc- 
 cessful up-stream fishing." 
 
 Since I last published upon angling, there has 
 been a marked decrease in the number of trout in 
 most of the border streams, and it is now unless 
 weather and water are exceptionally favourable a 
 very hard day's work to make even a decent basket ; 
 and it becomes a subject worthy of the serious con- 
 sideration of all anglers, to see if anything can be 
 done to improve the state of matters, or at anyrate, 
 prevent them from getting worse ; for if the trout- 
 fishing falls off as much during the next ten years 
 as it has done during the last ten, it will hardly be 
 worth while going to the water-side at all. The 
 causes that have occasioned this are no doubt various,
 
 52 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 and amongst the minor ones may be mentioned the 
 increase of manufactories, and the quantity of lime 
 put upon the land. To this latter cause is probably 
 owing the almost total disappearance of minnows 
 from Tweed and some other streams, and, if injurious 
 to minnows, it must be the same in some degree to 
 young trout. As, however, trout are getting fewer 
 in number in streams where manufactories have not 
 yet reached, and where lime is comparatively little 
 used, the main cause must be looked for elsewhere. 
 There are also undoubtedly a great many trout taken 
 by netting, but there is no evidence that netting is 
 more common now than it was fifteen years ago ; 
 the precautions taken to prevent it are much greater, 
 and, if there is any difference, it seems probable that 
 there are fewer trout killed by the net than formerly. 
 The great cause of the diminution I believe to be 
 over-fishing with the rod ; there are in fact too many 
 anglers, or they fish too much. Land will only 
 grow a certain quantity of grain, or maintain a certain 
 number of cattle or sheep, and in like manner a 
 stream can only rear and maintain a certain quantity 
 of trout, and unless a sufficient stock is left to breed 
 from, it is evident that gradual decrease must be the 
 result ; and sooner or later the conviction will be 
 forced upon anglers that they must not kill so many 
 trout. The remedy which at once suggests itself is, 
 that there should be a close-time for trout. There is 
 a close-time for salmon, also for oysters ; in fact, in
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 53 
 
 regard to this latter fish, Government has been com- 
 pelled, in addition to the close-time, to make regula- 
 tions as to size, etc., in order to prevent proprietors 
 from exterminating their own property. Sea-gulls 
 have even been put under the protection of law, and 
 there seems no valid reason why trout a fish that 
 aifords healthful amusement to a greater number, 
 than any other fish that swims, or any bird that 
 flies, should not also be put under the protection of 
 the law. 
 
 The period of close-time I should propose to be 
 those months when trout are out of condition, say 
 roundly from the middle of October to the middle of 
 March, the time being varied according to the nature 
 of the stream or district. If the stream or district 
 is early, the close-time should commence sooner and 
 terminate sooner ; and, if the stream or district is late, 
 the reverse. Some people who are not acquainted 
 with the real state of matters may be of opinion that 
 there are not many trout killed during the months of 
 the proposed close-time ; but if any one holding such 
 an opinion will pay a visit to Tweed in the end of 
 October or November, when the river is in flood, he 
 will soon be convinced of the contrary. Trout are more 
 easily taken in a flooded water at that season of the 
 year than any other, and he will find every pool 
 suitable for the purpose literally clad with anglers, 
 following one another down at intervals of a few 
 yards, and, when they reach the bottom of the pool,
 
 54 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 returning again to the top, and this process goes on 
 so regularly and so continuously, that and this is 
 no exaggeration I have seen two broad footpaths 
 marked on the green bank with the regularity of a 
 pair of rails. Of course all the parties engaged are 
 nominally fishing with worm, but the real slaughter 
 is done with salmon-roe. The reader will of course 
 say salmon-roe fishing is illegal ; what of that ? 
 it is just as much fished with as ever, and is cured 
 on Tweed and tributaries by the hundredweight. All 
 the salmon-roe cured is used, and yet I have never, 
 since the Act was passed, seen a single conviction for 
 using salmon-roe, or being found with it in posses- 
 sion. The Tweed Commissioners should, as a matter 
 of course, look after this, but that existing but al- 
 most useless body probably have not sufficient means 
 at their disposal, and certainly do not make the best 
 use of the means they have, as they allow kelt-kill- 
 ing and parr-killing to go on under their very eyes, 
 and with the sanction of their bailiffs. The trout 
 killed in October and November are almost all 
 spawning fish, and, if they were left to deposit their 
 ova,itwould give a considerable increase inthenumber 
 of trout in any stream where such practices go on. 
 
