12 



MINTTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 



3 ]ilarch 1904.J 



Sir Thomas Elliott, k.c.b. 



[Continued. 



Lord Tiveedtnoidh. 



132. How many inspectors do j-ou think 

 would be necessan- in order to carry out the 

 inspection of all these boxes offish that are going 

 to be landed from British and foreign trawlers 

 in British ports ? — I think a very small number 

 i)i inspectors would be requisite, for this reason : 

 that -we are not acting in opposition to the 

 trade, but we are acting at the mstance of the 

 trade ; and we have aot got to deal with a body 

 of men who will resist tms legislation at eveiy 

 point. We are dealing with a bodj- of men who 

 are asking for it. 



Lord Heneage. 



133. As a matter of fact the trade want to be 

 protected against this, because no an-angement 

 made between themselves would be binding, 

 being -vvithout the force of law ? — That is so. 

 We should have a very considerable amount of 

 trade opinion with us, and, in that case, as your 

 Lordship knows, it is much easier to enforce a 

 law than when the opinion of the trade is against 

 you. 



134. And those trawlei-s do as a matter of fact 

 want it, because they know they cannot sell the 

 fish in those markets ? — I beheve that is so. 



135. Is it not the fact that, although there 

 used to be a very considerable trade done by the 

 Enghsh fishermen with Germany and France 

 some little time ago, owing to the very high 

 tariff of those countries now there is practically 

 no such trade at aU ? — I think that is so. 



ChairTnan. 



136. I want to ask you one or two questions 

 about the possibility of smuggling. Is it your 

 •opinion that the clause as dra^\^l in the Bill, 

 prohibiting the landing from certain vessels, 

 would also cover the landing by other vessels of 

 fish which have been taken at sea from a pro- 

 hibited vessel ? — ^Yes. We submitted the point 

 •definitely to the Parliamentary Counsel, and we 

 were advised that in the drawing of our Orders 

 we should be able to provide against anv tran- 

 shipment of that kind. 



137. It was suggested to you, I think b}- Lord 

 Tweedmouth, that there should be a maximmn 

 size limit, and that the only power confen-ed 

 upon the Board of Agriculture should be a 

 power of reducing that size hmit; but, sup- 

 posing that we took 11 inches, which I think 

 Lord Heneage suggested, as the maximum for 

 plaice, might it not be found that as regards 

 these north-eastern fisheries, from Texel to 

 Horn Reef, even 13 inches would be too small a 

 limit ? — That has been suggested by scientific 

 men, of course, and I should be sorry to 

 say that it might not be found necessary. 

 My objection to a maximum limit generally 

 would be that in order to give a reasonable 

 elasticity in cases like those eastern grounds it 

 would have to be so high a maximum that it 

 would be no safeguard to anyone ; the small 

 fisherman would be alarmed, and it would be of 

 no value to him at all. 



1^* As a matter of fact, is it not the case 



Chairman — continued. 



that the trade which Lord Heneage represents, 

 as the head of the Sea Fisheries Protection 

 Association, has never looked at this question 

 of size except from the point of view of a size 

 which would be applicable to all parties and all 

 places ? — That is so ; it is a compromise between 

 two entirely different industries. 



139. ^Tiereas now we are looking at it under 

 special conditions and in a special manner ? — 

 Yes ; instead of applying a hard-and-fast line to 

 all fish we want to be in a position to draw a dis- 

 tinction between fish caught in the North Sea by 

 steam trawlei-s and fish caught in other vessels. 



140. You have read, no doubt, the evidence 

 which was given before the former Committees 

 in 1893 and 1900. A certain amount of evidence 

 was given, I think, by those who deal in fried 

 fish, and may therefore be held to represent the 

 consumers. Was their evidence almost entirely 

 in favour of a size limit ? — Yes, natuiully they 

 ■\vished to get the fish as cheaply as possible, anS 

 they were face to face ■with the steady increase 

 in the price. 



141. And, as regards the effect of the Bill 

 upon the fish food of the country, is it not 

 obvious that if a small fish is allowed to live 

 another year he wiU furnish a much more 

 valuable food supply than if he is captured at 

 an immature age ? — Yes. I think one of the 

 great arguments in favour of this BUI is that it 

 would affect the food supply of the people in 

 that way. 



142. Then as to whether the penalising should 

 be for landing or for sale, was there not a con- 

 siderable amount of opposition to the idea ot 

 penahsing the sale, on oehalf of dealei-s in fish 

 all over the countr}-, who might, perhaps quite 

 unwittingly, be found in possession of under- 

 sized fish, for the sale ol which there would be a 

 heavy penalty ? — That is so. We thought it 

 better to deal with this evil as near the source 

 as we could. 



148. Then, of course, if a maximum limit 

 were inserted in the Bill, it would be impossible 

 to alter that maximum Umit -^rithout further 

 recourse to Parhament ? — Yes, one of the 

 objects of the Bill is to enable the Orders 

 to be modified from time to time without the 



freat difficulty of passing legislation through 

 arUament. 



144. And Fishery Bills have not been specially 

 happy in the Treatment that they have received 

 at the hands of Parliament in the past ? — That 

 is perhaps hardly for me to say. 



145. The object, then, I gather you to say, of 

 this Bin is that, while it would not stop the cajD- 

 ture of ijndersized fish at all, it will at anv rate 

 prevent the destraction of a very large number 

 of undei-sized flat fi.sh which are at present 

 caught ? — That is so. We shall cure a very lar^e 

 percentage of the evil, as it were. 



146. The proportion, of course, of undersized 

 flat fish is very lai^e ; and is it not the opinion 

 of our experts at the Board of Agricultm-e and 

 Fisheries that it is not absolutely necessary in 

 the intereots of the fishing industry, or in the 



co#Buiiiers' 



