300 BRITISH FISHERIES 



only ; and legislation with regard to the high 

 seas (which was just as necessary as within the 

 three-mile limit) was only possible by inter- 

 national agreement, and was almost impracticable. 

 Restriction on the capture of young fishes, then, 

 was regarded as only one of the possible means 

 of restoring the productivity of the fishing grounds. 

 The prospect of achieving valuable results by our 

 second remedy was, on the other hand, a very 

 alluring one. It avoided the necessity of vexa- 

 tious interference with the fishermen — a view 

 which was held in the .United States, where it 

 was regarded as cheaper to make fish plentiful by 

 culture than by restriction. Further, the a priori 

 argument in favour of it was apparently a rather 

 strong one. Fishes are enormously prolific ; a 

 cod, for instance, produces annually between five 

 and ten millions of eggs. The destruction of 

 these eggs and their resulting larvse in the sea 

 must be very great. But this destruction would 

 be avoided if the eggs were incubated under 

 artificial conditions, and the saving would represent 

 an enormous gain to the fishing industry. It was 

 " Nature's offer and man's opportunity." Again, 

 fish-culture with respect to fresh-water fish was 

 a very old and well-understood industry, and had 

 been practised with great success in Germany, 

 where it was minutely studied. It was concluded, 

 then, that the artificial culture of sea -fishes 

 could not fail to be of enormous benefit to a 



