[ 29 ] 



Die Veneris, 4° Martii 1904. 



TRESENT : 



Marquess of Abercorn (Duke ot 



Abercoen). 

 Earl of Onslow. 

 Earl of Yarborough. 



Lord Meldrum (Marquess of Huntly). 

 Lord Tweedmodth. 



Lord NORTHBOURNE. 



Lord Heneage. 



The Right Hon. The Earl of ONSLOW, g.c.m.g., in the Chair. 



Mr. REGINALD McLEOD, c.b., is called in ; and Examined as follows : — 



Chairman. 



493. I tliink 3'ou are Under Secretary for 

 'Scotland ? — -That is so. 



494. And as such you represent the views of 

 your department before the Committee ? — I do. 



495. You, of course, have seen the Bill that 

 is introduced, and you observe that it is pro- 

 posed in the Bill to make it applicable to 

 Scotland, subject of course to the variations 

 necessary ? — Yes. 



496. That has, I believe, the approval of the 

 department ? — That is approved by the Secretary 

 for Scotland. 



497. We were told yesterday by two witnesses, 

 who came from Scotland, that there was very 

 little landing and sale of undersized flat fish in 

 Scotland, and therefore, I suppose, as a matter 

 -of fact, the Bill does not very materially affect 

 Scotland ? — I think I may say that, from the 

 information before him, the Secretary for 

 Scotland would not have thought of introducing 

 a Bill similar to this so far as Scotch fishery 

 interests were concerned, but it being introduced 



Chairman — continued, 

 on behalf of English fisheries, he was most 

 desirous to throw no obstacle in the way or to 

 interpose any difficulty in the execution of the 

 arrangements of the Bill. He desired to prevent 

 people taking advantage of the exclusion of Scot- 

 land and doing there what the Bill forbids them 

 to do in England. For that reason he desires 

 to give his cordial support to the Bill if it should 

 be approved. 



498. Of course it is quite possible that at the 

 present time there may be no material quantity 

 of undersized fish landed in Scotland; but if 

 they were excluded from England it might be 

 worth while landing them in Scotland to bring 

 them across the border back into England ? — 

 That is conceivable. 



499. That, of course, would defeat the intention 

 of the Bill so far as England was concerned ? — 

 That is so. 



The Witness is directed to withdraw. 



Professor D'ARCY W. THOMPSON, c.b., is called in ; and Examined as follows :- 



Ghaivjuan. 



500. You are, I think, the scientific member 

 of the Scottish Fishery Board ? — I am. 



501. And you also, I think, represented Great 

 Britain at the recent conference that was held at 

 Hamburg? — Yes, I have done so since the 

 beginning of these conferences at Stockholm in 

 1899. 



502. You have probably read the Bill ? — I have. 



503. And you see it is proposed to give power 

 to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to fix 

 a size limit for certain kinds of flat fish brought 

 into this country in certain classes of vessels. 

 Of course when the Bill passes it will be the 

 duty of the Board to consider what should be 

 .the size limit that should be imposed, more par- 

 ticularly in the case of plaice. May I ask if you 



Chainnan — continued. 



have any views as to what would be a proper 

 size limit to impose ? — I think that in the mean- 

 time about 10 inches would be a suitable size ; 

 but there are a great many ways of looking at 

 the size limit, and it is rather a long story to 

 argue at the moment what would be the best 

 under any particular circumstances. 



504. Various sizes have been suggested, and 

 no doubt you have considered them all. Per- 

 haps you can say why you would prefer a 10- 

 inch limit to an 8-inch or a 13-inch, all of which 

 have been suggested ? — Because I am inclined to 

 think that the most practical way of looking at 

 a size limit is to leave aside biological factors, 

 such, for instance, as the period of maturity, and 

 simply to choose such a size that below it the fish 



are 



