to
contradict the old gentleman. So he has to go on by himself without
any encouragement.
"No," he continues
thoughtfully; "I shouldn't believe it myself if
anybody told it to me, but it's a fact, for all that. I had been sitting
there all the afternoon and had caught
literally nothing - except a few
dozen dace and a score of jack; and I was just about giving it up as a
bad job when I suddenly felt a rather smart pull at the line. I thought
it was another little one, and I went to jerk it up. Hang me, if I could
move the rod! It took me half-an-hour - half-an-hour, sir! - to land
that fish; and every moment I thought the line was going to snap! I
reached him at last, and what do you think it was? A sturgeon! a forty
pound sturgeon! taken on a line, sir! Yes, you may well look surprised -
I'll have another three of Scotch,
landlord, please."
And then he goes on to tell of the
astonishment of everybody who saw it;
and what his wife said, when he got home, and of what Joe Buggles thought
about it.
I asked the
landlord of an inn up the river once, if it did not injure
him, sometimes, listening to the tales that the fishermen about there
told him; and he said:
"Oh, no; not now, sir. It did used to knock me over a bit at first, but,
lor love you! me and the
missus we listens to `em all day now. It's what
you're used to, you know. It's what you're used to."
I knew a young man once, he was a most
conscientious fellow, and, when he
took to fly-
fishing, he determined never to
exaggerate his hauls by more
than twenty-five per cent.
"When I have caught forty fish," said he, "then I will tell people that I
have caught fifty, and so on. But I will not lie any more than that,
because it is sinful to lie."
But the twenty-five per cent. plan did not work well at all. He never
was able to use it. The greatest number of fish he ever caught in one
day was three, and you can't add twenty-five per cent. to three - at
least, not in fish.
So he increased his
percentage to thirty-three-and-a-third; but that,
again, was
awkward, when he had only caught one or two; so, to simplify
matters, he made up his mind to just double the quantity.
He stuck to this
arrangement for a couple of months, and then he grew
dissatisfied with it. Nobody believed him when he told them that he only
doubled, and he,
therefore, gained no credit that way
whatever, while his
moderation put him at a
disadvantage among the other anglers. When he
had really caught three small fish, and said he had caught six, it used
to make him quite
jealous to hear a man, whom he knew for a fact had only
caught one, going about telling people he had landed two dozen.
So,
eventually, he made one final
arrangement with himself, which he has
religiously held to ever since, and that was to count each fish that he
caught as ten, and to assume ten to begin with. For example, if he did
not catch any fish at all, then he said he had caught ten fish - you
could never catch less than ten fish by his
system; that was the
foundation of it. Then, if by any chance he really did catch one fish,
he called it twenty, while two fish would count thirty, three forty, and
so on.
It is a simple and easily worked plan, and there has been some talk
lately of its being made use of by the angling
fraternity in general.
Indeed, the Committee of the Thames Angler's Association did recommend
its
adoption about two years ago, but some of the older members opposed
it. They said they would consider the idea if the number were doubled,
and each fish counted as twenty.
If ever you have an evening to spare, up the river, I should
advise you
to drop into one of the little village inns, and take a seat in the tap-
room. You will be nearly sure to meet one or two old rod-men, sipping
their toddy there, and they will tell you enough fishy stories, in half
an hour, to give you indigestion for a month.
George and I - I don't know what had become of Harris; he had gone out
and had a shave, early in the afternoon, and had then come back and spent
full forty minutes in pipeclaying his shoes, we had not seen him since -
George and I,
therefore, and the dog, left to ourselves, went for a walk
to Wallingford on the second evening, and, coming home, we called in at a
little river-side inn, for a rest, and other things.
We went into the parlour and sat down. There was an old fellow there,
smoking a long clay pipe, and we naturally began chatting.
He told us that it had been a fine day to-day, and we told him that it
had been a fine day
yesterday, and then we all told each other that we
thought it would be a fine day to-morrow; and George said the crops
seemed to be coming up nicely.
After that it came out, somehow or other, that we were strangers in the
neighbourhood, and that we were going away the next morning.
Then a pause ensued in the conversation, during which our eyes wandered
round the room. They finally rested upon a dusty old glass-case, fixed
very high up above the chimney-piece, and containing a trout. It rather
fascinated me, that trout; it was such a
monstrous fish. In fact, at
first glance, I thought it was a cod.
"Ah!" said the old gentleman, following the direction of my gaze, "fine
fellow that, ain't he?"
"Quite uncommon," I murmured; and George asked the old man how much he
thought it weighed.
"Eighteen pounds six ounces," said our friend, rising and
taking down his
coat. "Yes," he continued, "it wur sixteen year ago, come the third o'
next month, that I landed him. I caught him just below the
bridge with a
minnow. They told me he wur in the river, and I said I'd have him, and
so I did. You don't see many fish that size about here now, I'm
thinking. Good-night, gentlemen, good-night."
And out he went, and left us alone.
We could not take our eyes off the fish after that. It really was a
remarkably fine fish. We were still looking at it, when the local
carrier, who had just stopped at the inn, came to the door of the room
with a pot of beer in his hand, and he also looked at the fish.
"Good-sized trout, that," said George, turning round to him.
"Ah! you may well say that, sir," replied the man; and then, after a pull
at his beer, he added, "Maybe you wasn't here, sir, when that fish was
caught?"
"No," we told him. We were strangers in the neighbourhood.
