Chapter 41

1298Op. cit.1299Thus from the year 1903 (when these statistics begin) to 1906 the number of tons of bottom fishes landed on the East Coast of England by first-, second-, and third-class fishing vessels, from the North Sea and from beyond the North Sea, was as follows:—1903.1904.1905.1906.From North Sea260,313230,975207,440217,567From beyond the North Sea67,62578,21693,395129,697The particulars for all coasts are only given for 1906, and they show that almost half of the total supply of bottom fishes in England and Wales come from grounds outwith the North Sea. The figures are: from North Sea, 217,571 tons; from beyond the North Sea, 203,863 tons. Captain Walter S. Masterman, of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in a valuable report on his research work in the North Sea, states that while the total quantity of bottom fishes taken within the North Sea by steam-trawlers and landed on the East Coast of England has decreased in the four years, 1903-1906, by 39,650 tons, or nearly 17 per cent, the decrease in flat fish has amounted to 23,590 tons, or nearly 42 per cent; and that “the decrease has been continuous from year to year, especially in the case of plaice.”Report on the Research Work of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in relation to the Plaice Fisheries of the North Sea, 1908 (Cd. 4227).1300A leading representative of the trawling industry, Mr G. L. Alward, thus described the process to the Committee of the Lords in 1904. The diminution, he said, was from over-fishing, “first of all in our original old fishing-grounds. We denuded those, and found less year by year as time went on. We then discovered new grounds, with, in process of time, the same result. In going back originally, say to about 1830 to about 1890, we found, at ground after ground, after being fished for a few years, the same results; the fish became scarcer and scarcer.”Report, p. 78.1301The quantity brought to England from Iceland and Faröe in 1907 was nearly 117,000 tons, or nearly 26 per cent of the total quantity of bottom fishes landed.Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Annual Report on Sea Fisheries for 1907. Schmidt,Fiskeriundersøgelser ved Island og Færøerne i Sommeren, 1903, p. 132.1302A sidelight is thrown upon the risks as well as the enterprise of their labours by the fact that in 1908 a trawler’s crew, on the one hand, fishing on the coast of Africa, fell into the hands of the Moors; while another, whose vessel was wrecked near the White Sea, were saved from starvation by the kindness of Russian Laplanders, who killed reindeer for their sustenance.1303Trawlers, on discovering new and productive grounds, invariably select out the fish that are most remunerative and throw the rest back into the sea. “Hundreds of thousands of tons” of immature fish are said to have been destroyed in this way in the North Sea, and what has happened at Iceland with regard to mature fish is thus described in a letter from one trawler to another, which was read by the recipient to the Parliamentary Committee in 1893: “Dear Manton, ... At present the trawlers who are running Iceland are throwing thousands of tons of good mature fish away, which, if some scheme of storage were got up, the fish sorted, and bought for food, would supply thousands in the year. I have been to Iceland, and we have to throw away hundreds of tons of good mature fish, such as haddock, supposed to be too large, and great quantities of cod, ling, and other fish. The fact is, the ground, which is valuable for fishing, is completely rotten with the refuse from the trawlers. We have to haul every two hours, and we have to carry extra hands to get rid of the fish and get the bit below we choose to save. The ground is fairly poisoned, and the plaice-fishing not so brisk, only in odd places; whereas before it was more general where there is any trawling ground” (Report cit., p. 248). The grounds had only been recently opened up when this was written. It is different to-day, when 85 per cent of the fish brought back from Iceland are round fish, chiefly haddocks and cod (Ann. Rep. Sea Fisheries for 1906, App., p. 15). It used to be the same in the North Sea, only prime fish being taken, and haddocks, &c., thrown away.1304Vida Marítima, Órgano de la Liga Marítima Española, 1904, 1905;Boletin oficial.1305Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, 51 & 52 Vict., cap. 54. Section 1 is as follows: “1.—(1) The Board of Trade may from time to time on the application of a county council or borough council, by order, (a) create a sea fisheries district comprisingany part of the sea within which Her Majesty’s subjects have by international law the exclusive right of fishing, either with or without any part of the adjoining coast of England and Wales; and (b) define the limits of the district,” &c.Sea Fisheries (England and Wales), Annual Reports of the Inspectors;Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, Annual Reports of Proceedings under Acts relating to Sea Fisheries. An excellent chart, showing the regulations with respect to trawling around the English coast, is published in theReport from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Sea Fisheries Bill, 1904.1306Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland: Report on the Sea and Inland Fisheries for 1907.Part I., General Report, pp. 56-62.1307Report on the Sea and Inland Fisheries of Ireland for 1904, p. xxv.Manual of Fisheries (Ireland) Acts.Section 3 (subsection 1) of theSteam Trawling (Ireland) Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict., c. 74), gave powers to the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries to make, alter, and revoke byelaws for prohibiting steam-trawling “within three miles of low-water mark of any part of the coast of Ireland,or within the waters of any other defined areas specified in any such byelaw, and subject to any conditions or regulations contained in such byelaw.” Subsection 2 enacted that “each and every person who uses any trawl-net, or any method of fishing in contravention of any byelaw of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries made in pursuance of this section,” shall be subject to a fine not exceeding five pounds for a first offence, or twenty pounds for a second or subsequent offence, with forfeiture of the gear employed. Section 4 made it unlawful for “any person” to land or sell in Ireland any fish caught in contravention of any