56 



NATURE 



\Nov. 1 6, 1876 



pages folio, and by help of this I beg leave to submit to Mr, 

 Holdsworth and your readers the following results. 



The Commissioners took evidence at eighty-six places (Bil- 

 lingsgate and London counting separately), which, for con- 

 venience' sake, I will call " stations." Now it appears that of 

 these eighty-six stations evidence was offered at twenty-two, 

 showing an increase in the supply of fish generally, and evidence 

 showing a decrease at forty-three, or exactly half of the whole 

 number. But at thirteen of these stations the evidence was con- 

 flicting. Deducting, therefore, that number from each side, we 

 have thirty stations where the evidence was solely for the 

 decrease and only nine for the increase, or a clear majority of 

 twenty-one stations for the former. It also appears (unless my 

 arithmetic is at fault) that of the answers given to the Com- 

 missioners at these several places 250 showed an increase, and 

 605 a decrease. If, then, my opinion on this subject is so erro- 

 neous as Mr. Holdsworth asserts, it is one entertained by a good 

 many people who know more of fishery matters than I do. 



If, further, we analyse the evidence as to various kinds of fishes 

 the results will not be very different. These will be best stated 

 in a tabular form. 



Thus out of these twenty kinds, sixteen show a positive decrease 

 at more or fewer stations, and among them are some of the most 

 important of our "food fishes" — cod and ling, haddock, hake, 

 herring, mackarel, sole, sprat, and whiting. 



Now I can imagine three objections being raised to the obvious 

 inference from this table : — 



First : that the witnesses for the decrease were untrustworthy. 



Secondly : that the Irish stations are included among those 

 showing decrease, and Irish fisheries are said to be languishing 

 from causes which do not concern the present matter. 



Thirdly: that even the non-Irish stations showing decrease 

 are comparatively small and unimportant. 



1. Without imputing any want of veracity to the witnesses for 

 the decrease it is obvious that, as all fishermen have a pretty 

 hard time of it, the proportion among them with a despairing 

 turn of mind may be greater than among men who follow other 

 callings, and that this may unconsciously tinge their testimony. 

 So far, however, as my own experience goes, which is perhaps a 

 very little way, I have found that the grumblers among fishermen 

 commonly assign some specific cause for their complaints — be 

 that cause real or imaginary. If so-and-so were or were not the 

 case, they say, they would get on very well. Their assignment 

 of any cause is purely a matter of opinion with them. Their 

 statements as to the increase or decrease of fishes relate to a 

 matter of fact within their own knowledge. 



2. The proportion of Irish to non-Irish stations among those 

 which show decrease is by no means excessive. Here it is : — 

 Cod and ling, 13 out of 42 ; haddock, 12 out of 40 ; hake, 5 



out of 13 ; herring, 10 out of 41 ; mackarel, 2 out of 11 ; sole, 

 I out of 15 ; sprat, I out of 6; whiting, i out of li. If the 

 Irish stations were wholly disregarded the general deduction 

 would not be materially affected. 



3. Any one who has ever tried to learn the facts attending the 

 process of extinction of animals, will soon find that the premo- 

 nitory symptoms of approaching extirpation may be for a long 

 time hardly recognisable at places where the particular species 

 concerned is most abundant. It is first cut short on its borders, 

 and scarcity begins and is most readily perceived at its outlying 

 localities. Hence it is exactly in accordance with what always, 

 or almost always happens, that the smaller and least import- 

 ant fisheries should first show signs of decline, if such decline 

 is going on, as the above figures seem to prove. It may b^ years 

 before the great trawling-groands on various parts of the coast, 

 or the Dogger Bank and the Silver Pit show unmistakable signs 

 of exhaustion, but where is the take of fish inshore increasing or 

 even stationary ? 



Having thus furnished the main grounds of my belief — for I da 

 not wish to rely on the Report of the Committee of the House of 

 Commons in 1833 (though that declared the Channel fisheries to 

 have been in a declining state since 1815) further than to show it 

 is a belief of long standing and held by practical men — I must 

 proceed to make some other remarks on Mr. Holdsworth's 

 indictment. First of all let me admit that he is of coarse 

 literally accurate in his statement of the particular objects for 

 which the Royal Commission of 1863 was appointed. But, as 

 he also rightly remarks, its inquiry was extended, and indeed no 

 one can glance at its blue-books without seeing that the inquiry 

 covered far more ground than ever was scraped by a trawl. As 

 I read the Instructions to the Commissioners, they were wide 

 enough to permit any sort of inquiry into British Fisheries — even 

 the seeking of a remedy for any decline in them if such was 

 found to exist. But since my friend takes refuge behind the 

 literal wording of the Queen's Commission, I may do the same 

 with regard to the expressions used in my address. No doubt 

 had I had the blue-books by me when I was writing I should 

 have been more explicit in separating the Commission in which 

 he acted as secretary from others that had preceded it. But, 

 as it is, my words, reprinted in your own columns (Nature, 

 vol. xiv. pp. 440, 441), show that I spoke of it as something dis- 

 tinct from them, and so it truly was, for as Mr. Holdsworth 

 himself says, it was *' the most comprehensive investigation 

 of the subject that had ever been made," and the evidence it 

 collected is one of the most valuable contributions to applied 

 zoology with which I am acquainted. 



Next there comes up another point. It is quite compatible 

 with an increased supply of fish that there may be an actual 

 decrease in the stock of fishes, and it seems to me that my critic 

 hardly sees the danger of confounding these two very different 

 things. That the supply of fish to our markets has of late enor- 

 mously increased may be indu'oitable — the question really is 

 whether there are still in our seas as many fishes as there used to 

 be. The evidence I have above analysed shows, I think, that 

 there are not, and the recommendations of the Commissioners of 

 1863 are certainly not such as would increase the number. 



Mr. Holdsworth asserts that "practical mischief is likely to 

 result " from my opinions becoming known to fishermen. I 

 wish he had been a little more careful to explain wherein the 

 danger lies. Unless it be that the next Sea-Fisheries Commis- 

 sioners may find their inquiries suddenly stopped by a well-placed 

 torpedo, I am at a loss to imagine the risk. As, however, their 

 permanent brethren of the Rivers Commission continue to pur- 

 sue their duties without any such unpleasant consequences, I 

 think the possible mischief must be over-rated. Mischief may 

 arise, though, from the utterance of smooth sayings, and very 

 great mischief too ; but, if it does, it will not attach to those 

 that utter the note of warning. My friend refers to his "Deep- 

 sea Fishing and Fishing-boats," an excellent work in many 

 respects, which fully deserves all that was said in its praise in 

 your columns when it appeared (Nature, vol. xi., p. 421), and 

 perhaps more, for the reviewer did declare that the author's 

 " inferences and his facts are very much at variance," which was 

 perhaps going rather too far. I have carefully read it, but I fail 

 to find there any new facts — new, I mean, since the publication 

 of the blue-books before-mentioned^ — that bear out his views of 

 the matter. On the contrary, I have met with several admissions 

 which I think point in the opposite direction. Thus I read of 

 Yarmouth (p. iii) : — "The mackarel 'voyages,' however, have 

 been so unprofitable during the last ie.'f) years that there is little 

 inducement to invest very largely in new gear for that fishery." 



