94 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN liEFOEE THE 



II March 1904.J 



Mr. Daniel Meajins. 



[Govfinued. 



foreign 



Lord Heneage. 



1733. Unless it was extended to 

 vessels as well as English ? — Yes. 



Lord Xorthboume. 



1734. But he also said that there were a large 

 number of small and unimportant fishing indus- 

 tries which would oppose this Bill rather strongly? 

 — I luiderstood that what he meant by that 

 was that there are a large number of small 

 constituencies on the Moray Firth, each of which 

 has representatives in Paiiiament, and their 

 constituents have to be attended to ; and con- 

 sequently there are about 22 members of Par- 

 liament in the small constituencies against two 

 or three in the large constituencies, and that 

 Aberdeen woiild stand a very bad chance as 

 against them. 



1735. How could that opposition be overcome ? 

 — That opposition could be overcome by the 

 prevention of landing all small fish, and from 

 all classes of boats. 



1736. But that is what they wiU oppose ? — I 

 do not think so. I think they would be pleased 

 to see the prevention of landing undersized fish 



Lord Novthbo^lrne — continued, 

 at all. They Hke prohibitive measures ; and they 

 have that in the Moray Firth. 



Chairman. 



1737. There is no power in this Bill for the 

 Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to close any 

 part of the seas, is there ? — I do not think so. 



1738. Except indirectly, in that it may not 

 be worth while, if certain small fish cannot be 

 landed, for the trawlers to go there ? — No, it 

 would not be. 



1739. Now, as a matter of fact, or rather I 

 should say, as a matter of suspicion, is it not 

 the case that the Scotch trawlers believe that 

 the Moray Firth has been closed to them by 

 the Scottish Fishery Board in the interests ot 

 line fishermen ? — Yes, it is quite true. 



1 740. Is there any analogy really between the 

 closing of the Moray Firth in the interests ot 

 line fishermen and the preventing of the land- 

 ing of imdersized fish from vessels ? — None 

 whatever. 



The Witness is directed to withdraw 



Mr. JOHN HANNEL IRVIN is called in ; and Examined as follows :- 



Chairman. 



1741. You are a member of the firm of 

 Richard Irvin and Sons, steam trawl owners in 

 North Shields, Aberdeen, Great Yarmouth, 

 Scarborough, Grimsby, Milford Haven, and also 

 at Cape Town ? — Yes, that is so. 



1742. Therefore you have a large interest in 

 the trawling industry ? — Yes. 



1743. Have you considered this Bill which is 

 before the Committee ? — I have. 



1744. Do you approve of it ? — I do. I would 

 have preferred a limitation to the powers of the 

 Department. I think it would have been better 

 to have made a maximum limit below which 

 they might prohibit the landing of fish ; other- 

 wise I think it is a splendid measure, and will 

 do good to the industry. 



1745. What would be your object in limiting 

 the size and having a maximum ? — I think that 

 it will take a number of years to find out what 

 will be effectual, and if we started with 8 inches 

 we should take a few years to get uj) to the 

 size of 10 or 11 inches, and by that time the 

 trade will have had an opportunity of con- 

 sidering the matter more, and perhaps giving 

 another vote on it. 



1746. What is your idea of a maximum for 

 plaice ? — Ten or eleven inches. 



1747. But, supposing it was seen that the 

 result of a 10 or 11 inch maximum was not to 

 protect altogether these undersized fish, and 

 that the general result was that the whole of 

 the fish in the North Sea decreased m size, 

 would you then not be disposed to put on a higher 

 limit ? — Yes, if we had some experience ; but I 

 am afraid that it ^vill teke a number of years to 

 get that experience. I think we will need to 

 trv a smaller limit first. 



Chairman — continued. 



1748. It would be necessary to go to ParUa- 

 ment to increase the maximum under your 

 proposal, would it not ? — I think that before we 

 have the knowledge 



1749. Would you just answer that question 

 first ? Would it not be necessary to go to Parlia- 

 ment to obtain an increase over the maximum, 

 if a maximum was fixed in the Bill ? — 

 Yes. 



1750. Do you know how many years it has. 

 taken to get a Bill through Parliament ? — Yes, I 

 do ; I know the difficulty, certainly. 



1751. You do not think that a Government 

 department, which is, of course, [amenable to 

 Parliamentary influences, can be trusted to fix 

 a limit from time to time in accordance with 

 the ^experience which may be gained ? — Well, 

 I think that we should certainly have trust in 

 the Department who have supervision over an 

 industry of this kind ; but my idea was that a 

 limit of 11 inches would give them a great 

 scope, and I preferred it that way. 



1752. AVhat is the danger that you foresee in 

 giving them power to go up to 13 inches ? — 

 Certamly a plaice of 11 inches is a good sale- 

 able plaice — a good marketable plaice. 



1753. But what is the danger? — The danger 

 is that the Department might go too high, and 

 cut out marketable fish. 



1754. You are able to speak on behalf of 

 the members of all the fishing industry in the 

 ports with which you are connected ? — I have 

 been deputed to speak for them all at Aberdeen, 

 and I am in close touch with members of the 

 trade at North Shields ; but I cannot speak for 

 the members at the ports of Yarmouth and 

 Milford Haven. I can only speak for m^lf on 



mose 