such byelaw. Section 1 (subsection 1) of theFisheries (Ireland) Act, 1901 (1 Ed. VII., c. 38), makes “every person who uses any trawl-net or any method of fishing in contravention of any byelaw” of the department made in pursuance of the third section of the Act of 1889, liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, with forfeiture of the gear, for the seizure of which any duly authorised officer is empowered to “go on board any vessel propelled by steam employed in fishing.” The Irish byelaws must be approved by the Lord-Lieutenant and Privy Council of Ireland.1308Sea Fisheries (Clam and Bait Beds) Act, 44 & 45 Vict., c. 11.130948 & 49 Vict., c. 70; 50 & 51 Vict., c. 52.131048 & 49 Vict., c. 70.13111st Feb. 1886, 18th April 1887, 25th April 1887, &c.Manual of Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Acts and Statutory Bye-laws, pp. 253-257.1312See pp. 592, 643.1313Ibid., p. 255.1314The Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, 52 & 53 Vict., c. 23. Section 7.—(1) “The Fishery Board may, by byelaw or byelaws, direct that the methods of fishing known as beam trawling and otter trawling shall not be used within a line drawn from Duncansby Head, in Caithness, to Rattray Point, in Aberdeenshire, in any area or areas to be defined in such byelaw, and may from time to time make, alter, and revoke byelaws for the purposes of this section, but no such byelaw shall be of any validity until it has been confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland.” The next section prohibits the landing or sale in Scotland of any fish caught in contravention of the Act or byelaws.1315“11.—(1) The Fishery Board may, by byelaw or byelaws, direct that the methods of fishing known as beam trawling and otter trawling shall not be used within a line drawn from Rattray Point, in Aberdeenshire, to the Farne Islands, in Northumberland, in any area or areas to be defined in such byelaw, and may from time to time make, alter, and revoke byelaws for the purposes of this section.”1316A Bill [as amended in Committee] intituled An Act for the better Regulation of Scottish Sea Fisheries(52), s. 10, February 1895.1317Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1895, 58 & 59 Vict., c. 42. Section 10.—(1) “The Fishery Board may, by byelaw or byelaws, direct that the methods of fishing known as beam trawling and otter trawling shall not be used in any area or areas under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty, within thirteen miles of the Scottish coast, to be defined in such byelaw, and may from time to time make, alter, and revoke byelaws for the purposes of this section. Provided that the powers conferred in this section shall not be exercised in respect to any areas under Her Majesty’s jurisdiction lying opposite to any part of the coasts of England, Ireland, or the Isle of Man, within thirteen miles thereof.” (2) provided for a local inquiry to be held. (3) “Provided that no area of sea within the said limit of thirteen miles shall be deemed to be under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty for the purposes of this section unless the powers conferred thereby shall have been accepted as binding upon their own subjects with respect to such area by all the States signatories of the North Sea Convention, 1882.”1318Eighteenth Ann. Rep. Fishery Board for Scotland, Part I., p. xxxii. The information relating to this part of the subject is taken mostly either from theAnnual Reportsof the Scottish Fishery Board or from Hansard’sParliamentary Debates.1319SeeNorges Officielle Statistik; Norges Fiskerier, 1906, pp. 17, 18. Sixteen steam trawlers were on the list as registered in Norway in that year, but “they did not carry on fishing from Norwegian ports,” and were not included in the list ofbona fideNorwegian fishing-vessels.1320Petersv.Olsen, 7,Court of Session Reports, 5th Series (Justiciary Cases); 42Scottish Law Reporter, p. 735.1321“In fact, the Moray Firth, within the line from Duncansby Head to Rattray Point, is not the high seas, but is a bay or area between these headlandsintra fauces terræ,—between the jaws of the land,—which has been called in England one of the King’s Chambers. In law, such an area must be dealt with by the Courts of this country as part of the territorial limits of Scotland, unless the Legislature chooses to enact, in fairness to other countries or for any other reason, that the extent of the space involved is too great to come within the reasonable definition of a bay.”1322See p. 545.1323Court of Session Reports, 8 Fraser, p. 93.1324“For the purpose of regulating the police of the fisheries in the North Sea outside territorial waters.” The use of the words “territorial waters” and “exclusive fishery limits” indifferently for the same thing is common, but improper.1325“I, George Milne Cook, Vice-Consul for Norway for Aberdeenshire and the adjacent districts, by instructions of Herr Laveland, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Norway, hereby protest, on behalf of the Government of Norway, against any conviction of the masters of the Norwegian trawling vesselsStroma,Sando, andCatalonia, provided the trawling with which they were charged has taken place outside the territorial limits, and I further protest against any punishment or fines being inflicted in the Sheriff Court at Elgin on the said masters.”(Sd.)George M. Cook.Elgin,31st January 1908.1326Hansard, vol. 169, pp. 557, 558, 988; vol. 170, pp. 1202, 1206.1327A letter appeared in theFish Trades Gazette, on 14th October 1905, from Mr Hans Johnsen, the Fisheries Agent for Norway in Great Britain, stating that he had resigned his membership of the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association owing to the President (Lord Heneage) having prevented him from reading at the annual conference of the Association at Aberdeen, with reference to a resolution regarding the Moray Firth, a letter from the Norwegian fishery authorities. His object in endeavouring to speak on the resolution, he said, “was to clear the Norwegian flag from having anything to do with the piracy practised by Grimsby steam trawl-owners in the Moray Firth, and which the Government of Norway and the Norwegian Fishery Board is highly indignant at.”1328Hansard, vol. 170, pp. 472, 1206, 1246, 1383.1329In these Norwegian vessels there were a “flag-master” and a “fishing-master,” the former, nominally in charge of the vessel, being a Norwegian in order to comply with the