SELECT COMMirrEE ON THE SEA FISHERIES BILL. 



95 



11> March 1904.] 



Mr. J. H. Ibvin. 



\ Continued, 



Chxairman — continued. 



those ports, not being in close touch with 

 them. 



1755. But you beUeve that in those ports for 

 which you do speak there is a general desire 

 that a Government department should be 

 entrusted with the power of preventing the 

 landing of undersized fish ? — I do. 



1756. Have you any opinion as to the 

 vitality of a plaice after he has been caught, 

 what prospect there would be of his swimming 

 if he were thrown back after being brought up 

 by the trawl ? — I have seen a living plaice in 

 Aberdeen market which had been out of the sea 

 a matter of eight or nine hours. 



1757. Which had been caught in a trawl ? — 

 Which had been caught m a trawl. I 

 may say that I asked the master of a vessel last 

 week, who landed a shot of 80 or 90 boxes of 

 plaice, if he found any dead plaice in the trawl, 

 and he said no, not one ; he had some difficulty 

 in keeping them in the baskets, in getting them 

 beflow, they were so lively. 



1758. And you believe if these small, under- 

 sized fish were not allowed to be landed, a good 

 many of those plaice would survive to be good- 

 sized fish ? — Yes. 



1759. And if it were shown that Parliament 

 was anxious to help the fishing industry to pre- 

 serve these undersized fish, the owners would 

 themselves give instructions to their men if they 

 took any of these fish, to throw them overboard 

 as quickly as possible ? — Yes, I think they 

 would. I know in Aberdeen the owners and the 

 men themselves are against the catching of 

 these small fish, and I think if the sale or the 

 landing of them were prevented that would 

 effect the object. 



1760. If they knew that they could not land 

 them, they would help to attain the object of 

 the Bill, which is to save these plaice altogether ? 

 —Yes. 



Duke of A bercorn. 



1761. In fact it would be to their own inter- 

 ests, would it not ? — Yes. 



1762. Because they would ihave an opportu- 

 nity k£ recatching them in a year or two after- 

 wards when they were a larger size ? — Yes. 

 A box of small plaice is only worth 6s. or 

 7s., and if they were allowed to grow the same 

 fish in a matter of a couple of years would be 

 worth 61 or 71. 



1763. Then so far as your knowledge goes, you 

 think that those ports that you represent are 

 entirely in favour of this Bill ? — Yes. 



1764. And would they approve of a fixed limit 

 in preference to what is now in the Bill ? — No, I 

 certainly do not think it would be advisable to 

 have a fixed limit. Of course a maximum limit 

 I take to be different. 



Earl of Yarhorough. 



1765. Are you aware that the Board of Agri- 

 culture has power to prevent the spread of 

 infectious disease among cattle ? — Yes. 



1766. And has had for some years ? — Yes, j 

 &m aware of that. 



1767. And that though it was looked upon 

 ■mth some suspicion at first, it has long been very 

 well received by agriculturists ? — I believe it is 

 so. I am not in very close touch with them. 



Earl of Yarhorough — continued. 



1768. They have complete confidence in the 

 Board, have they not ? — Yes. 



1769. And therefore you believe that the 

 Board of Agriculture and Fisheries would 

 receive the confidence of the fishing trade in 

 regard to any orders they would make ? — Yes, I 

 think they would. 



Lord Heneage. 



1770. If you put a maximum in this Bill, 

 would it not put the Bill in the same category 

 as the Bills oi 1900 and previous Bills which we 

 have failed to pass ; would not the same diffi- 

 culty arise in consequence ? — I see the difficulty, 

 but I do not think there is the same difficulty ; 

 because I think there is a difference in fixing a 

 limit of say 8 inches if you give the Board 

 power to go up to a maximum of 11 inches. 

 My point is that we would experiment in the 

 meantime and make the 8 inches to start with. 

 To get up to 9, 10 and 11 inches I think would 

 take so long that the powers given would be 

 sufficient. 



1771. What is the limit you want to put in 



I he Bill ?- I should say a maximum limit of 



II inches. 



1772. Not exceeding 11 inches ? — Not exceed- 

 ing 11 inches. I do not think they should go 

 to 11 inches. 



1773. But that is what you want to put in 

 the Bill. " not exceeding 1 1 inches " ? — Yes. 



1774. Would not that be practically, then, 

 the same Bill as the Bill of 1900 which Ave 

 failed to pass, would not the same objections 

 arise ? — Well, of course I know the objections. 

 Yes, I think that is so. 



1775. I will put it to you in this way. Are 

 you not aware that this Bill has been drafted in 

 this form to try and avoid the pitfalls of pre- 

 vious Bills ? — Yes, but I think this Bill has 

 a better chance, because from the experi- 

 ence of the trade since the last Bill was put 

 forward they are more in favour of the Bill than 

 they were then. 



1776. I am not referring to the trade. I think 

 I know their opinions pretty well for the last 20 

 years; but I am referring to the opposition in 

 the House of Commons. The opposition in the 

 House of Commons was chiefly based on the 

 limits of the sizes in the Bill ; and would not 

 the same opposition arise now if you tried to put 

 them into an enabling Bill ? — Yes, I think it 

 would. 



1777. Then is it not desirable to avoid that 

 opposition by giving a free hand to the Depart- 

 ment and putting our confidence in them ? — I 

 do not know ; 1 am not aware quite that the 

 limit was really the wrecking of the Bill of 1900. 

 I do not know if there is anything in the Bill, or 

 nothing in the Bill at all, that that would make 

 any difference. I may be wrong, but I do not think 

 that is quite the point that wrecked the 1900 Bill. 



1778. I have been connected with fishery 

 legislation for the last 18 years, and I venture to 

 put it before you that this is a question that 

 would raise the greatest difficulty with regard to 

 the Bill. Under those circumstances would you 

 like to jeopardise the Bill ? — Not at all. I made 

 it clear, I think, that I am in favour of the Bill ; 

 but personally I prefer that limit in the Bill. 



1779. But. 



