REPORT OF BRITISH COMMISSIONERS. 273 



tlioso from which the fashionable fur is obtained, but their skin is much used for 

 makiui; boots, especially patent leather Iwots, and the oil obtained from them is 

 applied to various purijoses. 



As regards the United Kingdom, the fishery was prosecuted from the ports of 

 Dundee and Peterhead. Norway was the foreign country mostly interested. In 

 1874 the Swedish Government suggested to our Foreign Office that some international 

 arrangement might properly be attempted with a view of imposing restrictive Reg- 

 ulations to remedy the evils above referred to. 



The earlier action of the Board of Trade upon this proposal is set forth in Par- 

 liamentary Paper No. 73 of 1875 (copy herewith). The result so far was to obtain 

 concurrence on the part of those interested, both in Great Britain and in Norway, 

 as to the necessity for a close season about the time of the birth of the young seals. 

 But there was considerable divergence of opinion both as to the date for ending and 

 the duration of such close season. 



Subsequently, the Board of Trade, in consultation with the Foreign Office, framed 

 a Bill, which they introduced into Parliament, and which became law as "The Seal 

 Fishery Act, 1875" (38 Vict. cap. 18). This Act empowered Her Majesty, by Order 

 in Council, to lix a day before which it would be illegal for British subjects in any 

 year to kill or capture, or attempt to kill or capture, seals within an area specified 

 in the Schedule to the Act, and the Act provided heavy penalties for those contra- 

 vening its provisions. The area in (juesfion was that included l)etween 67^ and 75° 

 north latitude, and 5° east and 17^^ west of Greenwich, in adopting which the Board 

 of Trade were chiefly guided by Captain David Gray, of Peterhead, one of the most 

 experienced of the ship-masters engaged in the fishery, and by whose graphic repre- 

 sentations Mr. Buckland had been put in motion. 



In the meanwhile, the Foreign Office were making representations to other coun- 

 tries who might be interested in the matter, with a view of insuring recip- 

 199 rocal legislation on their part. As already indicated, the fishery was chiefly 

 conducted by subjects of Great Britain or Norway, but Germany, Holland 

 and Sweden were also, thoagh to only a small extent, concerned. 



In the course of the year 1875 all the Governments of these foreign countries 

 expressed a willingness to initiate legislation of the character desired. It was also 

 thought well to jirovide for the contingency of the subjects of Russia, France, Den- 

 mark, or the United States joining in the fishery. The Governments of these latter 

 countries were accordingly informed of what was being done, and a hope was 

 expressed that, in the event of their respective subjects coming, as they might any 

 day do, to fish within the area in question, similar legislation would be adopted by 

 the Governments, and that, in the meantime, they would not allow their flags to be 

 carried by the subjects of countries which had legislated in the matter for the pur- 

 pose of evading such legislation. 



The replies of the first three of these Governments were generally favourable, but 

 that of the United States was indefinite. Neither French nor Danish subjects were, 

 however, engaged in the fishery. 



By the commencement of the year 1876 the stejis towards legislation in Norway 

 and Sweden were represented as approaching completion, and satisfactory assur- 

 ances as regards legislation in Germany and Holland had been received. An Order 

 in Council was thereupon obtained in this country which brought the Seal Fishery 

 Act into operation, and fixed the 3rd Ajjril in every year as the day before which 

 British subjects should not commence the taking of seals within any part of the area 

 defined in the Schedule to the Act. This date was named as a compromise between 

 the views of British and Norwegian subjects. 



The former wished for a rather later, and the latter for a rather earlier, date. 



This Order had hardly been promulgated when a telegraphic intimation was 

 received from Her Majesty's Minister at Stockholm to the eft'ect that the Norwegian 

 Government would be unable to obtain legislative authority for fixing a close season 

 as regarded the fishery of the current year. In consequence of this, the British 

 Order in Council had to be revoked. 



In the course of the same year the necessary legislation was obtained as regards 

 Norway. There had, however, been in that country a reaction of opinion as to the 

 need of a close season. 



This was probably due to a consideration of which the Board of Trade were later 

 on made aware by Captain Gray, i. e., that the new-born seals, which had formerly 

 been of little commercial value, had now become far more valuable owing to a proc- 

 ess invented for utilizing their hair in the manufacture of sham seal-skin. They 

 would, in consequence, be taken in as large numbers as possible, instead of being 

 left to die of starvation after the slaughter of the mothers. This, if a fact, would 

 make it perhaps unnecessary to interfere with the conduct of the fishery on the 

 ground of preventing cruelty, but would make a close season more needful as regards 

 preventing the extermination of the seals. The Norwegian Government, however, 

 thought themselves bound in honour to proceed with the measure. Strangely 



B S, PT VI 18 



