24 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 



Five years ago, in 1901-02, au " Ichthyological Research Com- 

 mittee," after sitting at the Board of Trade for nearly a year, 

 taking evidence and discussing results, issued a report which has 

 probably met with the fate of many Government publications 

 vs'hen, decently shi-ouded in blue covers, they are laid to rest on 

 shelves and buried in dust. In that forgotten report a plan 

 of organisation of fishery research is outlined which, wdth 

 modifications and elaborations, might be suitable for adoption 

 at the present juncture. For I believe it will be pretty generally 

 agreed in this country that the time has now come when the 

 International scheme, having run for the five years of its appoint- 

 ment, has served its purpose, and may with advantage give place 

 in England to a National scheme somewhat on the lines of that 

 put forward in 1902. Much has, however, happened in the last 

 five years, many opinions on fishery matters have been expressed, 

 and it may well be that some points in that scheme can now be 

 improved, and that some new details should be added. 



So many of our fisheries experts in England, Scotland, and 

 Ireland are, from their official connections or as a consequence of 

 holding salaried posts, prevented from expressing a public opinion, 

 that it may be useful if one who is a free-lance with no official 

 position, no emoluments and no responsibilities that tie his hands 

 or tongue, puts forth at this time, not as a member or represen- 

 tative of any Council or Committee, but simply and solely on his 

 own responsibility, a scheme v^hich may possibly find acceptance 

 by the various bodies concerned, and in any case will serve as a 

 basis for discussion. 



The first proposition I would lay down is that sea-fislieries 

 investigation is worTc that ought to be undertaJcen, directed, and sub- 

 sidised by the Oovernnient. If the nation accepts responsibility for 

 the Ordnance Survey, for the Geological Survey, and for Agri- 

 cultural enquiries, it is difficult to see on what grounds the closely 

 related biological survey of our territorial waters can be repudiated. 

 The scheme then ought to be a National one, and the Government 

 Department — possibly changed, possibly enlarged, possibly under 

 new auspices — but still a Government Department of Fisheries, must 

 be regarded as the responsible centre or head. 



My second proposition is that, as a result of past history, there 

 are now a number of more or less independent organisations 

 carrying on useful work on different parts of the coast more or 

 less uncontrolled and unsupported by the Government ; and it is 

 clear that all these energies ought to be utilised and co-ordinated. 

 The Sea-Fisheries Committees of England and Wales, the Marine 

 Biological Association, the Liverpool Marine Biology Committee, 

 the Fishmongers' Company, and the National Sea-Fisheries Pro- 

 tection Association ought to be brought together around the 

 Government Department in such a way that without losing their 

 identity or independence their sea-fisheries work may be done in 

 consultation, under control and at the expense of the State. 

 Various University and marine laboratories — such as Plymouth, 



