42 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 



i March 1904.] 



Mr. Doughty (Member of the House of (Jomraons). 



[Continued. 



Chairman — continued. 



number of undersized fish in the sea, is there 

 not ? — I should think so ; it would be a bad job 

 for us if there were not. 



715. Is it absolutely necessary in your opinion 

 that every one of those small fish should be pre- 

 served ? — No. 



716. Or would it protect the interest of the 

 trade sufficiently if the great majority of them 

 were preserved ? — Of course, the sea is very 

 large to commence with, and most abundant, 

 and the fish in it multiply very rapidly, and so 

 far as all the information goes that I have been 

 trying to obtain on that question, the more you 

 look upon it the more complex and ditficulc it is. 

 There is an abundance of fish in the sea, there is 

 no doubt. But there is, at the same time, a 

 necessity if anything can be done that is equita- 

 ble and just, to preserve flat fish; but how that 

 is to be done and the means by which it is to be 

 accomplished seem to me just at the moment 

 not to be perfectly clear. 



717. But you admit, do you not, that a very 

 large proportion of undersized fish in the sea 

 are to be found on the Eastern banks ? — Yes, 

 decidedly. 



718. Therefore, anything which prevents their 

 being caught, would be to the good? — Enor- 

 mously so. 



719. The power which is given to the Board 

 of Agriculture under the Bill is not limited to 

 steam trawlers, is it ? — No, it is not limited to 

 steam trawlers. 



720. If it were found that the prohibition of 

 landing from steam trawlers was not sufficient to 

 prevent these fish from being caught and 

 landed, it would be quite within the competence 

 of the Board to extend that prohibition to sailing 

 trawlers that Avent to those grounds, would it 

 not ? — Yes ; but then you see you are purely 

 looking at it from the standpoint of the Depart- 

 ment ; T am looking at it from the standpoint of 

 those who have their investments in the fishery 

 and are working the fishery, and I say again, if 

 you are going to prohibit the steam trawler from 

 certain areas, and are not going to prohibit the 

 sailing trawler fi-om the same areas, you give 

 him a certain advantage over his fellow steam 

 trawler. 



721. But is there anything to prevent the 

 Board from applying the same prohibition to 

 the sailing trawler ? — 1 do not say there is 

 not. 



722. Then your fear really is that the Board 

 might misuse their powers ? — I would not like 

 to say that they would think they were mis- 

 using them, but we have , the object lesson of 

 the Moray Firth which faces fishermen, and 

 which they do not forget, and never will forget 

 so long as it continues. 



723. But you are aware that in the case of the 

 Moray Firth it is quite competent for a foreign 

 trawler to catch fish there and send it for sale 

 to England ? — That is what they do ; that is 

 what we complain of 



724. Under this Bill, would not power 

 be conferred on my Department to enable 

 them to prohibit the landing of under- 

 sized fish from any foreign vessels ? — I do not 

 see what there would be to prevent the Dutch- 

 men, say. sending their vessels on to these 



Chairman — continued, 

 shallows and getting large quantities <!)f this fish 

 that are just above the limit, and sending them 

 into Billingsgate. 



725. And throwing away the others ? — Yes. 



Lord Tweedmouth. 



726. Or sending them abroad ? — Yes, they 

 would do so undoubtedly ; and it would pay 

 them to do it. 



Chairman. 



727. Would it pay them to sell them abroad ? 

 — When these fish are in such abundance it 

 would pay them to send their vessels, as they 

 are very near the fishing grounds, and get, as 

 they can, large quantities of these that are just 

 above the limit, and send them to our markets, 

 and seU the others abroad. 



728. Where could they sell the others 

 abroad ? — I do not know. 



729. Is there a market for them abroad ? — I 

 do not know. 



,730. Have you at all followed the action of 

 the Board of Agriculture in regard to framing 

 Orders regulating the diseases of animals ? — 

 No. 



731. Have you heard of any complaint from 

 farmers or consumers, or anybody else, that the 

 Board misuse the powers conferred upon them ? 

 — No. 



732. Are you aware that the Home Office and 

 the Local Government Board both proceed by 

 Regulation, which is very much the same as by 

 Order, in a great number of matters ? — I am not 

 aware that the Home Office have such sweeping 

 powers over any particular trade as you are ask- 

 ing for in this Bill. 



733. Well, you know their powers under the 

 Factory Legislation for the regulation of fac- 

 tories ? — Yes, but there is a statutory limit in all 

 those cases. 



734. Have you heard complaints 'of any 

 Government Department having abused the 

 powers which Parliament has entrusted to them ? 

 —Well, I refer to the Moray Firth once more. 



735. You are aware, of course, as many wit- 

 nesses before this Committee, and before the 

 Committee of 1900 have said, that we do not 

 know enough about the subject yet to be able to 

 lay down hard-and-fast rules in an Act of Parlia- 

 ment ? — Yes. 



736. Do you think therefore that there is no 

 advantage in preserving some elasticity, so that 

 we may be able to alter our regulations in accord- 

 ance with the experience that we gain ? — I think 

 you know that in the last two years we have 

 made a great stride forward in getting a Depart- 

 ment for the trade, and in getting a Minister 

 such as yourself, who will put into operation 

 the powers that you possess, namely, for 

 getting this information from these people 

 from time to time. At the present time 

 we have not sufficient knowledge of the habits 

 offish, and there is no doubt tiiat on ihe whole 

 question of fish we are almost as ignorant as we 

 can be even now. One could not help being 

 struck by what the Professor said just now on 

 the same matter. 



737. Then do I rightly understand Ygu to say 

 that you think that that should be the limit of 



any 



