146 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFO»E THE 



1^ Marcti 1904.] Mr. Doughty (a Member of the House of Commons). 



[Continued. 



0/tair»i.aii —continued. 



lation, an international agreement and inter- 

 national action in respect to tte prevention of 

 the destruction of undersized fish. I was very 

 much impressed by the evidence of Mr. Archer, 

 I may say, on that point, and, to some extent, I 

 think it is only fair that, as we are the very large 

 catchers of fish, I suppose 75 to 80 per cent, of the 

 catching power, especially large catching power, 

 is vested in Oreat Britain, it is only right that we 

 sKbuld set an example, if there has been or is any 

 likelihood that such encouragement as that would 

 lead to international agreement. Now, what fell 

 from Mr. Archer, and what I find in his evidence, 

 •indicates, I think, somewhat strongly, that at the 

 convention at Hamburg, a few weeks ago, this 

 question was considered, and it appears sympa- 

 thetically considered ; and as there does seem to be 

 a very reasonable hope, to say the least of it, that 

 if we do something here, they will very likely be 

 induced to follow our lead, it seems to me that 

 legislation of this character, to that extent, should 

 be encouraged ; so that I support the Bill as a step 

 in that direction, and hope that it may lead 

 eventually to a complete agreement with all the 

 powers bordering on the North Sea. The main 

 point that I tried to impress upon the Committee 

 the last time when I was here was that, in my 

 judgment, it was necessary that there should be 

 some statutory limitatidns to the power given to 

 this Department. I know how well and wisely 

 departments have served different interests in 

 the past, but I always have looked with a very 

 great deal of jealousy upon the question of handing 

 over, almost without any restriction whatever, 

 any great industry to a department, and taking 

 the power, so to speak, for the time being at least, 

 out of the hands of Parliament ; and therefore I 

 am afraid I must say that the opinion of my con- 

 atituents is unanimous on that one point, namely, 

 that the powers in this Bill should be limited to 

 the five months which I have indicated, namely, 

 April, May, June, July, and August. And we 

 think so, not merely because we are afraid that 

 probably by any other means, owing to the influ- 

 ence that might be brought to bear upon the Board 

 at some time, injury might be done to the trade, 

 but because we believe that all practical know- 

 ledge of the question and experience up to the 

 present point to the destruction being in those 

 five months, and that, if you restrict the sale of 

 small fish during those five months you will 

 almost to the full extent cover the evil that is 

 complained of. In the figures, for example, 

 that your Department have already supplied 

 to the Committee, you will find that the months in 

 which the small fish are caught are the five months 

 that I refer to ; and we think that the period 

 during which your Department should have a 

 roving commission should be those five months. 

 I think, therefore, that if the Bill limited the period 

 of time to those five months, anyhow, for a start, 

 we should be able to see to what extent a restrictive 

 power of that kind would be of value. Moreover, 

 if I may put it shortly in this way, if it is for the 

 five months, I think there would not be the same 

 fear, even if you made the size limit a very con- 



Cha i rmaii — ^continued. 



siderable one, say, for three of those months ; 

 and if you are_ to create a close season on these 

 eastern grounds, it seems to me that this is the • 

 only effective way in which it can be done, namely, 

 by making the size limit, for certain months, 

 anyhow, such a size that it would not be profitable 

 for anybody to go on to those grounds. That is a 

 point, I think, of some importance, which I daresay 

 will weigh with you, my Lord, when you are 

 thinking over the question of what the first Order - 

 should be. 



2579. You agree, I think, do you not, that 11 in. 

 would, as at present advised, be a sufficient limit 

 for plaice ? — Yes. At the Conference that I held 

 at Grimsby the other day, there was a general, 

 indeed a unanimous, expression of opinion that- 

 11 in. is the size to which it would be safe to gd.^ 

 Of course that is a considerable advance on what- 

 has been said in years gone by. 



2580. At the same time, it is conceivable, is 

 it not, that if the result of this legislation is effectual 

 the size of plaice all round the coasts of the Conti- 

 nent may attain a higher average, and then it- 

 might be desirable to increase the limit ? — Yes ; 

 and then I have not the slightest doubt that the 

 trade itself, having realised how great the advantage ■ 

 has proved, would come to you and say, " We think 

 this limit should be larger." 



2581. I do not know whether you are aware 

 that we have been informed by Mr. Holt, whose 

 investigations have covered a very long space of 

 time, that in his opinion there has been a marked 

 change in the average size of fish in the North 

 Sea, owing to the amount of fishing, and that in 

 his opinion that change might possibly revert ■ 

 again to the old conditions on those grounds. 

 Under those circumstances, do you think there 

 would be an additional advantage in reserving 

 to the Board some latitude ? — Well, so far as anjr 

 suggestion I have made up to the present goes, 

 they would have full latitude. I do not desire,. 

 I do not think it would be wise, that there should 

 be any restriction put on the size of the fish ; 

 it is a limitation of time that I suggest. 



2582. May I ask you, is there not a practical' 

 difficulty in sorting fish during the winter months ? 

 — Yes. But will the Committee look at it in 

 this light. The trade I represent, you >sec, is, I 

 may say, different in some respects from that of 

 any other port round the coast. Out of Hull 

 (and the HuU people have given most enthusiastic 

 support to this Bill in its entirety, I may say) 

 it does not affect them in the same way. There 

 the two great industries a-re fleeting on the one 

 hand ; and fishing very largely to the north on 

 the other ; that is to say, they are single boaters 

 mainly. They nearly all work Iceland, the 

 Faroes and the islands in that direction, and, there- 

 fore they would not be affected at all by any 

 restriction of that kind. Then the fleets only come 

 on to these small plaice in summer time, when the;y 

 come down like a lot of wolves and gobble up 

 everything, and ruin the market aU round the 

 country ; then they stop off a month, and then go 

 back for another fortnight. But in the winter 



time, 



