SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SEA FISHERIES BILL 



3 March 1904.] 



Sir Thomas Elliott, k.c.b. 



[Continued. 



Marquis of Huntly — continued. 



Act, I should quite suppose that if this Bill 

 proves in administration to be successful, a 

 demand might arise for its extension to other 

 fish ; but we do not propose at this experimental 

 stage of our action to go beyond the four fish 

 mentioned in the Bill. 



85. But the complaint of a diminution of 

 numbers and general scarcity applies to soles 

 quite as much as to plaice, does it not ? — I 

 think it does, but the take is not, as I under- 

 stand, so large or so valuable a take. 



86. It is more valuable, a great deal ? — Yes, 

 fish for fish ; but taking the bulk, I think 

 not. 



87. Probably not ; but of course it is a much 

 more valuable fish if you take it per pound ? — 

 That is so, of course. 



Earl of Tarborough. 



88. Did you say that practically speaking 

 trawling was prohibited by the Local Fishery 

 Committees ? 



Chairman] : Steam trawling. 



Earl of Tarborough] : Only steam trawling ? — 

 Possibly I might read a summary of my state- 

 ment on that. " The coast line of England and 

 Wales, omitting rivers, estuaries and inlets, may 

 roughly be taken as extending 1,700 miles. 

 Along this trawling is prohibited in territorial 

 waters (a) by all vessels for about 95 miles ; (b) 

 by all vessels, with some exception for small 

 boats and shrimpers, for about 280 miles ; (c) 

 by steamers for about 880 miles. Trawling is 

 regulated, as to dimensions of net or beam, for 

 about 760 miles. 



Lord Heneage. 



89. I do not want to ask you many questions 

 because 1 know you have only recently taken 

 this question up, but I suppose I may take it 

 that the answers you have given "to Lord 

 Tweedmouth are the expressions of the opinion 

 which you have come to from what you have 

 investigated during the last nine or ten months, 

 that you have had no practical experience of 

 trawling before that time ? — I have never had 

 any practical experience of trawling, but this 

 subject has engaged the very close attention of 

 the Department for the last five months, and 

 constant consultations have taken place between 

 all the officers concerned. I am speaking as the 

 mouthpiece of the Department. 



90. That being so I will ask you one or two 

 questions with regard to the evidence that you 

 nave already given. You stated that the 

 scientific experts desire more experimental 

 investigation. They are not prepared!^ are they, 

 to give any decided opinion either as to sizes of 

 fish or the lines to be taken by the Board ? — 

 They have all of them, I think without excep- 

 tion, asked for legislation against the capture of 

 undersized fish. 



91. Generally ? — Generally. There is a dif- 

 ference amongst experts as to the particular 



(0.10.) 



Lord Heneage — continued. 



size to be prohibited, and it is to some extent 

 by reason of those differences, and of the fact 

 that as new discoveries are made and new in- 

 vestigations are made, different conclusions may 

 be arrived at, that we ask for somewhat elastic- 

 powers in this matter. 



92. I am not objecting to your elastic powers, 

 but my point is, do not all the practical fisher- 

 men consider that scientific investigations can 

 go on side by side with regulations by the 

 Board ? — That is so. 



93. And that there is practical unanimity, and 

 always has been, in every one of the conferences 

 since 1888, that the only way to stop the 

 destruction of undersized fish is by prohibiting 

 the sale and landing of fish, excepting with 

 regard to the scientific gentlemen and the long- 

 shore fishermen? — I should say that ..some 

 discussion has arisen as to whether it is 

 better to prohibit the landing or to prohibit 

 the sale ; but that one or other of those courses 

 should be adopted is the practically unanimous 

 opinion of all those who have given attention to 

 this subject. 



94. I think the fishing trade gave their 

 unanimous approval to the Bill of Mr. Kitchie, 

 which of course you know, of 1900, did they not ? 

 — That was so. 



95. And in that Bill the first clause was : " No 

 person shall import, export, buy, sell, expose for 

 sale, consign for sale or have in his possession 



for sale ' certain fish ' 



-That is so. 



96. Having regard to that, do not you think 

 it would be advisable that in an enabling Bill of 

 this kind, full powers should be taken, even if in 

 the first instance they were not used ? — I think 

 we have taken in this Bill all sufficient powers. 

 The penalty on the sale of fish of particular 

 sizes, wherever caught and however caught, in 

 the Bill of 1900, gave rise to opposition, 

 which the Board of Agriculture regard as a 

 perfectly legitimate opposition. We think that 

 m our Bill we have taken all the necessary 

 powers. 



97. But my point is, is it not advisable, when 

 you are passing a Bill, that that Bill should 

 contain every possible power that might be 

 wanted ?— I think if we asked for further powers 

 in the direction your Lordship suggests, there 

 would be a danger of our not passing the Bill. 

 We have, I think, included in the Bill all 

 necessary powers, and I think we have not 

 included anything to which exception will 

 seriously be taken by some of those who opposed 

 the Bill of 1900. 



98. But you are also aware that whilst the 

 trade give their support to this enabling Bill 

 and have every confidence in the Board, they 

 are unanimously of opinion that the prohibition 

 of landing alone will not stop the catch of 

 these fish effectually? — I was not aware 

 that that had been very seriously discussed. 

 I do not think that the representatives 

 of the trade have brought that criticism 

 under the notice of the Board of Agri- 

 culture. There has been, as I have already 

 said, some difference of opinion on the subject, 



B ijut ' 



