OF THE GRIMSBY TRAWL FISHERY. 429 
maximum preservation to the species with the minimum hardship to 
the producer and consumer. Some hardships there must be, at 
least of a temporary nature, for if the matter could be arranged 
without inconveniencing anyone, it would naturally arrange itself 
without legislative assistance. 
Turning to the size limits recommended by the trade, we find 
that such are designed, not to admit of the propagation of the fish 
before it comes to market, but to prevent, in so far as may be 
possible, its destruction before it has attained the size at which it has 
a considerable commercial value. The limits recommended by the 
representatives of Grimsby and Hull were originally such as to 
exclude rather a large proportion of fish (excepting turbot and 
brill) which were actually saleable, even if not commanding much 
of a price. The same limits, as we have seen, did not commend 
themselves to our South Coast fishermen, and, with view to present- 
ing an unanimous appeal to the legislature, the matter was 
compromised by the adoption of the limits approved by the Con- 
ference of 1892 (see p. 381). It cannot, however, be said that the 
whole trade expressed itself in favour of the enforcement of these 
limits, or, indeed, in favour of any legislation based on the adoption 
of a size limit. Lowestoft, in fact, in the mouth of the witness 
chosen to represent the smack-owning interest of that important 
trawling centre, objected strongly to any limit at all; but as 
the objection was based on an assertion that unmarketable fish 
were not taken by Lowestoft trawlers, it is hard to see how the 
prohibition of the sale of such unmarketable fish could injuriously 
affect the trade. We are entitled, I think, to say that as far as this 
port is concerned, the statements put forward as evidence are in 
themselves enough to dispose of the objections to a size limit; but 
we must note that the Lowestoft standard of discrimination between 
large and small fish (plaice) appears to be about 8 inches, instead 
of the somewhat higher figure advocated by Grimsby and Hull. 
It was only to be expected that the longshore fishermen should 
object to a size hmit, since the only fish within their reach, with the 
exception of an occasional sole, fall for the most part far short of any 
standard advocated. Personally I am inclined to consider that the 
interests of the longshore fishermen are, in this matter, not entitled 
to any consideration. In so far as the shrimpers are concerned, the 
most injury that could befall them by the imposition of a size limit 
would be the elimination from their saleable catch of a certain number 
of small flat-fishes, chiefly plaice. Flounders and dabs, and a few 
marketable soles, would remain saleable, as before. As for inshore 
fish-trawling, flat-fish netting, and the like, it cannot be denied that 
these pursuits, having for their object the capture of immature fish 