registration laws, but often, or usually, occupying a humble position, such as cook. The “fishing-master” had the real control and occupied the master’s rooms on board. He, like all or most of the crew, was English, resident at Grimsby.1330In April the penalties ranged from £10 to £2, 10s., or two to ten days’ imprisonment; in July they ranged from £1 or one day to £45 or fourteen days; three cases were dismissed, one was found not proven, and in five the verdict was not guilty; four cases were appealed to the High Court by the Procurator-Fiscal and the appeal sustained.Twenty-Sixth Ann. Rep. Fishery Board for Scot., Part I., App. L., II.1331Hansard, vol. 170, p. 472.1332See p. 707et seq.1333Hansard, vol. 169, pp. 832, 991, 1037; vol. 170, pp. 786, 1246, 1247; vol. 192, p. 832. &c.1334Ibid.1335Thus, in the “Reply on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government to the Answer of the United States of America,” submitted to the International Fisheries Commission at Halifax in 1877, it was said: “It is not understood that the Answer either raises or invites the discussion of any rules or doctrines of international law, save such as bear upon the question of what are to be considered the territorial waters of a maritime State for the purposes of exclusive fishing. The contention of the Answer in relation to these doctrines which requires special attention, is that which asserts that Great Britain and other Powers have traditionally recognised a rule, by which foreigners were excluded from fishing in those bays only which are six miles, or less, in width at their mouths. It is distinctly asserted on the part of Her Majesty’s Governmentthat this alleged rule is entirely unknown to, and unrecognised by, Her Majesty’s Government, and it is submitted that no instance of such recognition is to be found in the Answer or the Brief accompanying the same, and that none can be produced.” This was approved of by the Earl of Derby, Foreign Secretary (the Earl of Derby to Mr Ford, August 31, 1877; the same to the same, Oct. 6, 1877).133611th Nov. 1908. Hansard, vol. 196, p. 236. Very important declarations as to the territorial character of bays will be found in the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, on the North Atlantic Fisheries (7th September 1910, Award No. V.), received as these sheets are passing through the press. The application of the three-mile limit to bays was rejected, the following rule being formulated: “In case of bays the three marine miles are to be measured from a straight line drawn across the body of waterat the place where it ceases to have the configuration and characteristics of a bay. At all other places the three marine miles are to be measured following the sinuosities of the coast.” In its practical application to British North America, the Tribunal recommended a ten-mile limit generally, except for certain specified bays (including Chaleurs, Miramichi, Egmont) where special lines, enclosing much larger areas, are proposed.1337Hansard, vol. 170, p. 1383. The miles referred to are English statute miles.1338Hansard, vol. 191, p. 1769.1339Reports of the British Delegates attending the International Conferences held at Stockholm, Christiania, and Copenhagen, with respect to Fishery and Hydrographical Investigations in the North Sea.Parl. Papers, Cd. 1313, 1903. Corresponding “Reports” to 1906 (Parl. Papers, Cd. 2966/06, 3033/06, 3165/06). Conseil Permanent International pour l’Exploration de la Mer,Rapports et Procès-Verbaux des Réunions, Copenhague. A summary on the subject, by Dr A. T. Masterman, will be found in the Minutes of Evidence, Committee on Fishery Investigations (Parl. Papers, Cd. 4304, p. 479, 1908).1340“2. The delegates should propose that the scientific investigations shall be accompanied by a practicalexposéof the steps to be taken in order to bring the exercise of sea-fishing more in accord with the natural conditions regulating the growth and increase of fish in our seas, and thus permanently increase the supply of fish in the markets of the countries adjoining the North Sea. 3. In making this proposal, which they should do at the outset, the delegates should make it clear that the principal object the British Government have in directing them to take part in the Conference, is to secure a careful inquiry into the effect of present methods of fishing in the North Sea; and the delegates should give every assistance in promoting a scheme for determining whether protection against overfishing is needed, and, if so, where, when, and how such protection should be given. 4. The delegates should propose that a thorough scheme for obtaining statistical information with regard to the quantity and quality of fish caught by the different methods of fishing shall be organised, with a view of determining whether protection against overfishing is needed, either by the prohibition of trawling in certain selected areas or the limitation of fishing during certain selected seasons.”—Instructions to the British Delegates for the Meeting at Stockholm, 15th June 1899; Reports of the British Delegates, &c., p. 13.Parl. Papers, Cd. 1313, 1903; Committee on Fishery Investigations, Minutes of Evidence, &c., p. 278,Parl. Papers, Cd. 4304, 1908. The instructions of the British Government to the Delegates for the Meeting in 1901, at Christiania, were of similar tenour:—“His Majesty’s Government fully share in the interest shown in the cause of scientific research, but having regard to the importance of the evidence which was laid before the Select Committee of the House of Commons [see p. 709], and which was adopted by them as showing that the supply of fish in the North Sea is decreasing, they are of opinion that the consideration of this subject will admit of no delay, and you should press on your foreign colleagues the importance of entering at once upon the pursuit of investigations calculated to lead to an international agreement. You should in no way discourage or check any desire which you may find to exist for scientific research into problems not so immediately pressing, but his Majesty’s Government place in the forefront of their reasons for taking part in the forthcoming Committee the desire that no delay should be incurred in the adoption, by international agreement, of measures for arresting the diminution of the supply of fish in the North Sea, and for restoring, as far as possible, that source of supply to its former abundance.”Ibid., p. 