SIR,—I have read the letter by "Piscator" with the " above heading in your paper of the 21st. I am sorry that in the pursuit of a few hours pleasure and recreation he should have met with such uncouth behaviour. I will use a stronger term and call it ruffianly conduct. It is evident the forester was determined to show who was the master, and proclaim to all others the old feudal law that " might is right." "Piscator" states, his case, and says he was fishing in a tidal river, but the question is as to the access. I construe the law to mean that access is free along the banks over which the tide flows. Should the river be so formed either artificially or by nature as to he devoid of the ordinary marshy banks at its mouth, then we have to consider whether, in giving the public a right to fish in tidal and navigable rivers, the law contemplated according reasonable access. Pray, of what use is the right if no means of exercising the same exists? The right of the public to take the fish is undoubted, and according to the justice of our laws. I hope it will turn out that the right of access is undoubted also. Matters of this kind are being pushed beyond the intention of our legislators, end that amicable under-standing so long maintained has in this case been recklessly disturbed. The adjoining proprietors have no sole vested interest in the fish. No; they are the property of the public, to be dealt with in accordance with fishery law, and it is only right that the public should be able to use their privilege. —I am &c. F.