SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SEA FISHERIES BILL. 



39 



4 March 1904.] Mr. Doughty (Member of the House of Commons). 



[Continued. 



Ghairmnan — continued. 



abundant over the whole of the North Sea, and 

 small plaice have been abundant all over the 

 North Sea, and fishermen tell me — and, may I 

 say, of course I am commercially interested in 

 this business as well— that at certain periods of 

 the year, instead of finding very small fish, as 

 we used to when they were to be found almost 

 entirely on the eastern coast, where those long 

 flat grounds exist on the German and Dutch 

 coasts, now they are found in all parts of 

 the sea ; and therefore it becomes a question as 

 to how far this limit that is proposed is going to 

 help the fishery. I myself would like to say 

 that wc are very much indebted to you, 

 Lord Onslow, for the action you have already 

 taken in endeavouring to get information, 

 but it does seem to me that the Department 

 probably (I express this opinion very guardedly) 

 are moving a little too hastily in endeavouring 

 to get great powers of this kind. In getting the 

 information such as they are asking for now, and 

 such as I venture to suggest might be largely 

 increased if the Department would spend some 

 money on the question — I am referring to a 

 suggestion made at the close of the evidence of 

 the Professor jiist now — if you are to have that 

 information — and I grant you it is essential that 

 you should have it — then you ought to pay the 

 fisherman for filling in his return to you, and if 

 you did that, then in my opinion you would get 

 an enormous amount of information ; and later 

 I think probably, with such information as that 

 in your hands, you might be able to do some- 

 thing very satisfactory m the direction of helping 

 the fisheries in this direction. But there is one 

 vital question, and I think one foundation 

 principle, that the fishermen and those interested 

 in the fishery will cling very tenaciously to, and 

 it is this, that whatever is done in relation to 

 this question, it must be an international move- 

 ment. Now it seems to me that if Parliament 

 or the Government could move in the direction 

 of endeavouring to get international action, 

 whereby all the Great Powers bordering on the 

 North Sea would act mutually and act together, 

 then probably there might be some great advan- 

 tage arise eventually to the fish food supply of 

 the country. But if it is to be that we as a 

 nation are to be excluded from fishing on 

 these grounds, and the Germans and French and 

 Dutch and others are to use them, then for 

 my part I do not see that we are going to help 

 in replenishing the sea very much, and, on the 

 other hand, I am afraid we are going to assist 

 in enriching them at the expense of our own 

 fishermen. I do not like these very wide 

 powers. I think the Department i.s asking for 

 a very great deal when they are asking that the 

 whole of the future, so to speak, of the fishery 

 should be handed over to them as a department. 



654. You are aware, I daresay, that this sub- 

 ject has been before Parliament for a great many 

 years ? — Yes, but never in the direction of asking 

 that powers should be conferred on the Depart- 

 ment that should give them the right to say 

 what proportion of the coast shall be excluded 

 and what shall not. 



655. But you are aware that the reason why 

 earlier measures have not met with better 

 success, was because of the opposition the)' met 



Chair ma n — continued. 



withfromMembersofParliamentrepresentingcer- 

 taindistrictswhencethefishermen went out to fish 

 in the neighbourhood, that it was owing to that 

 that legislation has not taken place before ? — I 

 think that if Parliament had been really serious 

 in the matter they would not have allowed a 

 great measure to stand from being made law 

 because Mr. Gibson Bowles and two or three 

 other gentlemen opposed it. There never was a 

 large number of people against it. 



656. But you think that we might well wait 

 and get some further statistics and some further 

 knowledge before we attempt any legislation ? — 

 My feeling is that in the present condition of 

 our knowledge and in the face of what has 

 occurred during the last two years, it is a matter 

 on which we ought to be fully informed before ' 

 any very drastic steps are taken. 



657. You do not think that time presses, but 

 that we may afford to wait a good many years 

 yet ? — No, I would not say that, but I do think 

 we might wait two or three years longer. 



658. Wait until we got an international agree- 

 ment ? — I think so. I think that is one of the 

 most important steps of all, if not the most 

 important. 



659. You are not speaking for your fishing 

 constituents ? — No, I am speaking for myself ; 

 but I believe they will follow me very largely in 

 the views I have expressed. 



Lord Tweedniouth. 



660. You would not approve of any difference 

 being made in the regulations as applied to 

 different classes of fishermen ? — Not at all. 



661. If a limit were imposed on the size of 

 flat fish to be landed, you would think it ought 

 to be of universal application and not applied 

 only to trawlers, whilst the small fishermen, who 

 are the only people who can afford to land fish 

 of that size, are allowed to go free ? — I think if 

 you make a regulation it must apph' to all 

 fishermen. 



662. Wherever the fishermen are and from 

 whatever part of the sea they take the fish ? — 

 Yes ; because I believe with their small trawls- 

 they destroy the fish food of that particular 

 place just as much as the bigger trawls may 

 destroy them in another place. 



663. You would, however, approve of a general 

 limit being imposed on the size of flat fish to be 

 taken, would you ? — Yes, I think I would, but 

 would like it to be an international limit. 



664. I am coming to that in a moment. 

 Could you tell us what would be the sizes of the 

 limits that you would propose, from your know- 

 ledge of the fish trade ? — I forget the limit, for 

 the moment, which was submitted to Parliament 

 in 1900. 



665. Eight inches for soles and plaice and 

 eleven for brill and turbot ? — I thought it was a 

 very small limit myself 



666. Would you propose 10 inches for plaice 

 or all round ? — I should say 10 inches all round. 

 I know it was the opinion of many of our 

 people last time that if a mistake was made the 

 limit was too small. 



667. Do you think that 10 inches should be 

 made the limit for all those four kinds of flat 

 fish, plaice, soles, turbot and brill ; or do you 



think 