278.1341Memorandum drawn up by the Expert Members of the Ichthyological Research Committee, Report of the Committee appointed to Inquire and Report as to the Best Means by which the State or Local Authorities can Assist Scientific Research as applied to Problems affecting the Fisheries of Great Britain and Ireland (Parl. Papers, Cd. 1312, p. xxii, x, 1902).Evidence of Mr Walter E. Archer, Assistant-Secretary, Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, Minutes of Evidence given before the Committee appointed to inquire into the Scientific and Statistical Investigations now being carried on in relation to the Fishing Industry of the United Kingdom, pp. 277, 288, 346, 359 (Parl. Papers, Cd. 4304, 1908).1342Reports of the British Delegates, &c.,Parl. Papers, Cd. 1313, p. 72, 1903. The countries represented were Great Britain, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Russia.1343Hansard, vol. 169, pp. 992, 996; vol. 170, p. 786; and 11th Nov. 1908.1344Mr Frank Barrett, of Grimsby, thus referred to the condition of the North Sea at the conference of the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association in 1905: “Unless they did something as a counterpoise to the continual trawling which was going on, they would find themselves powerless as regarded that splendid fishing-ground, the North Sea. He did not believe the North Sea, if left to itself, could last for ever. He was one of those who thought it could not last very long; and he thought they should apply the lessons of science in order to rehabilitate the North Sea.”Fish Trades Gazette, Oct. 14, 1905.1345Mr G. L. Alward, one of the leading and most experienced trawl-owners of Grimsby, who was invited to take part in a discussion on sea fisheries in the Zoological Section of the British Association in 1906, thus referred to the subject. He said: “There was no doubt that the North Sea was deteriorated as a fishing-ground, and in order to maintain an adequate supply they had had to explore fresh fields. They had shifted the trawling-grounds to the coasts of Faröe, Iceland, and Norway, while others had had to go out into the Atlantic, to the Bay of Biscay, and to the coast of Morocco. But if they had exhausted the 147,000 square miles of the North Sea,—every mile of which had been fished,—and they fished out the area between Norway and Faröe and Iceland, not more than forty or fifty thousand square miles, with the same rapidity, they had to look forward to nothing short of a dearth of fish and a rise in value to famine prices.”Aberdeen Free Press, 9th August 1906.1346According to an interesting table on a chart appended to theAnnual Report of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheriesfor 1906 (see fig. 28), the areas, in square miles, between the three-mile limit and the 200-metre line, are as follows: North Sea, 152,473; North of Scotland (Orkney and Shetland), 18,096; West of Scotland, 32,099; West of Ireland, 9066; Irish Sea, 15,743; Southwards of Ireland, 50,416; Bristol Channel, 8613; English Channel, 25,238. The area at Iceland is 36,608, and at the Faröes, 4949 square miles.1347Hansard, vol. 169, p. 996; vol. 196, p. 217. I have been courteously informed by Mr Bjarni Sæmundsson, of Reykjavik, a well-known authority on the fisheries of Iceland, that no laws proposing to extend the territorial waters were passed, or proposed, by theAlthing.1348Hansard, vol. 170, p. 786.1349On Mem. 1 the words “le dit Roi Dengleterre et” follow “Procurors.”1350Mem. 1 and 8, “de touz autres de son Roialme.”1351Mems. 1, 14, and 15, “il ny ad.” Mem. 8, “du temps qil ny ad.”1352Mem. 8, “aueroient este.”1353Mem. 1, “oue touz les Isles et les apportenaunces.”1354Mem. 1, the words are “estatuitz et defenses comunes et priuees” and the rest is omitted to “sur toute manere des gentz taunt,” &c. Mem. 8, “communes et priuees a garder pays et droiture entre tote manere des gentz tant,” &c. Mem. 15, “estatuitz et defences pur gouerner en toute manere,” &c.1355Mems. 1, 8, 14, 15, “come de lour propre.”1356Mem. 1, “oue.”1357Mems. 1, 8, and 15, “oue.”1358Mem. 1, instead of gouernement, “a la generalte”; Mem. 8, “a la garde.”1359Mems. 1, 8, and 15, “le dit Roi.”1360Mem. 1 omits “Dengleterre.”1361Mems. 1 and 8, “Rois Dengleterre deputez eient este.”1362Mem. 8, “de la dite seignurie et garde.”1363Mems. 1, 8, 14, and 15, “forspris.”1364Mems. 1, 8, and 15 insert “et.”1365Mem. 15, “a.”1366Mem. 1, “ou mesfaitz”; Mem. 8, “ou de mesfaitz.”1367The sentence from “Et come” to “Coustumes” is omitted on Mems. 1, 8, and 15.1368Mems. 1 and 8 omit “en vne cedule anexe ayceste,” and Mems. 1, 14, and 15 omit the whole of the next paragraph, recommencing “Monsieur Reymer Grimbaus.” Mem. 8d, paragraph commencing “Primerement.”1369Mem. 8, “et a maintener.”1370Mem. 8, “excepte pur le dit Roy.”1371Mem. 8, “le dit Roy.”1372Mem. 14 omits “et.”1373Mems. 1 and 8 omit “Dengleterre.”1374Mems. 1, 14, and 15, “du dit Roi.”1375Mems. 8 and 15 insert “les.”1376Mems. 1, 8, and 15 insert “et marchandises.”1377Mem. 1 omits “et.”1378Mem. 1 omits “de Fraunce.”1379Mems. 1, 14, and 15 read (here and elsewhere) “ceo.”1380Mem. 8 omits “et la prise,” &c., recommencing, “sur la forfaiture,” &c.1381Mem. 14, “ou.”1382Mem. 8 inserts “et.”1383Mems. 1, 14, and 15, “sa.”1384Mems. 1 and 8, “de par le dit Roi.”1385Mem. 1, “de la”; Mems. 8, 14, and 15, “de le.”1386Mems. 1, 8, 14, and 15 insert “a vous Seigneurs.”1387Mems. 8 and 14, “qil.”1388Mem. 8 inserts “il.”1389Mems. 1, 14d, and 15 complete the passage as follows: “Come il purra suffire et en sa deffaute son dit seignur le Roi de Fraunce par qi il estoit deputeez al dit office et qe apres dewe satisfactioun faite as ditz damagez le dit Monsieur Reiner soit si duement punitz pur le blemissement de la dite alliance qe la punicioun de lui soit as autres example [Mem. 8, ‘ensample’] pur temps auenir.” Mem. 15 ends here. Mem. 8 transposes the next paragraph and the last.1390Mem. 1, “aunciens”; Mem. 14, “auncienes.”1391Mems. 1, 8, and 14, “ne.”1392Mems. 1, 8, and 14 omit “nefs.”1393Mem. 8, “leurs.”1394Mem. 8, “doiuent.”1395Mem. 8. “deuantdiz.”1396Mems. 1 and 8, “les.”1397Mems. 1 and 8, “ses.”1398Mem. 8, “soy.”1399[Sic]: not previously mentioned; probably Johan Paderogh.1400Seebelow.1401Side-note says: “The said goods have been delivered to Will. Bush.”140224th Aug. 1303, Saturday.1403St Lawrence,Aug. 10.140429th Sept. 1303, Sunday.1405Differences found in copy,State Papers, Dom., Chas. II., Vol. 339, p. 589, are shown in brackets.

