SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SEA FISHERIES BILL. 



137 



17 March 1904.] 



Mr. Jeffs. 



[Gontimied. 



Chairman — continued, 

 save their lives; but with short hauls— and 

 steam trawlers now do not make long hauls — an 

 enormous quantity of fish might be saved, even 

 when fishing amongst that small fish. 



2423. But if it was not worth their going to 

 these banks the hauls would not be made at 

 all ? — No. We had a vessel in on Saturday that 

 landed 50 cwts, of small plaice that only fetched 

 Is. per box of eight stone, and each box would 

 contain 400 to 500 small fish. Of course there 

 were eight inches and under eight inches, and a 

 few above eight inches ; but they had no business 

 to have been brought in, and I do say, although 

 we are perhaps as great sinners as the rest, we 

 should be saved from ourselves ; and so far as I 

 am concerned, and J am president, and have been 

 for last twenty years, of the Fish Merchants' 

 Association, we do agree that the time was fully 

 come, and more than fuUy come, that the Bill 

 ought to be passed. 



Lord Heneage. 



2424. You are perfectly prepared on behalf of 

 the trade of Grimsby to state that you are willing 

 to accept this Bill, whatever Bill might have 

 been in your mind at other times ? — Fmly. 



2425. And you rather look upon it as an 

 improvement in the Bill that the Board of 

 Agriculture and Fisheries will be able to draw 

 upon your experience of one year in any altera- 

 tion of the orders in another ? — -Yes, inasmuch, 



Lord Heneage — continued. 



as I believe I said before, I have full confidence 

 after they have got experience from time to time, 

 that they would alter the Bill for the benefit ot 

 the trade and the public. 



Duke of Abcrcor.i. 



2426. To what do you attribute the shortage 

 of fish coming in now. Is it due to over trawling 

 or the capture of undersized fish ? — I have 

 always believed it is through the capture of the 

 millions of undersized flat fish ; and I also state, 

 from observation, that if it had not been for the 

 'Danish Government putting the law into opera- 

 tion years ago, wo should not have had any 

 small fish to catch now. At that time they 

 used to drag, the same as we have ourselves in 

 the Humber, with drag nets these small fish on 

 to the shore and use them for manure. Happily, 

 through the conference that was held in 1890, 

 the Danish Government enacted the law that they 

 were not allowed to land or sell; and hence we 

 have some fish left in the North Sea. I believe 

 as I stated that if it had not been for the Danes 

 there would have been very little small fish as 

 well as large, to catch. 



2427. Where do they draw these in from ? — 

 From the shore, in Denmark. It is a flat, sandy 

 shore, and they were allowed to do that the 

 same as we were before the three mile limit 

 came into operation. 



The Witness is directed to withdraw. 



Me. JAMES JACKMAN is called in; and examined as follows. 



Ghairinan. 



Chairman of the Lowestoft 

 Small Damage Protection 



2428. You are 

 Trawling Smack 

 Society ? — Yes. 



2429. Does that Society renresent 230 out of 

 250 in the Port of Lowestoft ? — Yes. 



2430. Have you been engaged in the trawling 

 industry all your life ? — Since I was 1 9 ; now I 

 am 60 — 41 years. 



2431. You have read the Bill ?— Yes. 



2432. And are you able to express any opinion 

 upon it without seeing the orders that may be 

 passed under it ? — My opinion is that if the Bill 

 IS passed in its present form it will be very 

 injurious to Lowestoft as a fishing port. 



2433. Will you say why ? — Because if it is 

 enforced in Lowestoft we shall be practically 

 wiped out. 



2434. How are you going to be wiped out; 

 what do you imagine will happen under the 

 BiU ? — In Lowestoft we are only sailing craft ; 

 the destruction of small fish in connection with 

 us is not very large. 



2435. Supposing you were exempted from the 

 operations of the BiU, would that wipe you out ? 

 — If we were exempted from the operations of 

 the Bill we should be satisfied. 



2436. Do you see anything in the Bill whicli 

 necessarilly makes it applicable to the Lowestoft 

 trade? — I presume by the Bill that our ports 

 will come under the heading. 



2437. But you must not presume; you must 

 read the Bill. Let me read it to you: "The 



(0.10.) 



GhairTnan^continued. 



Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, if they 

 think it expedient so to do for the purpose of 

 preventing the destruction of undersized flat 

 fish make orders for prohibiting either abso- 

 lutely or subject to such exceptions and con- 

 ditions as may be prescribed, the landing of any 

 flat fish not exceeding the prescribed length." 

 Supposing they said they were not to be landed 

 at Grimsby, Hull and Billingsgate, would that 

 wipe out the Lowestoft trade ? — No, that would 

 not wipe us out ; it will not interfere with us at 

 all. But I presume that if this Bill is passed it 

 wiU be handed over to the Board of Agriculture 

 and Fisheries, and they will then have it in 

 their power to say whether we shall be exempt 

 or whether we shall not be exempt ; and, I pre- 

 sume, handing over to that Board they would 

 take into consideration that we were culprits to 

 a certain extent as well as the steam trawlers, 

 and by that means we should be included in the 

 conditions of whatever that Board may form. 

 I am of opinion that the steam trawler is very 

 much to blame for the killing of immature fish. 



2438. You heard the evidence of the last 

 witness, did you not ? — I heard a part of it. 



2439. The last witness represented the steam 

 trawlingindustry,and he informed the Committee 

 that what they wanted was a self-denying 

 ordinance, something that would protect them 

 against themselves. Supposing the Board of 

 Agriculture and Fisheries were to pass an Order 

 which was to apply only to steam trawlers or 



S carriers 



