ADMINISTRATION OF THE FISHERIES ACT. 41 



regularly administered by the Commissioners up to the pre- 

 sent time. Every care has been taken that the restrictions it 

 enacts especially as regards closm^es of waters against the 

 use of fishing-nets, as well as its provisions respecting lengths 

 and dimensions of nets and netting, shall be observed ; but 

 the task has proved a difficult one ; the charms which for- 

 bidden waters appeared to have for the fishermen seemed too 

 good for resistance, and the efforts of the fisheries Inspectors, 

 no matter how industriously and wisely directed, have 

 not infrequently proved insufficient to baffle the ever- 

 watchful offenders and their folk, who have always stoutly 

 contended that they are perpetually hampered in the profit- 

 able prosecution of their calling by the undue pressure 

 of harsh and ill-advised legislation, unjustly administered 

 by a Commission of gentlemen, some of whom have not a 

 practical knowledge of the fisheries question. Setting aside 

 these severe strictures upon its administration, this seems 

 a rather sweeping condemnation of the comprehensive system 

 of legislation on the fisheries, which in 1881 had been 

 ushered in with so much trumpet flourish, and which seemed 

 so pregnant with possibilities of the most promising nature ; 

 but the assertions were pressed with such force and persistency, 

 and the complaints were discussed with so much vigour in 

 the public press, that eventually the matter was again brought 

 forward in Parliament, through the instrumentality of Mr. 

 Frank Earnell, one of the members for Central Cumberland, 

 and a son of the late Honorable J. S. Parnell, whose efforts 

 in past years, more particularly in the development of oyster 

 culture, had been so prominent. Mr. Frank Farnell, in his 

 place in Parliament, assailed the Fisheries Commission for 

 want of practical knowledge, and the officers under them 

 for their administration of the Act ; urged the abolition 

 of the Board and the re-establishment of the department 

 under direct Ministerial control. Sir Henry Parkes, Colonial 

 Secretary, pointed out to the House that no administrative 

 authority of such a kind as the Fisheries Commission could 

 be of any value unless it gave widespread dissatisfaction, 

 and that it indeed could not possibly satisfy persons who 

 desired irres^ularlv to fish in waters closed asrainst them. 

 Nevertheless, as he was by no means satisfied with the 

 working of the Board, and as the Fisheries Act had been 

 sufficientlv Ions; in existence for its workinsr to be made 

 manifest by proper inquiry, he did not think it was his 



