12S 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 



17 March 1904.] 



Mr. Garstang. 



[Continued. 



Duke of Ahercorn — continued. 



to do a large amount of diplomatic good ; and in 

 particular it would support the Danes who 

 are at present making every effort to 

 increase the stock of fish over there, 

 whereas our trawlers and the German trawlers 

 are practically paralysing their efibrts ; and 

 I think if a Bill were to be passed on the 

 part of England, which would really prevent our 

 English trawlers from doing the damage that 

 they are doing at present on the Eastern grounds, 

 taking those grounds alone, it would be a benefit, 

 and I am perfectly prepared to support it. But 

 my view is — which has been a view set forth 

 many years ago by the Royal Commission of 

 1866 — that in the case of an industry like the 

 fishing industry, which depends so much upon 

 freedom for its development, and on absence of 

 restrictions for rapid handling of the fish in the 

 market, and so on, no restrictions ought to be 

 imposed which have not been demonstrated to 

 be necessary and advantageous ; and therefore, 

 as I consider no advantage has been demon- 

 strated for restricting the catches of the smacks, 

 I think the operation of any Bill should be 

 limited to the steam trawlers at the present 

 stage. Later on, if the facts come to show that 

 the legislation would be usefully applicable to the 

 smacks also, I should be prepared to support 

 it then; but at the present stage it seems 

 to me that we have no knowledge to show 

 that any good would be done, and we have 

 some knowledge to show that harm would 

 be done. 



2286. But in your view, taking the Interna- 

 tional situation, it is better to have a Bill whicli 

 would enable the Board of Agriculture and 

 Fisheries to vary their Order than to have a Bill 

 that fixes a size limit in the Bill '. — 1 confess my 

 preferences would be for a definite limit to be 

 assigned which we could consider on its merits 

 simply, because as an investigator I do not know 

 anything about what limits the Board would 

 propose. I am looking, as a naturalist, at 'the 

 question entirely from the point of view of the 

 fish. 



2287. But is it easier to bring your views 

 before the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries 

 than to bring them before Parliament and have 

 another Bill passed ? — I think it would be a 

 distinct gain that the power should be in the 

 hands of the Board rather than in the hands 

 of Parliament, provided there was an under- 

 standing between those bodies concerned with 

 sea investigations, and the BoaTd ; but it ought 

 to be defined. 



2288. Then naturally the Board would go to 

 those who were scientifically following out these 

 investigations; it is to them they would turn 

 for help to decide this matter ? — I should think 

 it is exceedingly probable. 



2289. Surely it would be a much more rapid 

 way of dealing with the question by an enabling 

 Bill of this sort which could be altered in the 

 size limit, than to have a fixed limit in the 

 Bill, that you would have to go to Parliament to get 

 altered ?— There are some difficulties. I do not 

 want to raise any new points, but there is one 

 point that I have omitted to mention. As I 



Duke of Abercorn — continued. 



understand, the Board would only have power 

 over England. I do not know if that is so. 



Chairman, 



2290. England and "Wales ?— Yes. Supposing 

 the Scottish authorities adopted the same limits 

 as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, of 

 course it would be a very good thing ; but what 

 would happen in the event of the Scottish 

 authorities fixing a lower limit for steam trawlers 

 than the English authorities ? Would not the 

 result be that the Grimsby and Hull boats would 

 land their fish in Scotland ? 



2291. You are examining me, but my answer 

 to that would be that we are all one Government. 

 My opinion is that the advantage of a general 

 Act over an enabling Bill is that the limit would 

 be imposed for the whole district, and would pre- 

 vent the possibility of any difficulties of that 

 character arising in future which at present 

 cannot be foreseen. 



2292. That is between the Board of Agriculture 

 and Fisheries and the Scottish Fishery Board ? 

 — There is Aberdeen, a great port in which steam 

 trawlers are landing fish in increasing quantities 

 year by year; and there are Grimsby and Hull,, 

 where steam trawlers land. Up to the present 

 the Scottish vessels have not been much con- 

 cerned in the capture of these small fish, I 

 believe ; but the last Danish report gives an 

 example of a steam trawler from Aberdeen 

 fishing on those Horn Reef grounds and taking 

 over the small fish to Aberdeen, where they 

 were sold at 4s. to 10s. a box. That is the first 

 record I am acquainted with of a Scottish vessel 

 fishing there. There is a beginning. One can 

 scarcely foresee what developments would take- 

 place supposing the English Department were 

 to fix a limit, say, of 12 inches and the Scottish 

 Department were to fix a limit of 8 inches. But 

 it would be very probable, it seems to mo, that a 

 number of boats would take to landing small 

 fish in Aberdeen, instead of in Grimsby and 

 Billingsgate as at present; and therefore we 

 should have a repetition of this terrible question 

 of the Moray Firth. 



Marquess of Huntly. 



2293. I understand that the Scottish Office 

 support the Bill ? — I am looking at it from the 

 point of view of general efficacy. Would a 

 general Act not be better, because it would 

 prevent the possibility of these tricks being 

 resorted to ? 



2294. We have had evidence about a cargo 

 of small fish being landed in Aberdeen, and one 

 of the witnesses told us that if it was prevented 

 from landing them they would take very good 

 care not to bring them m — that they would not 

 want to be fined a second time for bringing 



them in, they would throw them overboard ? 



Yes, if the limit was the same ; but an 8 inch 

 limit is ineffectual, whereas an 11 or 12 inch 

 limit would be effectual, 



2295. Do you think there would be any way 

 of giving encouragement to the owners and 

 crews of these trawlers to take care of the under- 

 sized fish and throw them overboard as soon as 

 possible ?— I think the only prospect of that is 



• in 



