works, and adverting to those particular Acts of Parliament, should not have taken the pains to read them ; and it is impossible to suppose, that if they had considered the interpretation of them as extending to the sea-coast, they would have expressed themselves in the limited way in which they have expressed themselves, confining themselves to rivers, and to rivers only.
      My Lords,—The case at your Lordships' Bar was also argued upon another principle, which is alluded to in the papers now upon your Lordships' table—the papers sent up from Scotland ; namely, that even independently of the construction of these Acts of Parliament, the owners of the fisheries in the Don would have a right to complain of the erection of these works on the principles of the common law. Now, although that point was glanced at in the Court below, it does not appear to have been seriously argued before the Court of Session ; and at your Lordships' Bar it was argued by one of the Counsel, not, I think, the Counsel from the northern part of the kingdom, but by an English Counsel, arguing it upon English principles, and citing English cases, most of which I have looked at with considerable attention, but which, when they come to be sifted and examined, appear to me to have no bearing whatever upon the present question. I think, therefore, that if your Lordships are satisfied upon my representation as to the interpretation of these Acts of Parliament, that they are not to be considered as extending to the sea-coast, the position of this question cannot be at all altered by any reference to the principle of the common law, either as applicable to Scotland or England.
      My Lords,—Another point has been insisted upon in the papers, and also at the Bar ; but it does not appear to me to be entitled to much attention. It is said, that the proprietors of these fisheries on the sea-coast have no right, by the terms of their grant, to fish in this manner ; that they are entitled only to fish with what is called a net and coble ; and that, having taken upon themselves to fish in a different mode, the proprietors of the fisheries in the river Don have a right to complain of it, and on that ground to sustain this suit. My Lords, I apprehend that is quite a mistake ; these persons became proprietors. of fisheries on the coast originally by grant from the Crown ; and if their grants are so limited, that in point of law (upon which I do not wish at present to pronounce any opinion) they are not entitled to fish in the manner described, namely, by the use of stake-nets, that is a question between them and the Crown ;—the Crown may have a right to complain that the exercise of the right conveyed by the Crown has, in that instance, been exceeded ; and possibly, under such circumstances, the Crown might, by its public officer, institute some proceeding against them ; upon which, however, I wish carefully to abstain from expressing any opinion ; but the proprietors of the fisheries on the Don have nothing to do with that. The question with respect to the proprietors of the fisheries on the Don is, Whether they have a right, by the existing law, to complain, that persons who possess property on the sea-coast, and have a right of fishery on the sea-coast as extensive as the Crown can grant, are entitled to fish by means of stake-nets ; and whether they can make out that the laws of Scotland prohibit, under such circum-

stances, where the sea ebbs and flows, the use of machinery of that description ? Now I apprehend that, looking at these Acts of Parliament, they do not apply to fisheries on the sea-coast, and that the proprietors of fisheries on the Don have no right to maintain this suit. I should recommend to your Lordships, under these circumstances, that the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.

Appellants' Authorities.—(Title.)—Colquhoun, July 6, 1804, (14,283.);
      Kinnoul, Jan. 26, 1802, (14,301.) ; Athole, March 7. 1812, (Fac. Coll.);
      Hamilton, March 5. 1793, (12,824.) ; Braid, Jan. 24. 1800, (No. 2. App.
      Prop.)—(Merits.)—Kinnoul, (supra) ; Athole, (supra, and Dow's Reports,
      vol. v. p. 291.) ; Leslie, June 29, 1593, (14,249.) ; Gairlies, July 30. 1605,
      (14,249.) ; Magistrates of Inverness, Jan. 27, 1776, (14,257).

Respondents' Authorities.—Bocce, fol. 5, edit. 1574 ; Discrittione del
      regno di Scotia, p. 17.—(Title.)—Coble Fishers of Don, Feb. 10. 1693,
      (14,287.) ; Colquhoun, July 6. 1804, (14,283.) ; Athole, March 7. 1812, (Fac.
      Coll. and Buchanan's Reports, p. 263. and 300.) ; Grotius de Jure Belli, lib.
      11. c. 2. § 3. ; Puffendorf, lib. 4. c. 5. ; Dig. 1. lib. 47. tit. 10.—(Merits.)—
      Balfour's Pract. p. 544. ; Rhymer's Foedera, tom. 7. p. 246. ; tom. 8. p. 271,
      551.; Bellend. Decrip. de Alb. c. 1. ; Spalding's Troubles, 1. 60. ; 2. Stair, 3.
      70. ; 2. Bank. 3. 8. ; 2. Ersk. 6. 15. ; Mag. Chart. c. 23. ; 12. Edw. 42. c. 7.;
      1705, c. 2. Queen Anne.

Statutes relied on by both Parties.—Alex. II. c. 16. (or William the Lion);
      Rob. I. c. 12. ; 1424, c. 11. and 12. ; 1427, c. 6. ; 1429, c. 131. (c. 22. new
      edit.) ; 1457, c. 86. (c. 33. 34. new edit.) ; 1469, c. 38. (c. 13. new edit.);
      1477, c. 73. (1478, c. 6. new edit.) ; 1488, c 16 ; 1489, c 15. ; 1535, c. 17.;
      1563; c. 3. ; 1579, c. 89. ; 1581, c. 111. ; 1685, c. 20. ; 3. Jac. I. c. 12.

[1927lab]