1298Op. cit.

1299Thus from the year 1903 (when these statistics begin) to 1906 the number of tons of bottom fishes landed on the East Coast of England by first-, second-, and third-class fishing vessels, from the North Sea and from beyond the North Sea, was as follows:—1903.1904.1905.1906.From North Sea260,313230,975207,440217,567From beyond the North Sea67,62578,21693,395129,697The particulars for all coasts are only given for 1906, and they show that almost half of the total supply of bottom fishes in England and Wales come from grounds outwith the North Sea. The figures are: from North Sea, 217,571 tons; from beyond the North Sea, 203,863 tons. Captain Walter S. Masterman, of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in a valuable report on his research work in the North Sea, states that while the total quantity of bottom fishes taken within the North Sea by steam-trawlers and landed on the East Coast of England has decreased in the four years, 1903-1906, by 39,650 tons, or nearly 17 per cent, the decrease in flat fish has amounted to 23,590 tons, or nearly 42 per cent; and that “the decrease has been continuous from year to year, especially in the case of plaice.”Report on the Research Work of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in relation to the Plaice Fisheries of the North Sea, 1908 (Cd. 4227).

The particulars for all coasts are only given for 1906, and they show that almost half of the total supply of bottom fishes in England and Wales come from grounds outwith the North Sea. The figures are: from North Sea, 217,571 tons; from beyond the North Sea, 203,863 tons. Captain Walter S. Masterman, of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in a valuable report on his research work in the North Sea, states that while the total quantity of bottom fishes taken within the North Sea by steam-trawlers and landed on the East Coast of England has decreased in the four years, 1903-1906, by 39,650 tons, or nearly 17 per cent, the decrease in flat fish has amounted to 23,590 tons, or nearly 42 per cent; and that “the decrease has been continuous from year to year, especially in the case of plaice.”Report on the Research Work of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in relation to the Plaice Fisheries of the North Sea, 1908 (Cd. 4227).

1300A leading representative of the trawling industry, Mr G. L. Alward, thus described the process to the Committee of the Lords in 1904. The diminution, he said, was from over-fishing, “first of all in our original old fishing-grounds. We denuded those, and found less year by year as time went on. We then discovered new grounds, with, in process of time, the same result. In going back originally, say to about 1830 to about 1890, we found, at ground after ground, after being fished for a few years, the same results; the fish became scarcer and scarcer.”Report, p. 78.

1301The quantity brought to England from Iceland and Faröe in 1907 was nearly 117,000 tons, or nearly 26 per cent of the total quantity of bottom fishes landed.Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Annual Report on Sea Fisheries for 1907. Schmidt,Fiskeriundersøgelser ved Island og Færøerne i Sommeren, 1903, p. 132.

1302A sidelight is thrown upon the risks as well as the enterprise of their labours by the fact that in 1908 a trawler’s crew, on the one hand, fishing on the coast of Africa, fell into the hands of the Moors; while another, whose vessel was wrecked near the White Sea, were saved from starvation by the kindness of Russian Laplanders, who killed reindeer for their sustenance.

1303Trawlers, on discovering new and productive grounds, invariably select out the fish that are most remunerative and throw the rest back into the sea. “Hundreds of thousands of tons” of immature fish are said to have been destroyed in this way in the North Sea, and what has happened at Iceland with regard to mature fish is thus described in a letter from one trawler to another, which was read by the recipient to the Parliamentary Committee in 1893: “Dear Manton, ... At present the trawlers who are running Iceland are throwing thousands of tons of good mature fish away, which, if some scheme of storage were got up, the fish sorted, and bought for food, would supply thousands in the year. I have been to Iceland, and we have to throw away hundreds of tons of good mature fish, such as haddock, supposed to be too large, and great quantities of cod, ling, and other fish. The fact is, the ground, which is valuable for fishing, is completely rotten with the refuse from the trawlers. We have to haul every two hours, and we have to carry extra hands to get rid of the fish and get the bit below we choose to save. The ground is fairly poisoned, and the plaice-fishing not so brisk, only in odd places; whereas before it was more general where there is any trawling ground” (Report cit., p. 248). The grounds had only been recently opened up when this was written. It is different to-day, when 85 per cent of the fish brought back from Iceland are round fish, chiefly haddocks and cod (Ann. Rep. Sea Fisheries for 1906, App., p. 15). It used to be the same in the North Sea, only prime fish being taken, and haddocks, &c., thrown away.

1304Vida Marítima, Órgano de la Liga Marítima Española, 1904, 1905;Boletin oficial.

1305Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, 51 & 52 Vict., cap. 54. Section 1 is as follows: “1.—(1) The Board of Trade may from time to time on the application of a county council or borough council, by order, (a) create a sea fisheries district comprisingany part of the sea within which Her Majesty’s subjects have by international law the exclusive right of fishing, either with or without any part of the adjoining coast of England and Wales; and (b) define the limits of the district,” &c.Sea Fisheries (England and Wales), Annual Reports of the Inspectors;Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, Annual Reports of Proceedings under Acts relating to Sea Fisheries. An excellent chart, showing the regulations with respect to trawling around the English coast, is published in theReport from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Sea Fisheries Bill, 1904.

1306Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland: Report on the Sea and Inland Fisheries for 1907.Part I., General Report, pp. 56-62.

1307Report on the Sea and Inland Fisheries of Ireland for 1904, p. xxv.Manual of Fisheries (Ireland) Acts.Section 3 (subsection 1) of theSteam Trawling (Ireland) Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict., c. 74), gave powers to the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries to make, alter, and revoke byelaws for prohibiting steam-trawling “within three miles of low-water mark of any part of the coast of Ireland,or within the waters of any other defined areas specified in any such byelaw, and subject to any conditions or regulations contained in such byelaw.” Subsection 2 enacted that “each and every person who uses any trawl-net, or any method of fishing in contravention of any byelaw of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries made in pursuance of this section,” shall be subject to a fine not exceeding five pounds for a first offence, or twenty pounds for a second or subsequent offence, with forfeiture of the gear employed. Section 4 made it unlawful for “any person” to land or sell in Ireland any fish caught in contravention of any such byelaw. Section 1 (subsection 1) of theFisheries (Ireland) Act, 1901 (1 Ed. VII., c. 38), makes “every person who uses any trawl-net or any method of fishing in contravention of any byelaw” of the department made in pursuance of the third section of the Act of 1889, liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, with forfeiture of the gear, for the seizure of which any duly authorised officer is empowered to “go on board any vessel propelled by steam employed in fishing.” The Irish byelaws must be approved by the Lord-Lieutenant and Privy Council of Ireland.

