PROTECTION OF DEEP SEA FISHERIES. 397 



he could not answer nautical questions. The third admitted 

 that he had not been in fishing vessels, and that after the 

 evidence had been received he had taken no further interest, 

 as he had other occupations, but signed the report as drawn 

 up by the gentleman from the Board of Trade after he had 

 " run it over" 



And yet it is given in evidence that these three gentle- 

 men were appointed by the President of the Board of Trade 

 as a committee of experts. What a delusion ! and what a 

 careless way for a Government department to deal with a 

 matter affecting such momentous interests, involving the risk 

 of thousands of lives and enormous property ! These gentle- 

 men visited various ports, and informally enquired of persons 

 interested in the fisheries the grounds on which they had 

 based their objections to the new rules. 



They reported that they saw no reason whatever for 

 recommending any delay in enforcing the proposed regu- 

 lations. In one portion of their report they said : "The first 

 and most important ground of objection they (i.e. the trade) 

 urged is costs," and yet further on the committee remark : 

 "We wish to place on record our testimony that the 

 vessels employed in these fisheries are for the most part 

 exceedingly well kept up, that the owners and those having 

 the management apparently desire to make them in every 

 way efficient for their work." Can it then be supposed, after 

 thus testifying to such a great desire for efficiency on the 

 part of owners, that, to complete this efficiency and make 

 more secure their property (which is never fully insured) 

 and the lives of their crews, they would cavil at the cost 

 of even four extra lamps, if they could see it would be an 

 extra security, of which from their practical knowledge and 

 experience they certainly ought to be the best judges ? In 

 consequence of continued opposition, and notwithstanding 



