SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SEA FISHERIES BILL. 



79 



10 March 1904.] 



Mr. G. L. Alward. 



[Continued. 



Chairman — continued, 



a very clear recollection of approacliing the ques- 

 tion as to the necessity, which was in 1886. 



1432. Supj)ose the Bill proposed limiting the 

 size of plaice to 8 inches, do you think it would 

 do to wait another nine years before you in- 

 creased the size if the 8 inches were found 

 insufficient ? — Individually I would be sa isfied ; 

 but I fancy the trade would not be satisfied. I 

 have always considered myself that we had far 

 betterfix the size low enough, so as nottoengeuder 

 too much opposition from those small inshore 

 people. Compromise the matter by making the 

 size smaller, and then it would be for the 

 Department to watch the thing and see what is 

 the best size to be adopted ultimately. 



1433. Are you aware that several of the Bills 

 which have not received the Royal Assent were 

 promoted by the Department ? — Yes, I am fully 

 aAvare of that. 



1434. Do you think that any Government 

 department would be more successful in the 

 future in getting measures through Parliament 

 than they have been in the past ? — I think there 

 is not quite so much opposition exists now as 

 there did formerly. First of all our difficulty 

 was to convince ourselves of the necessity of re- 

 striction. That I think occupied about five years. I 

 think I can remember taking a very active part 

 in this idea in 1886 in our own town. We have 

 many times individually spoken on the question, 

 and it fell to my lot to introduce the thing pub- 

 hcly, and we discussed it very fairly; and 

 I think from that time onwards there seems 

 to have been a general opinion that there was a 

 diminution of fish on certain grounds, and then 

 we gradually came to the conclusion, with a 

 little more experience, that it was general all 

 over the ISTorth Sea, with flat fish more par- 

 ticularly. 



1435. But I think you admit that the trade 

 would not be satisfied with a limit of 8 inches 

 for plaice ? — I think the trade would not be 

 satisfied. 



1436. And your only object, therefore, in con- 

 senting to a limit of 8 inches would be to 

 facilitate the passage of a measure through 

 Parliament ? — That is so. 



1437. If you could get a Bill passed Avhich 

 would enable a Government department to raise 

 the limit to such a size as would be acceptable 

 to the trade, do you think that would be an 

 advantage over a fixed limit of 8 inches only ? — 

 I did not quite follow your question. 



1438. I say, do you think that it would be a 

 greater advantage to accept this eight inches 

 limit and have it put in the Bill, which you 

 admit the trade would not accept, or to have 

 such elastic powers given to the Department 

 that they might fix the limit at such a point as 

 would be acceptable to the trade ? — As a matter 

 of policy, I should say take eight inches because 

 I think the eight inches would minimise the 

 opposition from the direction which the opposi- 

 tion comes from, because the opposition comes 

 from the small inshore vessels and the smaller 

 class of deep sea vessels which fish in that part of 

 the sea where they say a large portion of their 

 catch consists purely of very small fish. 



1439. Then the scientific gentlemen have 

 informed you this morning that there are two 



Chairman — continued . 

 races of fish, which, to my mind, is a perfect 

 farce ; but it is perfectly tr e that south of a 

 certain latitude during this last 20 years we 

 have not found such large fish. Those vessels 

 which continue to fish there never get those large 

 kinds of fish. I remember, as several other 

 witnesses do, of 45 years' experience, that the 

 grounds they are fishing on now, which they say 

 have no large fish, abounded in immense 

 millions of large, fine plaice. They have gone. 

 They have become extinct. They have not the 

 time to grow. Now, I am desirous of mooting 

 those people to some extent. 



1440. If you think that as a matter of policy 

 it would be better to limit it to eight inches in 

 order to get the Bill passed, how do you account 

 for the defeat of the Bill of 1900, which proposed 

 a limit of eight inches ? — Well, I am really not 

 thoroughly acquainted with Parliamentary pro- 

 cedure, but I know what I have said to various 

 Presidents of the Board of Trade to whom I have 

 been a delegate from the North-Easteru ?ea 

 Fishery annually. I have ofttimes said that if 

 Parliament desired it and the Governtnent 

 desired it, the Bill would have been passed and 

 could have been passed long ago. 



1441. You have attended most of the con- 

 ferences of fishery committees at the Board of 

 Trade ?— Yes. 



1442. Were you at the one in 1901 ? — Yes. 



1443. Do you remember Mr. Ritchie s expla- 

 nation of the reason why the Bill of 1900 

 failed to pass ? — Yes, I think I have a recollec- 

 tion of it. 



1444. Was it that when it was suggested that 

 this Bill was one that might not meet with much 

 opposition, there was a chorus of disapproval 

 from all parts of the House, which made it 

 impossible to proceed with the Bill ? Was that 

 the reason Mr. Ritchie gave ? — I think I 

 remember his remark was the enemies were there 

 in large numbers but the supporters were absent. 

 I think shortly that is about what he said. 



1445. Do you think the enemies have 

 diminished since 1900 ? — We have an idea, 

 having settled amongst ourselves the necessity 

 for legislation, that there is a very small minority 

 indeed who still protest against any legislation, 

 that we have dwindled it down to a very small 

 minority. 



1446. Does any of it come from Grimsby ? — - 

 No, I think not. I think Grimsby has spent 

 time and money on this question more than any 

 town in England. The agitation commenced in 

 Grimsby, and I think I may say I had much to 

 do with starting the question for discussion 

 whether it was not time that legislation should 

 take place ; and we have kept continually 

 agitating and discussing ; and our great troubles 

 were originally, what should be the size ? First of 

 all it is necessary ; and then, what shall be the 

 size ? I think we made up, as amongst each 

 other, what the size should be, and then we went 

 to Parliament and asked for legislation. There 

 still was an opposition, and there will be an 

 opposition. Do whatever you like, there Avill be 

 opposition. 



1447. I suppose you agree with the other 

 witnesses that the main object of any measure 

 should be to protect the eastern grounds from 



triiwli)!"- 



