132 



17 March 1904. J 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOKE THE 



Mr. Garstano. 



[Continv^. 



Lord Heneage — continued. 



the answers you gave is from the point of view 

 of a scientific naturahst ? — Yes, I feel that more 

 knowledge is required before we can feel certain 

 about what limits to impose and what good 

 will be done by imposing tnose limits. 



2328. You have given a good deal of evidence 

 with regard to the number of German vessels 

 which are fishing in these waters, with a view of 

 showing that there were very nearly as many if 

 not more than English trawlers ? — Half as many 

 German steam trawlers and smacks combined 

 as English steam trawlers. 



2329. I was looking at the memorandum 

 which you put to the Report ot the Conference 

 of Christiania in 1901, where you state that the 

 value of the fish that are landed in Great 

 Britain exceeds the total value of all sea 

 fisheries of other countries bordering the North 

 Sea taken together ? — That is perfectly true. 



2230. Now vi'ith regard to Professor Herwig's 

 statement in 1890, that was the year of the 

 International Conference in London, was it not, 

 at which Germany, amongst other countries, was 

 represented ? — I take it from you. 



2331. When they acceded generally to the 

 desire that there should be some prohibition of 

 the destruction of undersized fish, or, as I think 

 we then called them, immature fish ? — I accept 

 your statement. 



2332. With regard to this statement of 

 Professor Herwig's, or Director Herwig's, he 

 stated that their first concern in Germany 

 should be to increase their fleets of sailing and 

 steam fishing vessels in order to secure their 

 proper share of the produce of their native 

 seas and especially to compete with the English, 

 that this sTiould be done even at the risk of 

 ■contributing to the depletion of fish in the 

 North Sea, and then should prohibitive regula- 

 tions be necessary the voice of Germany would 

 be powerful in an international convention. 

 From the evidence you have just given you 

 think that that time has arrived ? — I have ad- 

 duced evidence to show that Germany is con- 

 fronted with the same grave problem as our 

 English fishermen; they were not at the time 

 Dr. Herwig made those remarks. 



2333. Therefore this statement of Dr. Herwig 

 does not apply to the present moment at all ? — 

 I would not like to speak for Dr. Herwig, but in 

 my opinion the circumstances are materially 

 altered so far as Germany is concerned. 



2334. The German Fleets have now been in- 

 creased up to their full limit I was going to say? 

 — I think so. 



2335. At least as much as could he expected, 

 . and therefore the reasons that he gave are not 



now in existence ? — I should say so. 



2336. I think you gave evidence before the 

 -Committee of 1900 on the Bill of 1900 ?— Yes. 



2337. And you then gave practically the same 

 evidence that you have given now with regard 

 to your desire for a longer period of enquiry, 

 anditwasprincipallyon your evidence that theBill 

 was postponed, was it not ?■ — I cannot say whether 

 it was principally on my evidence that the Bill 

 was postponed ; I certainly gave evidence against 

 the Bill of that year on the ground that a speci- 

 fic size limit was mentioned of eight inches, and 

 I said that, so far as our knowledge then went, 



Lord Heneage — continued, 

 eight inches would be useless (and all the evi- 

 dence we have since acquired has tended to 

 confirm the opinion which I then expressed), 

 and I saw no point in putting on the Statute 

 Book a useless measure which would harass a 

 certain number of fishermen. 



2338. You are aware, I suppose, that in the 

 Report it was distinctly stated that, in conse- 

 quence of the evidence of a well-known scientific 

 Avitness, the Committee had come to the con- 

 clusion that the Bill had better be postponed, or 

 words to that effect ? — I take it from you. 



Chairman. 



2339. I understand from tlie replies that you 

 gave to Lord Tweedmouth that in your opinion 

 if you had to draft an order under the provisions 

 of this Bill it would be perfectly possible to draft 

 one which would prevent the destruction of 

 undersized fish on the north-eastei-n grounds, 

 while not interfering with the owners of smacks 

 at Lowestoft, Yarmouth, Ramsgate, and the 

 other Southern ports, and which would protect a 

 very large number r,t any rate of the undersized 

 flat fish now in the North Sea ? — I think so. 



2340. And if we are not fully acquainted with 

 the circumstances and learn from time to time 

 the results of the inquiries of the Marine 

 Biological Association, it would be possible, under 

 the terms of this Bill to rectify at very short 

 notice any mistakes which, by experience, we 

 may be found to have made ? — The 13111 would 

 give power to that effect. 



234)1. That is to say, if we found that the 

 limit was too high or too low it could be altered ; 

 whereas if the Bill of 1900 had passed into law 

 it would have been necessary again to apply to 

 Parliament to rectify any error which experience 

 might teach us ? — Yes. 



2342. I am sure you would not wish to leave 

 a wrong impression upon the mind of the Com- 

 mittee as to what was the feeling of the Con- 

 ference at which you were one of the represen- 

 tatives of this country, with regard to the 

 Resolution that has been the subject of enquiry. 

 During the interval I have looked into the 

 matter, and I am informed, and I ask you 

 whether it is so, that the Resolution was proposed 

 by the Bureau ? — The Resolution was formally 

 proposed by the Bureau. 



2343. And that Bureau is composed of the 

 president of the Council, Dr. Herwig, the 

 principal German delegate, the vice-president. 

 Professor Petersen, the Swedish delegate, and the 

 secretary. Dr. Hoek, the responsible adviser to 

 the Dutch Government. Are not those the 

 members of it ? — Yes, those are the three members. 



2344. You suggested that the proposal was not 

 understood by the Dutch delegates ; but do not 

 you think that in the official position which Dr. 

 Hoek holds he would have explained the exact 

 purport of the Resolution to Ms Dutch colleagues ? 

 — I am not fully acquainted with the circum- 

 stances ; I was not concerned in the drafting of 

 those proposals and I knew nothing of the 

 proposals which emanated in the name of 

 the Bureau until the very day they appeared 

 before the Council meeting ; but all I can speak 

 of is as to the effect of those proposals at the 

 meeting itself It certainly was the case, 

 that the Dutch representatives tfid not 



understand 