 The proposal for a close-time will, of course, meet 
 with great opposition, especially from the principal 
 offenders, but I would point out to all honest anglers, 
 that, in what are usually called open waters, angling 
 is a privilege and not a right, and if that privilege
 
 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 55 
 
 is not exercised in a fair and sportsmanlike way, pro- 
 prietors may at any time take the matter into their 
 own hands, and stop the public from fishing at all, 
 and unless some steps are taken, such will be the 
 result. Truth may be sometimes unpleasant, but it 
 is nevertheless truth, and the fact however pain- 
 ful the admission may be is, that anglers as a class 
 have less of the true spirit of sportsmen about them 
 than the lovers of any other field sport. They will 
 kill kelts, kill par, fish with salmon-roe, or break 
 the law in any way, if they think they can get off 
 without detection, and, like the proprietors of oyster- 
 fisheries, salmon-fisheries, etc., must be protected 
 against themselves. 
 
 The formation of Angling Associations should also 
 be encouraged, who would collect funds, and see that 
 the existing laws were fairly carried out by the mem- 
 bers ; and if any one, not a member of such association, 
 were caught fishing illegally, any proprietor would 
 doubtless grant an interdict against his fishing again. 
 
 The question will of course arise, What is to be 
 done with a river like the Clyde, which contains 
 grayling, a fish which is in its prime when trout 
 are out of condition ? Holding the views already 
 mentioned about the honesty of a certain class of 
 anglers, I would make no exception in favour of 
 allowing anglers to fish grayling in the Clyde. The 
 anglers who fish at that season are of the very worst 
 sort, and if allowed to fish grayling, there are very
 
 56 A CAUTION TO ANGLERS. 
 
 few who would be inclined to lay odds, that, in the 
 very probable event of their catching more trout 
 than grayling, they would return the trout to the 
 river. Besides, the cultivation of grayling should 
 not be encouraged ; they are an inferior fish to trout; 
 they live upon the same sort of food as trout, and, as 
 a river only supplies a certain quantity of feeding, if 
 there are more grayling there must be fewer trout. 
 They are also in season at a time of year when 
 angling is shorn of almost all its charms.
 
 Fifth Edition, revised and enlarged, Price 3s. 6d. 
 
 THE PRACTICAL ANGLER, 
 
 OR 
 
 THE AET OF TKOUT-FISHING 
 
 MORE PARTICULARLY APPLIED TO CLEAR WATER. 
 
 BY W. C. STEWAET. 
 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 BLACKWOOD'S MAGAZINE. 
 
 " Mr. Stewart has the reputation of being a most successful angler, 
 and his fame is on many waters. Therefore, holding the views which 
 we have already expressed touching the general selfishness of the 
 fraternity, we cannot too much admire his single-heartedness in com- 
 piling a work which, if attended to, must transmute the veriest tyro 
 into a tolerably prosperous fisherman. We suspect that some who now 
 rank as his rivals will barely thank him for his revelations, on the score 
 that it is not expedient either to multiply the number of rods, or to 
 divulge secrets which must tend to a considerable thinning of the 
 streams. They, the adepts, believe themselves to constitute a high and 
 worshipful piscatory lodge, with mysteries peculiar to their degree ; and 
 they may not altogether approve of the extreme liberality of their excel- 
 lent brother in opening the eyes of the uninitiated. However, they may 
 comfort themselves with the reflection that darkness rather than light is 
 the deliberate choice of the million. The best teaching in the world is 
 thrown away upon stupidity and self-conceit ; and that not only in 
 ethics, but in such practical matters as angling. . . . One special 
 recommendation of this book as an angling treatise is, the clearness 
 with which Mr. Stewart lays down his positions, and the care which he 
 has bestowed on the proof. He does not content himself with merely 
 giving directions ; he explains, and always lucidly, why such directions 
 are given. 
 