1308Sea Fisheries (Clam and Bait Beds) Act, 44 & 45 Vict., c. 11.

130948 & 49 Vict., c. 70; 50 & 51 Vict., c. 52.

131048 & 49 Vict., c. 70.

13111st Feb. 1886, 18th April 1887, 25th April 1887, &c.Manual of Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Acts and Statutory Bye-laws, pp. 253-257.

1312See pp. 592, 643.

1313Ibid., p. 255.

1314The Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, 52 & 53 Vict., c. 23. Section 7.—(1) “The Fishery Board may, by byelaw or byelaws, direct that the methods of fishing known as beam trawling and otter trawling shall not be used within a line drawn from Duncansby Head, in Caithness, to Rattray Point, in Aberdeenshire, in any area or areas to be defined in such byelaw, and may from time to time make, alter, and revoke byelaws for the purposes of this section, but no such byelaw shall be of any validity until it has been confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland.” The next section prohibits the landing or sale in Scotland of any fish caught in contravention of the Act or byelaws.

1315“11.—(1) The Fishery Board may, by byelaw or byelaws, direct that the methods of fishing known as beam trawling and otter trawling shall not be used within a line drawn from Rattray Point, in Aberdeenshire, to the Farne Islands, in Northumberland, in any area or areas to be defined in such byelaw, and may from time to time make, alter, and revoke byelaws for the purposes of this section.”

1316A Bill [as amended in Committee] intituled An Act for the better Regulation of Scottish Sea Fisheries(52), s. 10, February 1895.

1317Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1895, 58 & 59 Vict., c. 42. Section 10.—(1) “The Fishery Board may, by byelaw or byelaws, direct that the methods of fishing known as beam trawling and otter trawling shall not be used in any area or areas under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty, within thirteen miles of the Scottish coast, to be defined in such byelaw, and may from time to time make, alter, and revoke byelaws for the purposes of this section. Provided that the powers conferred in this section shall not be exercised in respect to any areas under Her Majesty’s jurisdiction lying opposite to any part of the coasts of England, Ireland, or the Isle of Man, within thirteen miles thereof.” (2) provided for a local inquiry to be held. (3) “Provided that no area of sea within the said limit of thirteen miles shall be deemed to be under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty for the purposes of this section unless the powers conferred thereby shall have been accepted as binding upon their own subjects with respect to such area by all the States signatories of the North Sea Convention, 1882.”

1318Eighteenth Ann. Rep. Fishery Board for Scotland, Part I., p. xxxii. The information relating to this part of the subject is taken mostly either from theAnnual Reportsof the Scottish Fishery Board or from Hansard’sParliamentary Debates.

1319SeeNorges Officielle Statistik; Norges Fiskerier, 1906, pp. 17, 18. Sixteen steam trawlers were on the list as registered in Norway in that year, but “they did not carry on fishing from Norwegian ports,” and were not included in the list ofbona fideNorwegian fishing-vessels.

1320Petersv.Olsen, 7,Court of Session Reports, 5th Series (Justiciary Cases); 42Scottish Law Reporter, p. 735.

1321“In fact, the Moray Firth, within the line from Duncansby Head to Rattray Point, is not the high seas, but is a bay or area between these headlandsintra fauces terræ,—between the jaws of the land,—which has been called in England one of the King’s Chambers. In law, such an area must be dealt with by the Courts of this country as part of the territorial limits of Scotland, unless the Legislature chooses to enact, in fairness to other countries or for any other reason, that the extent of the space involved is too great to come within the reasonable definition of a bay.”

1322See p. 545.

1323Court of Session Reports, 8 Fraser, p. 93.

1324“For the purpose of regulating the police of the fisheries in the North Sea outside territorial waters.” The use of the words “territorial waters” and “exclusive fishery limits” indifferently for the same thing is common, but improper.

1325“I, George Milne Cook, Vice-Consul for Norway for Aberdeenshire and the adjacent districts, by instructions of Herr Laveland, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Norway, hereby protest, on behalf of the Government of Norway, against any conviction of the masters of the Norwegian trawling vesselsStroma,Sando, andCatalonia, provided the trawling with which they were charged has taken place outside the territorial limits, and I further protest against any punishment or fines being inflicted in the Sheriff Court at Elgin on the said masters.”(Sd.)George M. Cook.Elgin,31st January 1908.

(Sd.)George M. Cook.

Elgin,31st January 1908.

1326Hansard, vol. 169, pp. 557, 558, 988; vol. 170, pp. 1202, 1206.

1327A letter appeared in theFish Trades Gazette, on 14th October 1905, from Mr Hans Johnsen, the Fisheries Agent for Norway in Great Britain, stating that he had resigned his membership of the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association owing to the President (Lord Heneage) having prevented him from reading at the annual conference of the Association at Aberdeen, with reference to a resolution regarding the Moray Firth, a letter from the Norwegian fishery authorities. His object in endeavouring to speak on the resolution, he said, “was to clear the Norwegian flag from having anything to do with the piracy practised by Grimsby steam trawl-owners in the Moray Firth, and which the Government of Norway and the Norwegian Fishery Board is highly indignant at.”

1328Hansard, vol. 170, pp. 472, 1206, 1246, 1383.

1329In these Norwegian vessels there were a “flag-master” and a “fishing-master,” the former, nominally in charge of the vessel, being a Norwegian in order to comply with the registration laws, but often, or usually, occupying a humble position, such as cook. The “fishing-master” had the real control and occupied the master’s rooms on board. He, like all or most of the crew, was English, resident at Grimsby.

1330In April the penalties ranged from £10 to £2, 10s., or two to ten days’ imprisonment; in July they ranged from £1 or one day to £45 or fourteen days; three cases were dismissed, one was found not proven, and in five the verdict was not guilty; four cases were appealed to the High Court by the Procurator-Fiscal and the appeal sustained.Twenty-Sixth Ann. Rep. Fishery Board for Scot., Part I., App. L., II.

1331Hansard, vol. 170, p. 472.

1332See p. 707et seq.

1333Hansard, vol. 169, pp. 832, 991, 1037; vol. 170, pp. 786, 1246, 1247; vol. 192, p. 832. &c.

