106 



MINUTES OF EVIPENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 



11 March 1904.] 



Mr. J. H. Barber. 



Mr. JOSEPH HENRY BARBER is called in ; and Examined as follows :— 



Chairman. 



2008. You are secretary to the Chamber of 

 Fisheries, are you not ? — Yes. 



2009. Will you explain what the Chambev of 

 Fisheries is ? — An association similar to the 

 National Sea Fisheries Protection Association, 

 only with a wider scope to take in all branches of 

 fisheries. 



2010. Have you considered the Bill ? — Yes, I 

 have it before me. 



2011. And do you think it would attain the 

 object which is sought, namely, to prevent the 

 destruction ot undersized flat fish ? — I think it 

 is a very good Bill, provided due notice is given 

 with regard to any orders which it is sought to 

 make. I think if such provisions as are set forth 

 in the various Diseases of Animals and other Acts 

 were inserted here, the opposition which has come 

 through Mr. Doughty and others would be met. 



2012. Do you know what are the powers of 

 the Board of Agriculture to obtain publicity for 

 its orders under the Animals' Diseases Act ? — 

 Yes, I have read all those Acts, but unfortu- 

 nately I did not expect to give evidence to-day, 

 and i have not them with me, but I have read 

 them and am familiar with them. 



2013. You know that we work through the 

 County Councils ? — Yes. 



2014. And we have power to direct the County 

 Councils to give publicity to our orders ? — Yes, 

 and you also give publicity from headquarters, I 

 believe. 



2015. Perhaps travelling about the country 

 you may have seen placards on gates and barns 

 and everywhere else, setting forth what are the 

 orders in'force in a particular district ? — Yes. 



2016. In your opinion is that sufficient 

 publicity ? — I think that would meet all opposi- 

 tion to the Bill. 



2017. Perhaps the opposition to the Bill is to 

 some extent founded on an insuflacient appre- 

 tiationof what it is actually going to do?— So 

 far as mv personal opinion is concerned I am 

 quite prepared to trust the department. _ In 

 fact I suggested to the Icthyological Committee 

 that this department should be formed, so I 

 ought to trust it. 



2018. Many people are frightened before they 

 are hurt ?— Yes, but I think, it being a new 

 department, some Httle concession of that sort 

 might very reasonabl}- be given in view of the 

 ft-ars which have been expressed, 



2019 At any rate those vou represent are in 

 favour of the Bill as it stands ?— I think so 

 subject to that and one or two other pomts, I 

 think in the interests of principle and elas- 

 ticity, in sub-section (3) ot Clause l,luie l/>you 

 mic-Lt leave out the words after " Fisheries" until 

 may " in line 19, and leave it to the Board of 

 Aoriculture and Fisherieb to appoint any officers 



Glut irman — continued. 



2020. You mean to exclude the power of the 

 Fishmongers' Company and the County Councils 

 to nominate officers ? — Yes, it should be subject 

 to the Central Board ; they should have the 

 control in such matters. 



2021. But that isonly in addition to the earlier 

 words in the clause, which empower the Board 

 of Agriculture and Fisheries to appoint any 

 officer ? — I think if you leave out the words I 

 have mentioned it will have that eflect. I do 

 not see why the Fishmongers' Company's 

 officers should not act, but they should act under 

 authority from the Central Board, and the same 

 with the County Council's officers. The Sea 

 Fisheries Committee's officers have not been 

 mentionpd here, and we were told the other day 

 that they would like to be. 



2022. But there is nothing in the Bill to pre- 

 vent the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries from 

 appointing an officer of a Fisheries Committee ? 

 — Just so ; but I think it would be better if 

 that appointment were left with the Board of 

 Agriculture and Fisheries, and not the statu- 

 tory power given here. There would be nothing 

 in that case to prevent the Board appointing 

 those officers, but they would have power to 

 remove them if necessary. Here they would 

 not. It should be similar to the action of the 

 Local Government Board with their medical 

 officers and so on. 



2023. Have you any other remark to make ? 

 — I should like to say that the first side note, 

 I think, should read " power to prohibit," should 

 it not ? 



2024. "Prohibition against landing under- 

 sized fish " ? — It is not prohibition ; it is power 

 to prohibit. 



202.5. That is rather a small matter ? — Yes ; 

 and the other should be " power to regulate 

 fishing in territorial waters," in the next side 

 note, not " to prohibit trawling " ; the clause does 

 not say anything about trawling. The other point 

 that appears to have come up is the question of 

 opposition. I do not have the fear that Lord 

 Heneage appears to have of such serious opposi- 

 tion to the Bill. My experience when 1 was 

 with the National Sea Fisheries Protection 

 Association was that we got a 6 to 1 vote in 

 the House of Commons on the second reading of 

 the last Bill. 



2026. But you are aware, are you not, that it 

 is not only numerical opposition that stops Bills 

 in the House of Commons sometimes, but it is 

 want of time ? — Yes, I am quite aware of that ; 

 but I think that if the Bill is got in early this 

 year we might have a reasonable chance. 



Duke of Ahcrcorn. 



2027. Where does the opposition t(^this Bill 



come 