"Ah!" said the
carrier, "then, of course, how should you? It was nearly
five years ago that I caught that trout."
"Oh! was it you who caught it, then?" said I.
"Yes, sir," replied the
genial old fellow. "I caught him just below the
lock - leastways, what was the lock then - one Friday afternoon; and the
remarkable thing about it is that I caught him with a fly. I'd gone out
pike
fishing, bless you, never thinking of a trout, and when I saw that
whopper on the end of my line, blest if it didn't quite take me aback.
Well, you see, he weighed twenty-six pound. Good-night, gentlemen, good-
night."
Five minutes afterwards, a third man came in, and described how he had
caught it early one morning, with bleak; and then he left, and a stolid,
solemn-looking,
middle-aged individual came in, and sat down over by the
window.
None of us spoke for a while; but, at length, George turned to the new
comer, and said:
"I beg your
pardon, I hope you will
forgive the liberty that we - perfect
strangers in the neighbourhood - are
taking, but my friend here and
myself would be so much obliged if you would tell us how you caught that
trout up there."
"Why, who told you I caught that trout!" was the surprised query.
We said that nobody had told us so, but somehow or other we felt
instinctively that it was he who had done it.
"Well, it's a most
remarkable thing - most
remarkable," answered the
stolid stranger, laughing; "because, as a matter of fact, you are quite
right. I did catch it. But fancy your guessing it like that. Dear me,
it's really a most
remarkable thing."
And then he went on, and told us how it had taken him half an hour to
land it, and how it had broken his rod. He said he had weighed it
carefully when he reached home, and it had turned the scale at thirty-
four pounds.
He went in his turn, and when he was gone, the
landlord came in to us.
We told him the various histories we had heard about his trout, and he
was
immensely amused, and we all laughed very
heartily.
"Fancy Jim Bates and Joe Muggles and Mr. Jones and old Billy Maunders all
telling you that they had caught it. Ha! ha! ha! Well, that is good,"
said the honest old fellow, laughing
heartily. "Yes, they are the sort
to give it ME, to put up in MY parlour, if THEY had caught it, they are!
Ha! ha! ha!"
And then he told us the real history of the fish. It seemed that he had
caught it himself, years ago, when he was quite a lad; not by any art or
skill, but by that unaccountable luck that appears to always wait upon a
boy when he plays the wag from school, and goes out
fishing on a sunny
afternoon, with a bit of string tied on to the end of a tree.
He said that bringing home that trout had saved him from a whacking, and
that even his school-master had said it was worth the rule-of-three and
practice put together.
He was called out of the room at this point, and George and I again
turned our gaze upon the fish.
It really was a most
astonishing trout. The more we looked at it, the
more we marvelled at it.
It excited George so much that he climbed up on the back of a chair to
get a better view of it.
And then the chair slipped, and George clutched wildly at the trout-case
to save himself, and down it came with a crash, George and the chair on
top of it.
"You haven't injured the fish, have you?" I cried in alarm, rushing up.
"I hope not," said George, rising
cautiously and looking about.
But he had. That trout lay shattered into a thousand fragments - I say a
thousand, but they may have only been nine hundred. I did not count
them.
We thought it strange and unaccountable that a stuffed trout should break
up into little pieces like that.
And so it would have been strange and unaccountable, if it had been a
stuffed trout, but it was not.
That trout was plaster-of-Paris.
CHAPTER XVIII.
LOCKS. - GEORGE AND I ARE PHOTOGRAPHED. - WALLINGFORD. - DORCHESTER. -
ABINGDON. - A FAMILY MAN. - A GOOD SPOT FOR DROWNING. - A DIFFICULT BIT
OF WATER. - DEMORALIZING EFFECT OF RIVER AIR.
WE left Streatley early the next morning, and pulled up to Culham, and
slept under the
canvas, in the backwater there.
The river is not
extraordinarily interesting between Streatley and
Wallingford. From Cleve you get a stretch of six and a half miles
without a lock. I believe this is the longest uninterrupted stretch
anywhere above Teddington, and the Oxford Club make use of it for their
trial eights.
But however
satisfactory this
absence of locks may be to rowing-men, it
is to be regretted by the mere pleasure-seeker.
For myself, I am fond of locks. They
pleasantly break the
monotony of
the pull. I like sitting in the boat and slowly rising out of the cool
depths up into new reaches and fresh views; or sinking down, as it were,
out of the world, and then
waiting, while the
gloomy gates creak, and the
narrow strip of day-light between them widens till the fair smiling river
lies full before you, and you push your little boat out from its brief
prison on to the welcoming waters once again.
They are
picturesque little spots, these locks. The stout old lock-
keeper, or his cheerful-looking wife, or bright-eyed daughter, are
pleasant folk to have a passing chat with. * You meet other boats there,
and river
gossip is exchanged. The Thames would not be the
fairyland it
is without its flower-decked locks.
* Or rather WERE. The Conservancy of late seems to have constituted
itself into a society for the
employment of idiots. A good many of the
new lock-keepers, especially in the more
crowded portions of the river,
are excitable,
nervous old men, quite unfitted for their post.
Talking of locks reminds me of an accident George and I very nearly had
one summer's morning at Hampton Court.
It was a
glorious day, and the lock was
crowded; and, as is a common
practice up the river, a
speculative photographer was
taking a picture of
us all as we lay upon the rising waters.
I did not catch what was going on at first, and was,
therefore,
extremely