1334Ibid.

1335Thus, in the “Reply on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government to the Answer of the United States of America,” submitted to the International Fisheries Commission at Halifax in 1877, it was said: “It is not understood that the Answer either raises or invites the discussion of any rules or doctrines of international law, save such as bear upon the question of what are to be considered the territorial waters of a maritime State for the purposes of exclusive fishing. The contention of the Answer in relation to these doctrines which requires special attention, is that which asserts that Great Britain and other Powers have traditionally recognised a rule, by which foreigners were excluded from fishing in those bays only which are six miles, or less, in width at their mouths. It is distinctly asserted on the part of Her Majesty’s Governmentthat this alleged rule is entirely unknown to, and unrecognised by, Her Majesty’s Government, and it is submitted that no instance of such recognition is to be found in the Answer or the Brief accompanying the same, and that none can be produced.” This was approved of by the Earl of Derby, Foreign Secretary (the Earl of Derby to Mr Ford, August 31, 1877; the same to the same, Oct. 6, 1877).

133611th Nov. 1908. Hansard, vol. 196, p. 236. Very important declarations as to the territorial character of bays will be found in the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, on the North Atlantic Fisheries (7th September 1910, Award No. V.), received as these sheets are passing through the press. The application of the three-mile limit to bays was rejected, the following rule being formulated: “In case of bays the three marine miles are to be measured from a straight line drawn across the body of waterat the place where it ceases to have the configuration and characteristics of a bay. At all other places the three marine miles are to be measured following the sinuosities of the coast.” In its practical application to British North America, the Tribunal recommended a ten-mile limit generally, except for certain specified bays (including Chaleurs, Miramichi, Egmont) where special lines, enclosing much larger areas, are proposed.

1337Hansard, vol. 170, p. 1383. The miles referred to are English statute miles.

1338Hansard, vol. 191, p. 1769.

1339Reports of the British Delegates attending the International Conferences held at Stockholm, Christiania, and Copenhagen, with respect to Fishery and Hydrographical Investigations in the North Sea.Parl. Papers, Cd. 1313, 1903. Corresponding “Reports” to 1906 (Parl. Papers, Cd. 2966/06, 3033/06, 3165/06). Conseil Permanent International pour l’Exploration de la Mer,Rapports et Procès-Verbaux des Réunions, Copenhague. A summary on the subject, by Dr A. T. Masterman, will be found in the Minutes of Evidence, Committee on Fishery Investigations (Parl. Papers, Cd. 4304, p. 479, 1908).

1340“2. The delegates should propose that the scientific investigations shall be accompanied by a practicalexposéof the steps to be taken in order to bring the exercise of sea-fishing more in accord with the natural conditions regulating the growth and increase of fish in our seas, and thus permanently increase the supply of fish in the markets of the countries adjoining the North Sea. 3. In making this proposal, which they should do at the outset, the delegates should make it clear that the principal object the British Government have in directing them to take part in the Conference, is to secure a careful inquiry into the effect of present methods of fishing in the North Sea; and the delegates should give every assistance in promoting a scheme for determining whether protection against overfishing is needed, and, if so, where, when, and how such protection should be given. 4. The delegates should propose that a thorough scheme for obtaining statistical information with regard to the quantity and quality of fish caught by the different methods of fishing shall be organised, with a view of determining whether protection against overfishing is needed, either by the prohibition of trawling in certain selected areas or the limitation of fishing during certain selected seasons.”—Instructions to the British Delegates for the Meeting at Stockholm, 15th June 1899; Reports of the British Delegates, &c., p. 13.Parl. Papers, Cd. 1313, 1903; Committee on Fishery Investigations, Minutes of Evidence, &c., p. 278,Parl. Papers, Cd. 4304, 1908. The instructions of the British Government to the Delegates for the Meeting in 1901, at Christiania, were of similar tenour:—“His Majesty’s Government fully share in the interest shown in the cause of scientific research, but having regard to the importance of the evidence which was laid before the Select Committee of the House of Commons [see p. 709], and which was adopted by them as showing that the supply of fish in the North Sea is decreasing, they are of opinion that the consideration of this subject will admit of no delay, and you should press on your foreign colleagues the importance of entering at once upon the pursuit of investigations calculated to lead to an international agreement. You should in no way discourage or check any desire which you may find to exist for scientific research into problems not so immediately pressing, but his Majesty’s Government place in the forefront of their reasons for taking part in the forthcoming Committee the desire that no delay should be incurred in the adoption, by international agreement, of measures for arresting the diminution of the supply of fish in the North Sea, and for restoring, as far as possible, that source of supply to its former abundance.”Ibid., p. 278.

1341Memorandum drawn up by the Expert Members of the Ichthyological Research Committee, Report of the Committee appointed to Inquire and Report as to the Best Means by which the State or Local Authorities can Assist Scientific Research as applied to Problems affecting the Fisheries of Great Britain and Ireland (Parl. Papers, Cd. 1312, p. xxii, x, 1902).Evidence of Mr Walter E. Archer, Assistant-Secretary, Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, Minutes of Evidence given before the Committee appointed to inquire into the Scientific and Statistical Investigations now being carried on in relation to the Fishing Industry of the United Kingdom, pp. 277, 288, 346, 359 (Parl. Papers, Cd. 4304, 1908).

1342Reports of the British Delegates, &c.,Parl. Papers, Cd. 1313, p. 72, 1903. The countries represented were Great Britain, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Russia.

1343Hansard, vol. 169, pp. 992, 996; vol. 170, p. 786; and 11th Nov. 1908.

1344Mr Frank Barrett, of Grimsby, thus referred to the condition of the North Sea at the conference of the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association in 1905: “Unless they did something as a counterpoise to the continual trawling which was going on, they would find themselves powerless as regarded that splendid fishing-ground, the North Sea. He did not believe the North Sea, if left to itself, could last for ever. He was one of those who thought it could not last very long; and he thought they should apply the lessons of science in order to rehabilitate the North Sea.”Fish Trades Gazette, Oct. 14, 1905.

