SELECT COMMllTEE ON THE SEA FISHERIES lilLL 



SMurch 1904.] 



SiK Thomas Elliott, k.cb. 



[Continued 



Chairman — continued. 

 before your Lordships does not lay down any 

 definite limits of size, because it is based upon 

 the opinion that in a matter of this kind elasticity 

 and a certain measure of experimental action are 

 necessary. The conditions of fishing are so very 

 different, the small fisherman has of course to be 

 separately considered from those engaged in the 

 great trawling industry ; and we thought it was 

 impossible at the present time to lay down a 

 definite rule applicable for everybody. We 

 therefore proposed to take power in the Bill to 

 make Orders for preventing the landing of flat 

 fish under certain conditions. 



33. The Board of Agriculture have had con- 

 siderable experience, have they not, in legislation 

 of this characier, by way of Order of the Board, 

 in the matter of the diseases of animals ? — That 

 is so, of course. 



34. And can you shortly say how that has 

 been received by the communitv mainly affected, 

 namely, the agricultuiists, and how far it has 

 been the policy of the Board to lead public 

 opinion, but not to force it ? — -Contagious disease 

 existed in this country for a great number of 

 years, and farmers were very much opposed to 

 the thought of restrictions. They had an idea 

 that these diseases were more or less a matter 

 of providential dispensation, and they certainly 

 resented any idea of measures being taken to 

 prevent spreaing those diseases. If I may refer 

 to the case of Foot and Mouth Disease, that 

 disease certainly existed inthecountry for a period 

 of about 32 years, from 1839 to 1871, and no effort 

 was made to stop its spread. Indeed, when 

 suggestions were made that the spread might 

 be stopped by means of restrictions, even so 

 recently as the year 1864, the Farmers' Club of 

 London, which is a very representative body, 

 and the Highland Society of Scotland, which 

 voices advanced agricultural opinion, were 

 equally opposed to the thought of restrictions. 



35. What is the attitude of agriculturists 

 towards restrictions now ? — The attitude of agri- 

 culturists now is entirely favourable to restric- 

 tions. If I may use the expression, the national 

 attitude of agriculturists at the present moment 

 is entirely in favour of the necessary restrictions. 

 They know that disease may be stamped out, and 

 we receive from the general body of agriculturists 

 a very general support in the measures we think 

 it necessary to take. 



36. And from the experience you have had 

 in dealing with contagious diseases by way of 

 Order of the Boards, do you think we could 

 deal equally well with the question of the 

 capture of undersized fish to the satisfaction of 

 fishermen ? — Yes, I do. I think the Board 

 would probably find it necessary always to be a 

 little in advance of public opinion — not too 

 much in advance of public opinion — and we 

 should have gradually to feel our way and to 

 educate those concerned, by proving to them 

 that the restrictions are for their benefit. 



37. Then in addition to the various Com- 

 mittees which have inquired into this question 

 of undersized fish, there was one, was there not, 

 called the Committee on Icthyological Research, 

 which made a recommendation as to testing and 



Chair inai) — continued, 

 regulating fishing operations, which perhaps 

 you have there and will quote to the Com- 

 mittee ? — Yes. That Committee expressed the 

 opinion that in view of the difficulty of carrying 

 out at a reasonable cost any reliable investiga- 

 tions as to the effect of natural causes on the 

 abundance of fish and the danger of drawing 

 inferences from partial results, the effect of 

 man's operations on the fisheries can best be 

 tested by regulating such operations experi- 

 mentally. 



38. And you think that by means of Orders 

 under this Bill, we should be able to test experi- 

 mentally the operations of fishing?— Yes, I 

 believe that system would secure the necessary 

 elasticity, and would enable us from time to 

 time to take into account the different condi- 

 tions we had to deal with. 



39. That is to say, if at any time you found 

 you had been profceding on wrong lines and 

 recent investigations showed you that other 

 lines ought to be pursued, it would be in the 

 competence of the Board at any time to alter 

 their Order to meet the new circumstances that 

 had arisen ? —That is so. 



40. Then what -would be the matters whicli 

 would have to be ktrpt in view in making the 

 orders of the Board with respect to fish and 

 fishing? — One matter which Avould present itself 

 at the outset would ho, of course, the description 

 of fish, the landing (if which would be subject to 

 regulation or to prohibit ion. It is represented to 

 us by the fishing iiidustr}- that the protection 

 of small plaice is by far the most important sub- 

 ject to them. It might be a question whether 

 we should limit om- operations in the first 

 instance to plaice ; but there is a considerable 

 body of opinion that such fish as soles, turbot, 

 brill, and fish of that quality are also in need of 

 protection. Proposals have been made to include 

 dabs and flounders and other flat fish, but those 

 fish, I think, have never been included in any 

 Bill. The description of fish to be dealt with is 

 one of the matters in regard to which we should 

 have to feel oiu' way and to act with discretion 

 from time to time. 



41. Then the next point would be to consider 

 the size of the fish, would it not ? — Yes. There 

 again, I think, we should need to proceed experi- 

 mentally. The problem, of course, would be to 

 insure the maximum amount of security for 

 undersized fish with the minimum amount of 

 inconvenience or even loss to the interests 

 concerned. 



42. And it would a great deal depend upon 

 the places where these fish were caught as to 

 what the size limit would be. If, for instance, 

 any restrictions were placed on catching fish 

 round the coast, you would naturally require to 

 have a very much lower size limit than you 

 would if it was confined to the large nurseries in 

 the North Sea ? — That is so. 



43. And it was in view of that that the sizes 

 in the Bill of 1900 Avere fixed, because it was 

 anticipated of course that they would be applic- 

 able to all fish caught anywhere ? — Yes ; the 

 Bill of 1900 laid down an absolute prohibition 

 against the landing and sale of all flat fish under 



a certain 