 BELL'S LIFE IN LONDON. 
 
 " Without hesitation we pronounce this little treatise the best we 
 have ever read on angling for trout with the artificial fly, worm, min- 
 now, and other baits. It is written with most minute care by an angler 
 of fifteen years' constant practice, of great and varied observation, un-
 
 2 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 prejudiced by egotistical theory, of sound judgment, and whose whole 
 some knowledge of the habits of trout renders all that he says about 
 the best modes of capturing entitled to the utmost confidence. . . . 
 Every young fly-fisher, desirous of becoming proficient in by far the 
 pleasantest and best branch of the angling art, should study the excel- 
 lent and manifold maxims laid down in this most valuable little treatise. 
 The tyro that does may rest assured that he is in his right path, follow- 
 ing a practical, experienced, clever, and conscientious guide." 
 
 ILLUSTRATED LONDON NEWS. 
 
 " That patient class of British sportsmen for whom the Bliuk- 
 bonnys and the Skirmishers of the turf live and race in vain, and 
 whose hearts are not with the Kestrels or the Americas on the waters 
 of the Solent, or in the tents of the scorers at Lord's or Kennington 
 Oval, but continue to believe, summer after summer, in the spirit of 
 the old song 
 
 ' Oh ! the gallant fisher's life, 
 It is the best of any ! ' 
 
 will take this terse little book to their bosom, and make it the com- 
 panion of many a river-side pilgrimage. Its aim is not to give any 
 highly -tinted dissertation on the joys of angling, or to produce a series 
 of mental pictures of its most favoured haunts. Alas, for the silver 
 trout ! the author had a much more practical and deadly object in 
 view ; and although the gentle craft have had teachers, and to spare, 
 since their quaint old Isaak wrote, it was reserved for him to prove 
 that almost, if not quite, as good sport may be had in clear water as 
 in coloured. 
 
 " Mr. Stewart brings a large stock of enthusiasm, and fifteen years 
 practice, to his work. He has gleaned for his letterpress, and his 
 hook and bait illustrations, from nearly all the first amateurs and pro- 
 fessional anglers of the day, and exchanged minds with Jamie Baillie, 
 the veritable senior wrangler of fly-fishing in Scotland. Delightful as 
 it may be to a beginner to wander, rod in hand, along the banks of 
 some river in May or June, among meadows rich with the daisy and 
 the cowslip, or to contemplate nature in her grander, but not less 
 beautiful aspect, on the rocky heather-clad verge of a Highland stream 
 the pleasures of the day always bear some proportion to the weight 
 of the basket brought home ; and the finest scenery influences are but 
 an indifferent compensation for an empty creel. 
 
 " By carefully studying the precepts so pithily and pleasantly en- 
 unciated here, no tyro need despair, after he has undergone his pro- 
 bation, of becoming a practical angler ; and even those who worthily 
 aspire to that distinction already, and have acquired the necessary 
 neatness of hand and quickness of eye, may have their observation not 
 a little sharpened and their prejudices sapped. The treatise is 
 remarkably complete in all the details of the trout-fishing art. Fresh- 
 water trout the causes of their decrease, the season when they are in 
 highest condition, and every phase of their natural history claim a
 
 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 3 
 
 chapter. All the minutiae of an angler's equipment are gone into with 
 quite a Gerard-Dow minuteness, and so on to artificial fly-fishing, flies, 
 fly-dressing, May-fly fishing, and trouting with the fly. Angling with 
 the worm, which he considers to possess one very solid advantage over 
 fly in the superior size of the trout caught, is also copiously handled, 
 as well as minnow and parr-tail baits. Loch-fishing, in which the 
 accomplished angler and the tyro are most upon a par, has, nevertheless 
 no small charm in his eyes ; and his book is appropriately concluded 
 by some precepts on ' the best means of filling a basket in May, June, 
 July, August, and September. ' The author has shown, to quote the 
 late Mr. Barnes, 'lots of grapple' in dealing with his subject ; and we 
 trust that his readers may be able to act up to the spirit of the phrase, 
 and remember his advice when they feel the thrilling nibble, and have 
 to go gallantly into action at a moment's notice with a Highland Salmo 
 ferox in the approaching summer." 
 