1345Mr G. L. Alward, one of the leading and most experienced trawl-owners of Grimsby, who was invited to take part in a discussion on sea fisheries in the Zoological Section of the British Association in 1906, thus referred to the subject. He said: “There was no doubt that the North Sea was deteriorated as a fishing-ground, and in order to maintain an adequate supply they had had to explore fresh fields. They had shifted the trawling-grounds to the coasts of Faröe, Iceland, and Norway, while others had had to go out into the Atlantic, to the Bay of Biscay, and to the coast of Morocco. But if they had exhausted the 147,000 square miles of the North Sea,—every mile of which had been fished,—and they fished out the area between Norway and Faröe and Iceland, not more than forty or fifty thousand square miles, with the same rapidity, they had to look forward to nothing short of a dearth of fish and a rise in value to famine prices.”Aberdeen Free Press, 9th August 1906.

1346According to an interesting table on a chart appended to theAnnual Report of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheriesfor 1906 (see fig. 28), the areas, in square miles, between the three-mile limit and the 200-metre line, are as follows: North Sea, 152,473; North of Scotland (Orkney and Shetland), 18,096; West of Scotland, 32,099; West of Ireland, 9066; Irish Sea, 15,743; Southwards of Ireland, 50,416; Bristol Channel, 8613; English Channel, 25,238. The area at Iceland is 36,608, and at the Faröes, 4949 square miles.

1347Hansard, vol. 169, p. 996; vol. 196, p. 217. I have been courteously informed by Mr Bjarni Sæmundsson, of Reykjavik, a well-known authority on the fisheries of Iceland, that no laws proposing to extend the territorial waters were passed, or proposed, by theAlthing.

1348Hansard, vol. 170, p. 786.

1349On Mem. 1 the words “le dit Roi Dengleterre et” follow “Procurors.”

1350Mem. 1 and 8, “de touz autres de son Roialme.”

1351Mems. 1, 14, and 15, “il ny ad.” Mem. 8, “du temps qil ny ad.”

1352Mem. 8, “aueroient este.”

1353Mem. 1, “oue touz les Isles et les apportenaunces.”

1354Mem. 1, the words are “estatuitz et defenses comunes et priuees” and the rest is omitted to “sur toute manere des gentz taunt,” &c. Mem. 8, “communes et priuees a garder pays et droiture entre tote manere des gentz tant,” &c. Mem. 15, “estatuitz et defences pur gouerner en toute manere,” &c.

1355Mems. 1, 8, 14, 15, “come de lour propre.”

1356Mem. 1, “oue.”

1357Mems. 1, 8, and 15, “oue.”

1358Mem. 1, instead of gouernement, “a la generalte”; Mem. 8, “a la garde.”

1359Mems. 1, 8, and 15, “le dit Roi.”

1360Mem. 1 omits “Dengleterre.”

1361Mems. 1 and 8, “Rois Dengleterre deputez eient este.”

1362Mem. 8, “de la dite seignurie et garde.”

1363Mems. 1, 8, 14, and 15, “forspris.”

1364Mems. 1, 8, and 15 insert “et.”

1365Mem. 15, “a.”

1366Mem. 1, “ou mesfaitz”; Mem. 8, “ou de mesfaitz.”

1367The sentence from “Et come” to “Coustumes” is omitted on Mems. 1, 8, and 15.

1368Mems. 1 and 8 omit “en vne cedule anexe ayceste,” and Mems. 1, 14, and 15 omit the whole of the next paragraph, recommencing “Monsieur Reymer Grimbaus.” Mem. 8d, paragraph commencing “Primerement.”

1369Mem. 8, “et a maintener.”

1370Mem. 8, “excepte pur le dit Roy.”

1371Mem. 8, “le dit Roy.”

1372Mem. 14 omits “et.”

1373Mems. 1 and 8 omit “Dengleterre.”

1374Mems. 1, 14, and 15, “du dit Roi.”

1375Mems. 8 and 15 insert “les.”

1376Mems. 1, 8, and 15 insert “et marchandises.”

1377Mem. 1 omits “et.”

1378Mem. 1 omits “de Fraunce.”

1379Mems. 1, 14, and 15 read (here and elsewhere) “ceo.”

1380Mem. 8 omits “et la prise,” &c., recommencing, “sur la forfaiture,” &c.

1381Mem. 14, “ou.”

1382Mem. 8 inserts “et.”

1383Mems. 1, 14, and 15, “sa.”

1384Mems. 1 and 8, “de par le dit Roi.”

1385Mem. 1, “de la”; Mems. 8, 14, and 15, “de le.”

1386Mems. 1, 8, 14, and 15 insert “a vous Seigneurs.”

1387Mems. 8 and 14, “qil.”

1388Mem. 8 inserts “il.”

1389Mems. 1, 14d, and 15 complete the passage as follows: “Come il purra suffire et en sa deffaute son dit seignur le Roi de Fraunce par qi il estoit deputeez al dit office et qe apres dewe satisfactioun faite as ditz damagez le dit Monsieur Reiner soit si duement punitz pur le blemissement de la dite alliance qe la punicioun de lui soit as autres example [Mem. 8, ‘ensample’] pur temps auenir.” Mem. 15 ends here. Mem. 8 transposes the next paragraph and the last.

1390Mem. 1, “aunciens”; Mem. 14, “auncienes.”

1391Mems. 1, 8, and 14, “ne.”

1392Mems. 1, 8, and 14 omit “nefs.”

1393Mem. 8, “leurs.”

1394Mem. 8, “doiuent.”

1395Mem. 8. “deuantdiz.”

1396Mems. 1 and 8, “les.”

1397Mems. 1 and 8, “ses.”

1398Mem. 8, “soy.”

1399[Sic]: not previously mentioned; probably Johan Paderogh.

1400Seebelow.

1401Side-note says: “The said goods have been delivered to Will. Bush.”

140224th Aug. 1303, Saturday.

1403St Lawrence,Aug. 10.

140429th Sept. 1303, Sunday.

1405Differences found in copy,State Papers, Dom., Chas. II., Vol. 339, p. 589, are shown in brackets.

Back to Index Next