16 



MINUTES OF EVIDEXCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 



3 March 1904.] 



Mr. Walter Archer. 



[Continued. 



Chairman — continued. 



further regulations for restricting the capture of 

 undersized flat fish, in addition to this resolution ? 

 — They seemed to he willing to make an experi- 

 ment such as we are asking power to make, to 

 restrict the capture of undersized flat fish, in 

 order to see wnether it would have the effect of 

 increasing the productiveness of the fisheries. 



Lord Heneage. 



203a. At the present moment the foreign fish 

 is only brought m through their having very low 

 rates to this country, is it not, and therefore if 

 small fish were prohibited they would be unable 

 to sell them anywhere, and it would not be worth 

 their while ? — That is what we beHeve. 



204. Then with regard to the belief in the 

 trade that the vessels would not go to what I '^vill 

 call the forbidden grounds, is it not the fact at 

 the present moment there has been a great 

 change, and that all the hands on board the 

 boats are share men, more or less, even including 

 the engineers ? — Yes, that is so. 



205. Therefore it is to their interest that when 

 the catch comes home it should be sold at the 

 greatest profit ? — Yes, quite so. 



Lord Tweedmouth. 



206. You told us that in Denmark there is a 

 considerable limit, 9| inches ? — Yes. 



207. Can you tell me how that works ? — The 

 restriction m Denmark at the present time is 

 with regard to the sale of fish, and not to the 

 landing. They find some difiiculty, therefore, in 

 enforcing the law, as it is found difficult to prove 

 that the fish were intended for sale. I under- 

 stand that a Bill is now being considered to 

 prohibit landing. 



208. Will it not be very difficult for them, with 

 their small boats, to examine aU these fish as 

 they are landed there ? — I am not sufficiently 

 acquainted ^vith the way in which the Danish 

 fishery is earned on, to be able to answer 

 definitely. But I understand that most fish 

 are landed at Esbjerg. There should, therefore, 

 be no more difficulty there than at our large 

 ports in examining the fish landed. 



209. Not even with the small boats which 

 multipMes the number of landings so much ? — 

 As I say, I am not sufficiently intimate with the 

 circumstances of the trade on the Danish 

 coast to be able to answer that question 

 definitely. 



210. You cannot tell me, then, what precau- 

 tions they take in Denmark to secvire the hmit 

 being kept at all. One of the great points of 

 this whole inquiry is, how you are going to 

 enforce what you propose ? — It is enforced to a 

 considerable extent by the local inspectors and 

 by the police. 



211. Then ^vith regard to other countries, 

 Germany, Holland and Belgium; I suppose 

 you would say the limit there is so low that it is 

 hardly worth'considering ? — It is too low at the 

 present time. 



Lord 1 iceedmouth — continued. 



212. Down to 71 in Germany and 6 in 

 Holland and Belgium ? — Yes ; that is too low. 



218. But you do not know anything about the 

 working in those countries? — ^Yes; we have 

 obtained information from foreign countries, of 

 which an epitome has been handed in. In 

 Belgium they enforce the law rigorously without 

 difficulty and without complaints from fishermen.. 

 A number of prosecutions have been instituted 

 in the last twelve years at Furnes and Bruges.. 

 In Germany also it is strictly enforced. In 

 Holland the enforcement is difficidt if not 

 impossible, and strict observance cannot even be 

 attempted. The same remark applies to the 

 Scheldt and Zealand. 



214. In your o^vn opinion, with regard to this 

 country do you think it would be easy to enforce 

 this limit here ? — I think it would as regards, 

 these vessels which are taking fish in a 

 wholesale manner. We want to prevent the 

 landing of those fish by the miUion. I made a 

 calculation that something hke 50,000,000 were 

 landed between April and July in 1902 and 

 1903 in London alone ; and that is what we 

 wish to prevent. 



215. And you do not think there would be 

 any difficulty in enforcing it against one class of 

 fishermen and not against another class? — I 

 should not think so, because it seems to me that 

 in the case of a small man who fishes on the^ 

 coast the quantity of fish he takes is so small 

 that although it is of great importance to him it 

 would not affect the general question. 



216. What do you say to the other objec- 

 tion which is so often raised, that in fishing you 

 cannot avoid the capture of a considerable 

 number of small fish, that whether it is by net 

 or by line you must eaptm-e a certain number of 

 small fish, and these small fish, from one reason 

 or another, do not make much of a show if they 

 are thrown back into the water ? — I think the 

 answer to that question is that the great capture- 

 of small plaice is confined almost entirely to- 

 certain areas at certain periods of the year, and 

 that it would not pay the trawlers to go there 

 and fish if they might not land fish under a 

 certain size. The proportion of plaice of all sizes 

 to the total catch in the area coloured pink was, in 

 1902, only 57 by weight, and 12-5 by value; and 

 in 1903 it was 6-5 by weight and 12-3 by value; 

 whereas in corresponding periods on the yellow 

 area the proportion of small plaice alone was in 

 1902, 82 per cent, by weight, and 72 per cent, in 

 value ; and in 1903, 67 per cent, in weight, and 

 56 per cent, in value. Further, the value per 

 box of plaice from the pink area was 30s. as 

 against 10s. from that coloured yeUow, which 

 points to the former being almost entirely large 

 or medium sized plaice. 



217. That was not quite the point. My point 

 was this. I wanted your answer to the objection 

 that is raised, that it is a great waste to prohibit 

 the landing, and perhaps the sale, at any rate to 

 hinder the sale of a quantity of small fish which 

 is good food, which at the same time imder these 

 new proposals would have to be thrown away ? 

 — With great deference, I would, in the first 



place 



