82 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 



10 March 1904] 



Mr. G. L. AxwARD 



[Continued. 



Lord Northbouriie — continued. 



1476. Do you know the trade of North Sun- 

 derland ? — Small hning vessels. 



1477. Are there any steam trawlers ? — No, I 

 think there are 64 ports in England in which 

 they have steam fishing vessels, and Grimsby 

 and Hull I think own the greater proportion. 



1478. Are there no steam trawlers from Brix- 

 ham ? — Not one, I think — not owned in 

 Brixham. 



Lord Heneage. 



1479. You stated that the opposition is a 

 mmority and a small minority, that is as regards 

 the number of owners of vessels and the quantity 

 of capital embarked in those trades ? — That 

 is so. 



1480. But notwithstanding their having a 

 small amouut of capital in those trades and not 

 having much experience of the North Sea, they 

 have a very large representation in the House 

 of Commons, have they not ? — Yes, they 

 have. 



1481. And that representation is not diminish- 

 ing ? — It is not. 



1482. Therefore whilst a few ports, Hull and 

 Grimsby and Aberdeen, have only some half 

 dozen representatives, they have got some 30 or 

 40 all round the coasts of England and Scotland ; 

 each little village has its own representative ? — 

 True. 



1483. Therefore the real difficulty is, not the 

 question of the amount of capital and the 

 amount of the individual opposition round the 

 coast, but the number of Members who will go 

 into the Lobby against the Bill ? — That is it ; it 

 is the votes in the House of Commons. 



1484. Then will you not take it from those 

 who know something of the composition of the 

 House of Commons, that though the opposition 

 may have diminished round the coast, trie oppo- 

 sition in the House of Commons has not 

 diminished ? — The probability is that that is the 

 case. 



1485. That being so, do yon think that if Mr. 

 Bryce was unable to carry the Bill in 1895, Mr. 

 Ritchie, in 1896, and again in 1900, in addition 

 to the two Bills that went down imanimously 

 approved by the House of Lords as introduced, 

 there is very much chance of getting any Bill 

 drawn upon those lines past the House of 

 Commons ? — If the lines upon which this Bill is 

 now dra^vQ will neutralise the opposition, the 

 case is yours 



1486. You mean that then you would support 

 this Bill rather than have no Bill at all ? — I 

 would. 



1487. Distinctly ? — Yes. distinctly. 



1488. At the present moment, so far as your 

 evidence has gone, your only obiection to this 

 Bill is that there is not a limit of 8 inches 

 for sole and plaice in the Bill. Practically that 

 is the only objection you have raised to the 

 Bill ? — No, that is not the onh' objection. The 

 objection I raised was that we should have liked 

 much better to have seen distinctly in the Bill, 

 that when byelaws or conditions were laid down 

 they were to be laid do^^■n uniformly for all 

 vessels. 



14S!). I will come to that directly ? — That is 

 really the opposition you see. 



Lord Heneage — continued. 



1490. But the great amount of questions that 

 were asked you by the Chairman were prac- 

 tically on this 8-inch limit. Now this 8-inch 

 limit has not been, so far as you know, men- 

 tioned at any meeting, either of the executive 

 or at the annual meeting at all, has it ? — It 

 has not. 



1491. And you j-esterday seconded an amend- 

 ment in which the plaice were put at a limit, 

 not to exceed 11 inches, soles not exceeding 

 10 inches? — That was the maximum, was it 

 not ? 



1492. That is my point. Therefore you pre- 

 ferred to give that elasticity then to the Bill ? — 

 Yes. 



1493. But under the Bill as it is now, the 

 Department can begin if they like at 8 inches, 

 but can raise it to any amount; therefore if 

 your amendment was to be carried out it would 

 be better carried out, would it not, by the Bill 

 as it is drafted than by putting 8 inches hard 

 and-fast into the Bill ? — The reason why I did 

 raise the question of 8 inches in answer to his 

 Lordship was, that I thought it might minimise 

 the opposition; because the evidence that you 

 have had before you when you have talked 

 about the 10-inch limit has been from people 

 who have given evidence before now, and even 

 on this question, who say " you must not limit 

 us not to catch fish under 10 inches. Why 

 leave out 10-inch fish ? " That is what some of 

 them sa}-. I say to meet their objection, if it 

 was possible to meet their objection, then by 

 way of compromise I would put in 8 inches and 

 then leave the Department the discretionary 

 power to see how it worked. 



1494. You would leave them the discretionary- 

 power to see how it worked ; but supposing it 

 worked badly, would it not then be necessary to 

 go to Parliament again to get further legislation 

 to enable them to increase it ? — I cannot say 

 that, because I do not know really with Bills of 

 this description what elasticity there is in them 

 I am not a connoisseur of Acts of Parliament 

 and the wordings of Acts and that sort of thing ; 

 it might be so. 



1495. But you know if the 8-inch limit was 

 to be the maximum limit by this Bill, no Order 

 could be issued by the Department raising that 

 limit over the 8 mches ? — If you ask me whether 

 I prefer to put it in as a maximum limit, I say 

 no, by no means. 1 simply name the limit ; and 

 I think in those former Bills we neither said 

 maximum nor minimum, did we ? Yes, we 

 said " not exceeding," that there should be 

 no tampering, I believe, beyond 10 inches. Of 

 course, we can put it now, that nothing beyond 

 8 inches should ever be interfered with unless 

 Parliamentary opinion was taken again. 



1496. Yes ? — I know that is a difficult 

 question. And if that is so I prefer the thing 

 as it is. 



1497. Yes, if you take my word that is how it 

 would have to be drafted to meet your wishes. 

 You would prefer to give the elasticity to the 

 Bill as it is now ? — Yes. 



1498. I think I may pass from that. Then the 

 other question Avhich \o\\ said you raised was the 

 uniformity round the coast ? — Yes. 



1499. That appears to me to be om of the 



gi-eat 



