SELECT COMMIITEE ON THE SEA FISHERIES BILL. 



49 



4 March 1904.] 



Mr. J. Wrench Towse. 



[Continued. 



Chairman — continued. 



no necessity to legislate for them because they 

 do not land those small fish. 



868. I suppose you would agree with some of 

 the witnesses who have been called before us, that 

 the principal ground in which these small fish 

 are found is what have been known in the 

 course of this inquiry as the eastern grounds ? — 

 Yes. 



869. And although it might be desirable to 

 prohibit the landing and sale and the catching 

 of all undersized fish, yet there are so many in 

 the sea that if you could prevent the catching of 

 a very considerable proportion of them you 

 would have gone a long way towards protecting 

 the fish industry ? — I think so, undoubtedly. 



870. And that that result could be obtained if 

 by some means or other no more undersized 

 fish were taken from the eastern grounds ? — 

 Yes. 



871. We were told that although the great 

 proportion of the fish that are brought home 

 from these eastern banks are imdersized, there 

 is a certain quantity of prime fish brought home 

 also ? — Yes. 



872. Can you tell us at all whether it would 

 be worth while for trawlers to go to the eastern 

 grounds to throw overboard the undersized fish 

 and to come home only with the prime fish and . 

 those which were over the limit ? — That is rather 

 a question, I think, to be answered by a practical 

 man ; I can only answer from hearsay. Two 

 companies say that it would not be worth their 

 while to go, and a third company says it does 

 not matter what legislation is ena-cted — they 

 would go. But I think really that is a matter 

 rather of brag than otherwise ; and as a matter 

 of fact if they were unable to sell those fish, it 

 would, in my opinion, not pay them to go. 



873. It would pay them better to go some- 

 where else? — Yes, it would pay them better to 

 go somewhere else. 



8'74. And not waste their time ? — Yes. 



875. You have read the Bill ? — T have. 



876. You are also, no doubt, familiar with the 

 Bill of 1900 ?— Yes. 



877. And you know the sizes which were pro- 

 posed in the Bill of 1900 ?— Yes. 



878. In your opinion were the sizes in the Bill 

 of 1900 applicable to all parts of the North Sea ? 

 — It is generally considered that the size was 

 rather too small ; it might have been larger. 



879. And can you say why the smaller size 

 was fixed, in the interest of what class of fisher- 

 men ? — In the interest of the line fishermen, and 

 also for Lowestoft and Ramsgate and other 

 places. 



880. Therefore, if the line fishermen were not 

 affected by the orders of the Board of Agriculture 

 and Fisheries, under the Bill it might be possible 

 to take a larger limit than was taken in the Bill 

 of 1900 ?— I quite think so. 



881. Several witnesses who have appeared 

 before the Committee have told us t£at the 

 knowledge of the habits of the fish is as yet far 

 from complete, and that we are learning every 

 day more about them. Do you think under 

 those circumstances it is better to have a fixed 

 limit under an Act of Parliament, or to give 

 some power to a Government Department to 

 increase or decrease the size as may be found 



(0.10.) 



Chairman — continued. 



necessary in the light of experience gained ? — I 

 think it is infinitely better to have latitude, and 

 not to have a fixed limit. You may take as an 

 instance Denmark, where it is shown that the 

 law was so beneficial in the fishery interest that 

 they consider it desirable to increase the size 

 limit. I may also instance the Act of 1877 with 

 regard to crabs, lobsters, and oysters. Both in 

 regard to crabs and lobsters, I do not think 

 there would be any difficulty now in having the 

 minimum size increased, because the fishermen 

 see that it is more beneficial to them. 



882. And you think it is quite possible, then, 

 that if a small limit were fixed by order of the 

 Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to-day, in 

 accordance with the wish of the trade, after a 

 few years' time the trade itself might come and 

 demand to have a higher limit fixed ? — I am 

 quite of that opinion. 



883. And that could only be done, ot course, 

 by further application to Parliament if it were 

 fixed by an Act ? — Yes. 



884. It may be said, of course : If this is the 

 opinion of the trade why do they not impose 

 upon themselves a self-denying ordinance and 

 avoid going to those banks altogether ? — If your 

 Lordship had been present at the various dis- 

 cussions of the National Sea Fisheries Protection 

 Association you would have heard representatives 

 ask to be defended against themselves. At one 

 time they more or less entered into a compact 

 not to go to certain grounds, and they loyally 

 carried it out up to a point. One of them, 

 thinking perhaps there might be a few more fish 

 there and there might be a good haul, 

 ventured out and realised his expectations. 

 Upon that becoming known to his confreres 

 they each went, and the compact then, of course, 

 fell through. 



885. Am I to understand that no instructions 

 have been given to captains as to where they 

 are to go by the managers of the companies ? 

 Are the captains given a free hand ? — No, they 

 are given directions by the managers of the 

 companies. 



886. Have you any knowledge of the market 

 that there may be on the Continent for under- 

 sized flat fish ?- -No, I have not. 



887. You have made no enquiries ? — No. 



888. Would it be looked upon as a hardship 

 if it was not worth while for these trawlers to go 

 to the eastern grounds and yet foreign trawlers 

 went there and caught fish ? — I must correct 

 the answer I made just now. I have heard that 

 there is no demand for undersized fish on the 

 Continent 



889. Therefore your association is not seriously 

 afraid of a repetition of what takes place in the 

 Moray Firth> where, whilo British trawlers are 

 prohibited from going there, foreign trawlers 

 come a.nd catch the fish and sell them in the 

 English market ? — Not at all. 



890. It would be perfictly possible, of course, 

 under the Act, to prohibit landings from aU 

 foreign vessels of all kinds of undersized fish ? 

 — Certainly. 



Duke of Ahercorn. 



891. I suppose you approve of this Bill ? 

 —I do. 



G 892. And 



