SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SEA FISHEEIeS BILL. 



131 



17 March 1904.J 



Mr. Garstang. 



[Continued. 



Lord Tweedmouth — continued, 

 any limit was imposed, would it be possible to 

 have 10 inches as the Hmit for both races of 

 plaice ; or would it be possible to have different 

 sizes for different ports ?— I think it would be 

 possible to have two sizes for the steam trawler 

 ports and for the smack ports respectively. It 

 so happens that the geographical distinction 

 botween the steam trawler ports and the smack 

 ports corresponds with the distinction betAveen 

 the two races of fish ; and in Hull and Grimsby, 

 and of course it would naturaJly be also in London 

 in Billingsgate, I believe it would be quite pos- 

 sible to have a higher limit than in Lowestoft, 

 Yarmouth and Ramsgaie. 



2317. Of course London, or Billingsgate, runs 

 right into the southern district ?— Yes, on 

 the _ other hand the landings are entirely by 

 carriers, I believe, and one of the advantages of 

 this Bill is that it would enable a restriction to 

 be placed definitively upon particular classes 

 of boats landing in particular ports, and if 

 particular vessels were found to be evading the 

 intentions of the Act the Board could meet the 

 occasion by a new Order. I think that is one of 

 the advantages of this particular Bill — that it 

 enables a distinction to be drawn between these 

 two areas, and I do not think it would ever be 

 possible for the steam trawlers to land their 

 catches in these small ports, because the 

 harbours are not adapted for it. The steam 

 trawlers of Grimsby could not land their fish at 

 Lowestoft in any quantities, or at Ramsgate; 

 therefore I think at any rate at present, until 

 any future development which cannot be at 



E resent foreseen, it would be quite possible to 

 ave a different limit for steamers as compared 

 with smacks. 



2318. Still, even from that point of view, an 

 additional argument would be afforded tor con- 

 fining the Bill to steam trawlers ? — I am afraid 

 I misunderstood your question. I certainly do 

 not think that any case has been made out at 

 present for putting a limit on the catches of 

 English smacks, but I would support a limit for 

 steam trawlers. 



Marquess of Huntly. 



2319. We have had it in evidence from some 

 witnesses that the plaice is not mature until it 

 gets to about ten inches in size ; is that your 

 view ? — Yes, certainly. 



2320. Then surely you would not approve of 

 the killing of any fish before it is mature ? — No, 

 I do not see why as a biologist I should hold 

 that opinion, and 1 certainly do not. 



2321. But looking at it merely with the 

 object of preserving the breed of fish ? — That 

 raises the question whether the impoverish- 

 ment of the sea is due to a diminution in the 

 numbers of fish or to the prevention of their 

 growth. Personally, I hold the belief that it is 

 due chiefly to the prevention of their growth. I 

 believe that so far as numbers are concerned 

 there is absolutely no evidence that the numbers 

 of fish in the North Sea are less than they for- 

 merly were, but only that they do not reach the 

 same size ; and that is because in my opinion the 

 catching power is so great now that the fish are 



Marquess of Huntly — continued, 

 now caught in increasing quantities at an earlier 

 period in their life's history before they have had 

 time to grow up. 



2322. Then why do you disapprove of pre- 

 venting those small fish from being killed at the 

 smaller ports round the coast, and yet you 

 would merely limit the prevention of their 

 being killed to ports from which steam trawlers, 

 go to the l<]astern grounds ? — My reason, which 

 I have already given, is simply that if you stop 

 the smacks from catching, or rather sellings 

 these small fish which they happen to catch, the 

 great bulk, 90 per cent., of these small fish are- 

 caught on the Dutch Coast, and you would make 

 a present of them to the large fleets of Dutch, 

 vessels fishing there ; therefore I see no advan- 

 tage in it. You put a restriction on an industry 

 which is doing a lawful work without really 

 doing any good for the improvement of the- 

 fisheries. If it could be proved or rendered 

 reasonably probable that the restriction upon 

 smacks would do good, would increase the stock 

 of fish and go on, then I would be prepared to. 

 support such a limit. But I have given my 

 reason for believing that it would not do that. 



2323. Your impression is that 90 per cent, of 

 these fish are killed by steam trawlers and 10 

 per cent, by all the other vessels round the 

 coast ? — No ; my point was that 90 per cent, of 

 the small fish are killed on continental grounds,, 

 not on English grounds. There are very few 

 small fish on the eastern coast of England ; it- 

 is different on the western coast of England;, 

 but speaking purely of the North Sea, on the 

 eastern coast there are very few small fish 

 along it. The great nurseries are on the con- 

 tinental shores; therefore we have to consider 

 that fact. 



Duke of Ahercorn. 



2324. With regard to Professor Huxley's- 

 opinion, Avhich has been quoted more than once,, 

 that he did not consider that there would be- 

 any diminution of fish for many years to come, 

 was not that opinion expressed before the 

 introduction of steam trawlers ? — I trace 

 Professor Huxley's views back to the Royal 

 Commission of 1866, but the great development, 

 of steam trawlers was after that time. 



Lord Tweedmouth. 



2325. In England especially? — Yes, and in- 

 Scotland and everywhere. 



Lord Heneage. 



2326. As a scientific naturalist you would like 

 to have several more years' experience before 

 any legislation takes place, but as a practical 

 man and from a diplomatic point of view you 

 think it advisable to pass some such Bill as. 

 this ? — Under the restrictions I have mentioned 

 and the limitations I have mentioned, I am in 

 favour, since the matter has been proposed, of 

 going on with it. I should not myself have- 

 proposed it at this present stage ; I should have 

 waited longer ; but as the Bill is there and 

 damage* may be done I should go on with it. 



2327. But your principal desire for delay in 



the 



* JVote.—Bj this remai-k I meant to imply that the entire rejection of the proposal to impose restrictions might lead 

 t J misunderstandings abroad, especially in Denmark. 



(0.10.) R 2 



