THE IMPOVERISHMENT OF THE SEA. 45 



one firm at Lowestoft amounted to 139 cwts. of prime fish and 710 cwts. 

 of offal (Minutes of Evidence, §§ 1,540, 1,626). It will be seen by 

 comparison with Table IV. that the total catch (849 cwts.) even 

 exceeded the average catch of Mr. Alward's four smacks for the same 

 year, though practically identical if we take the previous year's average 

 also into consideration. The data, however, upon which I principally 

 depend for my estimate of the catching power of the sailing-trawler 

 unit consist of Mr. Alward's returns of the actual catches of four of 

 his Grimsby trawlers, already discussed (see Tables A-D and IV.). 



§ ii. Relative Efficiency of Steam Beam Trawlers. 



The catching power of steam beam trawlers compared with smacks 

 has been variously placed at from three to six fold (Select Committee, 

 1893, Minutes, §§ 351, 1,165, 4,119). Mr. Alward, in 1893, estimated 

 it at between four and five times the efficiency of the sailer, and I am 

 able to submit actual figures in substantiation of this opinion. Mr. 

 Alward has kindly lent me extracts from his books, which show the 

 actual annual catches of one of his steam trawlers for each of the years 

 1883, 1884, and 1885, and the catch of another steamer for 1885. 



Table IX., comparing the Average Annual Catches of Steam and Sailing 

 Beam Trawlers, Grimsby, 1883-85, and showing the Relative 

 Efficiency of the Steamer at that date. 



Boats. Period. Average Annual Catch (cwts.). 



Plaice. Haddock. Prime.* Rough. t Total. 



steamer 3 years, '83-'85. 818 2325 125 668 3936 



4 smacks do. 315 556 94 81 1043 



{\ 



In Table IX. I have averaged these figures in two wavs, and it will be 

 seen that, as in the case of the sailing trawlers, the average quantity landed 



* "Prime" includes Turbot, Sole, and Brill. In these figures, however, Lemon Soles 

 also are probably included in the case of the steamers, but excluded in the case of the 

 smacks. Consequently the figures representing the relative efficiency of the steamer in 

 catching prime fish are probably excessive. The steamer's average annual catch of 

 "soles" in 1883-5 was 62 cwts. If we assume one-tliird of the catch to have consisteil 

 of lemon soles, the efficiency of the steamer for prime fish is reduced to I'll. 



t "Rough" includes Cod, Gurnet, Dabs, Catfish, Skates, and Rays (Roker), etc. In 

 the case of the smacks it also probably includes Lemon Soles, so that the index of the 

 steamer's relative efficiency in catching "rough fish" is probably rather below the true 

 value. The figures for "prime" and "rough" fish are invalidated by Mr. Alward's uncer- 

 tainty at this date as to bis treatment of lemon soles in the case of the steamers. 



