ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

defects of trawled herrings, where they exist, depend very much upon the mode in which they are treated after they are caught; that it is a matter of their own observation that herrings may be taken by the trawl in considerable quantities, alive, and perfectly uninjured,' whilst there is the evidence of fish-curers to prove that drift herrings may, if badly managed, fall into the very same condition as that which is alleged to be characteristic of trawled herrings.' Can any one be surprised if the following treatment congeals the herring's blood, which, being incapable of flowing at the gutting, blackens the backbone, and ultimately the fish itself?—

We have ourselves seen,' the Report continues, '80 crans, or upwards of 90,000 herrings, arriving in one boat, under the burning heat of an August morning, shovelled into baskets, and then conveyed in carts, late in the morning, to the station of the impatient curer. If the general catch is large, the herrings must be again heaped up in the curing-pits.'

But, as the Commissioners very justly say, differences of opinion upon the point of inferiority for curing purposes of trawled fish over drift-net ones are really of very little moment. The question is not whether the trawled fish yield an article as delicate-looking and tempting to a connoisseur as the drift-net fish, but whether they furnish so cheap and nutritious a food that there is an abundant demand for them.'

Neither have the Commissioners been able to find any satisfactory proof that trawl or circle-net fishing for herrings is, when properly managed, in any way wasteful or destructive to the spawn and fry:

'We are of opinion,' they say, 'that it has been, and may be, a very important means of supplying the market with an abundance of fish, and that not unfrequently under circumstances which preclude the capture of herrings by the drift-net fishermen. And whatever may be the case as regards herrings, it is certain that a method of fishing precisely similar to the so-called "trawling" has been practised in taking pilchards from time immemorial on the coast of Cornwall, without any suspicion having arisen that it is destructive to the brood of the fish, or that it in the slightest degree injures the fish for curing purposes.'

We need dwell no longer on this part of the subject, but will only remark that the various complaints against certain successful modes of fishing, made by fishermen who have neither the energy nor inclination to adopt them themselves, appear for the most part to be utterly untenable. It is, we think, impossible to read the evidence, and not to agree with the Commissioners, that none of these complaints are of sufficient gravity

[ocr errors]

to render special legislation necessary or desirable, except as a matter of police.'

6

In reviewing the complaints of one class of fishermen against another, the Commissioners have very wisely and fairly assumed as a postulate, that, prima facie, one class of fishermen have as much right to use the sea for the purposes of their trade as any other. No one has any vested right, or exclusive interest, justifying him in so occupying the sea as to prevent others from fishing in his vicinity. For example, if a line-fisherman shoots a line of three miles, he has no right to say that no trawler shall work near it, so as to run the chance of working over it or destroying it; he lays his line at his own risk, with the knowledge of the danger, and subject only to a remedy at law, if it can be shown that the trawler wilfully or negligently damaged it.'

They consider that there would arise a fair case for legislation, if it could be clearly shown that a given mode of fishing is by far the most profitable, but is impeded, or prevented, in consequence of another and less profitable mode of fishing being carried on over the same ground. But that, if two or more modes of fishing are carried on at the same time, subject to certain unavoidable losses arising from their mutual interference, unless it be clear that a larger supply of fish would be acquired by restricting the use of one of them, it is the interest of the public that no such restriction should be made.

With respect to the third question which the Commissioners had to consider, viz., whether any existing legislative restrictions operate injuriously upon any of the sea-fisheries, it is necessary first of all to say something about the practical working of existing laws.

The fisheries are either unrestricted or restricted. Upon certain kinds of fishery no restrictive legislation has taken place. There is none, for example, upon line-fishing. Any person is at liberty to catch fish, with hooks, when, where, and how he pleases; unless, indeed, he is limited by Art. 57 of the Convention Act, which prohibits the setting of fishing implements in any place where herring or drift-net fishing is going on. There is no restriction upon the size of the mesh, or the moke, of the net used in drifting for pilchards; nor upon any net used in sprat-fishing or lavidnian-fishing; nor in respect of the time of the year at which these fish may be caught. There is no restriction upon the taking of any kind of shell-fish (save oysters), except so far as such may be involved in the regulations affecting nets and other fishing implements.' The restricted fisheries are such as are either (1.) the subjects of general rules, or (2.) those which are limited by special regula

VOL. XLIV.-NO. LXXXVIII.

U

tions. As relates to the first division, modern legislation, in respect of the sea-fisheries of England, may be said to date from the Convention entered into between this country and France in 1839. Certain injuries, it had been alleged, had been committed by French fishermen fishing within British limits during the breeding seasons, and quarrels arose in 1837 and 1838 between the fishermen of France and those of the Channel Islands; hence the origin of the Convention, whose object was threefold-1. To define the limits of exclusive fishery all round the coasts of both countries; 2. To provide regulations for preventing collisions between the trawlers and the line and drift fishermen in the seas lying between the coasts of Great Britain and of France; 3. To settle the limits of the oyster fisheries between Jersey and France. Now, according to the ninth article of this Convention, British subjects were to have the exclusive right of fishing within three miles of low-water mark along the coasts of the British Islands, and French subjects similar rights on the coasts of France. In bays not more than ten miles in width, the three miles are to be measured from a straight line connecting the two headlands.' It appears that, in pursuance of the eleventh article of the Convention, which provides that, with a view to prevent the collisions which from time to time took place on the seas lying between the coasts of Great Britain and of France, between the fishermen of the two countries, a commission should be appointed to prepare a set of regulations for the guidance of the fishermen of the two countries, a code of regulations was drawn up and confirmed by the respective Governments in June 1843, and was on this side of the Channel embodied in an Act of Parliament, dated August 1843, popularly known as the Fishery Convention Act. This Act embraces other subjects than those contemplated by the Convention. It contains eighty-nine articles, some defining the boundaries and the limits of the exclusive fisheries between Jersey and the coast of France, others providing for the numbering of all fishing-boats, both British and French, others regulating trawlfishing, defining the size of net, length of beam, etc., and the distance trawlers may fish from herring-boats; others regulating the herring-fishery, others mackerel-fishing or oyster-fishing, others giving rules concerning nets, or instructions as to fishing on the Sabbath-day. According to the sixth section of the Act, the Queen has power to suspend the operation of these articles with respect to the fisheries on the coast of Ireland, and an Order in Council did, on the 23d of August 1843, suspend the Act with respect to the fisheries on the whole of the coasts of Ireland, so long as such fishery should be carried on exclusively by the subjects of Her Majesty. As foreign fishermen have