 SATURDAY REVIEW. 
 
 "Mr. Stewart's book, Tlie Practical Angler, entirely fulfils its title. 
 The author, who is said to be the -best fisherman in Scotland, has an 
 object, and keeps it steadily in view it is to teach the art of killing 
 trout in clear water. He says, and with entire truth, that anybody 
 can kill fish in a coloured stream. His cardinal point of faith is to 
 fish up-stream. Here is true wisdom. A trout lies up-stream his 
 work is to take flies and food floating down-stream. In fishing up- 
 stream you are behind your fish, and, great as are the capacities of a fish's 
 eyes, it stands to reason that the angler at his tail has more chance of 
 being undiscovered than if he charges his enemy en face. Next comes 
 the advantage that in striking a fish your chances are greater in 
 striking against him than in snatching from him. And when you have 
 struck a fish you pull him into water that you have already fished over 
 you pull him down stream, leaving all the water above you undisturbed. 
 What is meant by fly-fishing ? Of course the object is to deceive the 
 trout into the belief that he sees a real live fly. Which is most likely 
 to deceive him a fly cast above him and gently floating down to him, 
 or one cast in the ordinary fashion, and madly crossing the stream at 
 eccentric angles and with galvanised jerks ? Real insects never cross a 
 stream, driving up against the current by superhuman, not to say 
 superinsectine, leaps and plunges. Fish may be caught by flies drawn 
 up and across the stream ; but nature's way is the best,' and that 
 floats flies down stream. Of course in dark and coloured waters the 
 difference is less important ; but Mr. Stewart's lesson is how to kill 
 trout in clear water. And we heartily subscribe to his canons with 
 the modification that casting up stream is not to be always straight up, 
 but diagonally, going over the whole water, but still casting upwards. 
 Another very sensible observation of' Mr. Stewart is that the colour of 
 a fly is not half so important as the way in which it is made to fall 
 and float on the water. A small fly and clear gut are sine yuibus non ; 
 and the thing to aim at is the appearance of life, not colour, in your 
 artificial bait. A more practical, sound, sensible, and unpretending
 
 4 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 book we never read, and we recommend it without abatement or 
 qualification." 
 
 SCOTSMAN. 
 
 " This book is the probable inauguration of a new era in the art of 
 
 angling Although the angler's library is already a pretty 
 
 full one, each half-century for the last three hundred years having 
 produced one or more pleasant and useful additions to it, we have no 
 hesitation in saying that it cannot be complete without this little 
 volume. Nowhere that we know of in the same compass, or indeed in any 
 compass, is there so much valuable practical instruction to the trout-fisher. 
 Mr. Stewart indulges but little in those graces of composition through 
 which some of our least useful angling-books are rendered the most 
 charming to the reader, but crams every page with information, which, 
 from its obvious accordance with common sense and sound theory, not 
 less than from its being vouched for by an angler of large experience, 
 and of a skill that has never yet been matched, commends itself as 
 valuable even to the most sceptical and self-satisfied adept." 
 
 THE FIELD. 
 
 " The modest unpretending little volume before us is decidedly 
 welcome. The Practical Angler we like the title. We are prepared 
 to find something practical in it, and thanks be, for once we are not 
 deceived. It is practical in every sense of the word. . . . We 
 can recommend this little book to tyros or anglers in the transition 
 state of every grade and shade, and even the finished practitioner may 
 find in it something worthy of notice." 
 
 JOHN BULL. 
 
 . . . . " But the author' needs no excuse, and has limited 
 himself to no specialty. He has given us the very best hand-book of 
 angling that we know of ; and it is a material part of its merits 
 that it occupies so small a compass ; for most anglers, however they 
 may affect a voluminous fishing-book, are disposed to cavil at prolixity 
 in a treatise on this science. Short as it is, the work contains all that 
 is needed, either for the fly at the one end of the machinery, or the 
 angler at the other. How to make your fly, how to throw it ; how to 
 hook your fish, how to land it ; all about your own habits and those 
 of the trout, is told in a simple and sportsmanlike style. ^ Mr. Stewart 
 is the Colonel Hawker of fishing." 
 
 ADAM & CHARLES BLACK.