764 EEPOET- -1892. 



In considering remedial measures necessary to the proper preservation of extra- 

 territorial iisheries, the conference have considered the question from only one 

 point of view, viz., that of prohibiting the capture and sale of what are termed 

 ' undersized ' Hat fish. 



It is an undeniable fact that within recent years a market has opened for the 

 sale of these small fish, and that, in addition to this, modes of fishing are allowed 

 which, carried on in certain localities, tend to the destruction of many fish CA'en 

 too small for the market. 



The outcry against such procedure is very ancient, and has in past years led to 

 legislation in this country ; and at the present day in France and Denmark fish 

 are not allowed to he sold under certain sizes. 



In England the Act 1 Geo. I. stat. 5, cap. 18, established the following sizes, 

 the measurements being from the eye to the end of the tail : — 



No Bret or Turbot .... under 1 6 inches 



No Brill or Pearl ,, li inches 



No Codlin, Bass, or ^Mullet . . . ,,13 inches 



No Sole, Dab, or Plaice ... ,,8 inches 



No Flounder ,.7 inches 



No Whiting „ ^ inches 



Subsequently (by 22 Geo. II. cap. 49) a relaxation was made in favour of 

 undersized fish if caught by a hook. At a later date this exemption was repealed, 

 but ultimately (by 33 Geo. II. cap. 27) turbot and brill were altogether exempted 

 from the list of undersized fish. 



Finally, the Sea Fisheries Act of 1868 (31 and 32 "N'ict. cap. 45) abolished all 

 restrictions on deep-sea fishing. The agitation almost immediately recommenced, 

 and has been mentioned continually in official reports up to the present day. The 

 question is therefore not a new one, but rather the repetition of an old-standing 

 grievance. 



Mr. Fryer, Inspector of Fisheries to the Board of Trade, in bis Fiftli Annual 

 lieport (1891), after discussing the difficulties in the way of restricting the size of 

 mesh in nets, particularly those used for shrimping, suggests that 'a simple 

 prohibition of any method of fishing could be much more easily enforced than a 

 regulation involvuig constant watching and measuring,' and further remarks : 

 ' The application, of this principle to extra-territorial waters by means of an 

 international agreement, and the adoption of a regular system of closing and 

 opening certain areas in rotation, would probably secui'e fuller advantages than 

 could be derived from any other method of protection in this respect.' 



I give this extract in passing, since it shows, although on an entirely diflerent 

 system, a proposition to deal with this difficult question which is regarded with 

 favour by man}'. 



I shall now give the conclusions arrived at by the conference held in February 

 of this year in the Fishmongers' Hall, since they may be considered the most 

 highly revised. 



I shall then give reasons why, in my opinion and in the opinion of my two 

 colleagues, Mr. Cumiingham and Mr. Holt, these sizes are quite unsatisfactory. 



By resolution passed on February 25, after discussion and reference to a com- 

 mittee on the previous day, the following sizes were determined on: — 



Sole ........ 10 inches 



Turbot 12 inches 



Brill ........ 12 inches • 



Lemon Sole . . . . . . . 10 inches 



Plaice 11 inches 



At the commencement I would point out that these limiting sizes were agreed 

 upon by the majority of the members present at the conference merely because 

 they were the sizes which appeared to them best for preventing the sale of very 

 small fish, and thus preserving them until they have reached a fair marketable size. 



In our estimation the framing of this resolution is of almost no value, since its 

 only point of recommendation is that fish at, or above, the sizes given fetch a 