[ocr errors]

never been known to fish off the coasts of Ireland, the Convention Act has, in virtue of this Order in Council, had no operation on that coast.' Now it appears that there are great differences of opinion among the legal advisers of the Crown with regard to the limits within which this Act operates, whether, in fact, it has any operation within the three-mile limit from the shores of this country.

The better opinion appears to be that it has not, on the grounds (1.) That the Act is penal, and is therefore to be construed strictly; (2.) That the policy of the Act extends no further than the obligations under the Convention; (3.) That under the Convention, the obligations of this country extend no further than the enforcement of the regulations outside the three-mile limit. Within that limit, where no Frenchmen may fish, there is no obligation whatever arising out of the Convention, but this country is entitled to carry out what municipal laws and regulations it pleases.' The anomalous character of the Act, if it has no operation within the three-mile limit, is thus pointed out by the Commissioners-

'If this contention be right, there is in Great Britain a code of rules minutely regulating the boats, nets, modes, and even times of fishing of nearly all orders of fishermen, who fish beyond the three-mile limit of the coast, and of bays of less than ten miles' width; but, with certain possible exceptions, to be mentioned below, there is no law which in any way affects the fishermen who fish within the three-mile limit. They may fish with what boats or gear, or mesh, or wherever or whenever they please, without interference of the law; if, however, they use their nets beyond that limit, and they are such as are contrary to the provisions of the Convention Act, they are liable to have them seized. For example, the Convention Act forbids the mesh of a trawl-net to be less than one inch and three-quarters from knot to knot, with the plain intention of preventing the taking of fish below a certain size; so that if a trawler, using a mesh of only one inch from knot to knot, take care to confine himself to bays and creeks, where it is alleged the destruction of small fish does most harm, he is free from prosecution under the Act, and his nets cannot be seized; but if he goes beyond the limit into deeper water, where he is probably less likely to take young fish, he is liable to be fined £10, and his nets may be seized and condemned.'

Another objection to the Convention Act is, that it operates upon the French and English fishermen only. The Belgian and Dutch boats may, in the absence of any treaty engagements between their countries and ours, fish when, or where, and in what manner they please.

The Commissioners next comment upon an Act, 1 Geo. I. c. 18, which appears to be unrepealed, except so far as it relates

to the supply of fish to Billingsgate, by 9 and 10 Vict. c. 346. So very restrictive are the orders of this Act, that if it were enforced, every description of sea-trawling and shrimp-fishing would be practically prohibited.' One provision of this repressive Act was that all nets, excepting those used to take herrings, pilchards, and sprats, should have a mesh not less than three inches and a half from knot to knot; the consequence would be that fish of 6 lbs., or even 10 lbs., would pass through such nets. It appears that in England there is no board or public office whose special duty it is to make any regulations or bye-laws respecting the fisheries. Orders in Council have in some cases been made for the enforcement of or in restriction of the Convention Act; the Customs officers have, under that Act, the power of seizing nets, and the Admiralty have from time to time placed cruisers upon various parts of the coast to enforce observance of the Convention on fishermen, both British and French, who frequent it for the purpose of fishing. The cases which come most within their cognisance are such as arise out of the herring-fisheries on the north-east coast of England, where considerable numbers of French boats resort every year to prosecute the herring-fishery, and where at times disputes arise between the fishermen of the two countries; and in the English Channel, where, at the instance of the French Government, the regulations with respect to the oyster-fishery have been strictly enforced since 1852.'

The legislation with regard to the sea-fisheries in Ireland has for many years been in the hands of the Commissioners of Public Works, who have had an almost absolute authority to make regulations with respect to the different modes of fishing carried on there.' Now, although the Board is possessed of almost unlimited powers, the policy which it has pursued in exercise of those powers has been one, as far as possible, of non-interference with the fishermen; they say

[ocr errors]

We have been frequently urged to restrain particular modes of fishing, on the plea of their being injurious; whereas, in general, it was their effective results and novelty that occasioned the complaints against them; the objections chiefly arising from the competing interests of persons or communities who had habitually pursued different and probably inferior systems; and occasionally originating in some old-established prejudices, or assumed peculiar rights.'

With respect to the fisheries of Scotland, the Acts which have been passed bear almost entirely upon the herring-fishery; we shall confine our remarks with regard to the laws enforcing restrictions upon particular fisheries to their bearing upon the Scotch herring-fisheries. And here, as the Commissioners have

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »