To contemplate all the legislation concerning English sea-fishing and the administration of this vast industry during the last century is alike to bewilder the reason and to fatigue the patience. The industry is an enormous one, and of the utmost value to the dwellers in these islands. At the present time there are over 27,000 vessels, manned by more than 90,000 seamen, fishing from the ports of Great Britain. They land over 900,000 tons of fish, worth some £10,000,000, during the year. In addition to the fishermen who remove the fish from the sea, a considerable population of packers, curers, coopers, hawkers, etc., is employed. For instance, out of the 20,000 hands employed in the Shetland herring-fishery summer of 1906, 11,000 have been at sea, and 9,120, of whom 7,560 were women, have been employed on shore, not to mention the large number of railway employÉs who are engaged in the transport of a very perishable article. Apart from the material interests of the trade (the capital invested in steamers, sailing-boats, and gear of all kinds being estimated at more than £11,000,000), the fishing industry is of great importance to the country as a training-ground for sailors and marine engineers, and as affording a means of livelihood to a vigorous and an independent population.

Like any other industry, and—because the life-history of the inhabitants of the sea is still so obscure—perhaps more than any other industry, sea-fishing is liable to arbitrary fluctuations. There was, for instance, a partial failure in the herring-fishery in the summer of 1906 on the north and north-east of the Shetlands. The total number of crans landed was 438,950, as against 632,000 in 1905, a record year; and some of the Shetlanders have been hard put to it to live. Such a failure sets thinking those whose livelihood is threatened; but fishermen, although keen observers in what immediately concerns them, are not widely educated men, and cannot take into account in estimating causes, the many factors of the problems, some of which usually escape even the most talented of marine biologists. Fishermen seek a sign, usually an obvious one; in the present case, the bad season was attributed to the presence of certain Norwegian whaling companies, which a few years ago established themselves in the Shetlands and are destroying the common rorqual, the lesser rorqual, Sibbald’s rorqual, the cachalot, the humpbacked whale, and more rarely the Atlantic right-whale. These are killed for their blubber; the flesh is made into sausages, largely consumed in Central Europe; and the bones are ground up for manure.

It is, however, doubtful if whaling is in any way responsible for the scarcity of the herrings. According to the evidence collected by Mr. Donald Crawford’s Committee on this subject in 1904, it would appear that practically the only point on which the fishermen were then agreed was that the spouting of the whales was often a good guide as to the position of the herring-shoals. But the whales do not bring the herrings; and the fishermen are not even agreed that they serve to concentrate them. It is probable that the general migrations and shoaling habits of the herrings are far more dependent on the physical character of the water—a relation which is particularly clear, as the international investigations have already shown, in areas where sharply contrasted ocean-currents are constantly striving for the mastery as they are in the neighbourhood of the Shetland Isles. The hydrographical bulletin of the International Council recorded a distinctly lower temperature for the Atlantic current between Iceland and Scotland at the beginning of the year 1906 than at the corresponding season of 1903, 1904, or 1905; and an unusually low temperature has been characteristic of the Shetland waters throughout the summer of 1906. The Gulf Stream could more justly be blamed for the comparative failure of the Shetland fishery in 1906 than the Norwegian whalers, whose operations have probably done no more injury to the herring-fishery than they did in 1905 or the year before. Such failures are often real disasters to a seafaring population—a race who are, as a rule, of small versatility and unable to turn readily to new trades. Their occurrence usually provokes a cry for legislation.

Such an outcry is in this country usually met by the appointment of a Commission, or of a special Parliamentary Committee. Seventeen such inquiries into sea-fisheries have been held since Queen Victoria came to the throne, an average of one every four years. The usual process is gone through; a certain number of more or less influential gentlemen (one of them perhaps an expert) are given a ‘wide reference,’ and they proceed to take evidence. An energetic secretary, usually a young barrister, collects facts; a great number of witnesses, like Mrs. Wititterly, ‘express an immense variety of opinions on an immense variety of subjects.’ These are written down and printed; and the Commissioners, with the aid of the energetic secretary, seek to distil wisdom out of the printed evidence of the multitude, and base on it their recommendations. Legislation is sometimes recommended; but in the case of the sea-fisheries of this country it has, perhaps fortunately, seldom followed the presentation of any of these reports.

It seems, indeed, that the time is hardly yet ripe for deep-sea fishery legislation, much as it may be needed; and the reason is that our knowledge of the questions involved, although rapidly increasing, is still too deficient to form a sound basis for law-making. We propose to confine our attention mainly to the North Sea, and, from another point of view, mainly to the English fishing authorities, as opposed to those of Scotland and Ireland, in each of which countries the fishing industry is controlled by a separate Board. The fundamental and central question to be settled is whether there is a diminution in the fish generally, or in any particular species of food-fish in the North Sea area, by far the most productive of our fishing-grounds. If the answer is affirmative, we may ask, What is the cause of this diminution? and, How can it be arrested?

In 1863 Professor Huxley, Mr. (afterwards Sir) J. Caird, and Mr. G. Shaw Lefevre were constituted a Royal Commission to inquire—(1) whether or not the value of the fisheries was increasing, stationary, or decreasing; (2) whether or not the existing methods of fishing did permanent harm to the fishing-grounds; and (3) whether or not the existing legislation was necessary. Three years later the Commission reported; and their Report forms an important milestone on the road of English fishery administration.

Since 1866 great progress has been made in our knowledge of the life-history of food-fishes; yet even to-day we are hardly in a position to answer the questions set to Professor Huxley and his colleagues. At that time nothing was known about the eggs or spawn of the food-fishes. Even while the Commission was sitting, in 1864, Professor G. O. Sars for the first time discovered and described the floating ova of the cod, and succeeded in artificially fertilizing the ova and rearing the young. The following year he did the same with the mackerel; and Professor Malm of GÖteborg about this time obtained and fertilized the eggs of the flounder. Since that time we have found out the eggs of all the valuable food-fish, and artificially hatched most of them. But the facts about the cod’s eggs appear to have been unknown to the Commission. They had to rely upon such data as the return of fish carried by the railway companies, the current prices of fish in the market, the return on the capital invested, and the impressions of leading merchants and fishermen. They had little scientific knowledge of sea-fisheries to guide them, for the knowledge scarcely existed; and they had no trustworthy statistics. Nevertheless, as was usually the case when Professor Huxley was concerned, they arrived at very definite conclusions—conclusions which subsequent writers have felt to be, for the time when they were formulated, sound. There was no doubt that at that date, both in Scotland and in England, the fisheries were improving; the number and the value of the fish landed at our fishing-ports were annually increasing; the capital invested in the industry yielded a satisfactory return.

The Commissioners strongly opposed the bounty system, which had done so much to build up the herring-fisheries in Scotland. They recommended the policy of opening the ports and the territorial waters to foreign seamen. They regarded the sea as free to all, just as the International Congress of Lawyers in the autumn of 1906 declared the air to be. They found no reason to believe that the supply of fish was diminishing. They were aware of the enormous destruction, especially of immature fish, consequent upon the methods of fishing, but regarded this destruction as infinitesimal compared with what normally goes on in Nature, and held that it did no permanent harm to the fisheries. They recommended that all laws regulating fishing in the open seas should be repealed, and, with two exceptions, that similar laws dealing with inshore fisheries should also be repealed; and they suggested that an Act should be passed dealing with the policing of the seas. The Sea Fisheries Act of 1868 carried these recommendations into effect, removed from the Statute-book over fifty Acts, some dating back for centuries, and rendered it possible for a fisherman to earn his living ‘how, when, and where he pleased.’

But since 1868 much has changed. Beam-trawls continued to be increasingly used down to 1893, since which date they have been replaced, in steam-trawlers, by the more powerful otter-trawl. There has been an immense increase in the employment of steam-vessels. In 1883 the number of steamers was 225, with a tonnage of 6,654 tons; in 1892 the steamers numbered 627, with a tonnage of 28,271. During the same time the number of first-class sailing-vessels had sunk from 8,058 to 7,319, whilst the tonnage was practically stationary—244,097 tons in 1883, as compared with 244,668 tons in 1892. The introduction of the use of ice, which took place about 1850, and the invention of various methods of renewing and aerating the water in the fish-tanks, enabled the boats to remain much longer on the fishing-grounds, and to waste much less time in voyaging to and from the ports where the fish is landed. Further, the time spent on the grounds was appreciably lengthened by the employment of ‘carriers,’ which collect the fish from the fleet of trawlers and carry it to port. This process of ‘fleeting,’ as it is called, at first confined to the sailing-smacks, is still used by the large Hull fleets of steam-trawlers which provide Billingsgate and more recently, Hull, itself with daily supplies of trawled fish fresh from the fishing-grounds. There has also been a great growth in dock and other accommodation.

With the tendency to use larger vessels and more complex machinery came the tendency to form companies and syndicates. The fisherman ceased to own his boat, and now retains at best a share in it. The increase in size of both the vessel and the gear necessitates increased intricacy in the operations of fishing and increased specialization on the part of the hands. The old fishing community, whose fathers and grandfathers have been fishers, is disappearing before the advance of modern economic forces. The fishing-village is turning into the cheap seaside resort.

The scene of operations of the North Sea fisherman is by no means limited to the area in the map over which the two words wander. Roughly, for purposes of definition, we may say that a North Sea fisherman is one who lands his fish at an eastern port. Should he do so at a southern or western port, even though he hail from Lowestoft or Scarborough, he temporarily ceases, for our purpose, to be a North Sea fisherman. The North Sea codmen work along the Orkneys, the Shetland and FarÖe Islands, Rockall and Iceland. The fishing-grounds of East Coast trawlers now range from Iceland and the White Sea to the coasts of Portugal and Morocco. Boats have gradually made their way along the Continental coasts on the eastern side of the North Sea, opening up, about the year 1868, the grounds to the north of the Horn reef off the Danish coast. In this direction, as in the Icelandic grounds, the pioneers have been the codmen and the ‘liners,’ who catch their fish on hooks attached to long lines—sometimes seven miles in length and carrying 7,000 hooks—which are lowered to near the bottom and attached to buoys. The ‘liners’ also first exploited the more central portions of the North Sea, fishing the great Fisher Bank for many years before the appearance there, about thirty years ago, of the trawlers, who have only used it as a winter-ground since about 1885. It was not until about 1891 that trawlers visited the Icelandic grounds.

In spite of the increase in the area of the fishing-ground which took place in the last century, the intensity of the fishing has more than kept up with the new areas exploited. Professor Huxley’s Commission held the view that not only were there as good fish in the sea as ever came out of it, but that the fish were as many and as large as before, and that there was no reason to suppose their number would diminish. Indeed, when we consider that an unfertilized fish-egg is rarely found in the sea, and that, according to Dr. Fulton, of the Fishery Board for Scotland, the female turbot produces annually 8,600,000 eggs, the cod 4,500,000, the haddock 450,000, the plaice 300,000, the flounder 1,400,000, the sole 570,000, whilst the herring has to be content with the comparatively meagre total of 31,000, optimism seems permissible. On the other hand, the reflection that, if the stock of cod remains about constant, only two out of the 8,600,000 ova attain maturity, gives some idea of the destructive forces at work.

The eggs are expelled into water, whilst a male is ‘standing by,’ fertilized in the water, and (except in the case of the herring, whose eggs sink) those of the chief food-fishes float to the surface, where they pass the first stages of their development. Except, again in the case of the herring, which has definitely localized spawning-grounds, there has hitherto been little trustworthy evidence as to the existence either of stereotyped spawning migrations or of very definite breeding-grounds in the case of the chief food-fishes. The great Lofoten cod-fishery in spring is based on such a migration, as it is at this time of the year that the cod approach the coast in dense shoals for spawning purposes. During the summer, after the spawning is over, the cod disappear northwards. But with respect to the spawning habits of fishes in the waters most frequented by British fishermen we know little more than that the greater number of fish spawn in relatively deep water and at some distance from land. Light will doubtless be thrown upon this problem by the international investigations now in progress. The brilliant discovery by the Danish investigators of immense numbers of the fry of the common eel in the deep water of the Atlantic, west of Ireland, and the absence of the eggs and fry from the North Sea and Baltic, render it practically certain that the countless hordes of eels which leave the rivers of North Western Europe in autumn migrate to the ocean for spawning purposes; and, more remarkable still, that the delicate young elvers which enter the same streams in autumn have already overcome the perils of their long return migration.

Before considering the evidence for the existence of a progressive impoverishment of the fishing-grounds, it should be recorded that the Trawling Commission of 1885 held that the increase of trawling had led to a scarcity of fish in the inshore waters; and that to get good catches it was necessary to go farther to sea. Eight years later, the Select Committee of 1893 held that ‘a considerable diminution [had] occurred among the more valuable classes of flat-fish, especially among soles and plaice’; and that of 1900 reported that ‘the subject of the diminution of the fish-supply is a very pressing one, and that the situation is going from bad to worse.’

The evidence which induced this change of view rests partly on experiment, partly on statistics. Although the new view may be correct, none of the older sources of evidence are altogether satisfactory. One charge which used to be made against the trawl—that it destroyed the fish-spawn—has been disproved. The ova of all the prime food-fish, as we have seen, with the exception of those of the herring, float on the surface; and the herring is a fish that shows no sign of diminishing in number. In 1886 the Scottish Fishery Board began experiments to determine whether the number and size of fish were diminishing on a certain limited area or not. The Firth of Forth and St. Andrews Bay were closed against commercial trawling, and divided into stations. Once a month the ship employed by the Board visited each station and trawled over a given area. The fish taken were counted and measured. For the first few years the results indicated an increase of food-fish; but, taking a longer period and considering the flat-fishes alone, we find that the numbers of plaice and lemon-sole taken sank from 29,869 for the five years 1885-1890, to 28,044 for the five years 1891-1895. On the other hand, the dab, a comparatively worthless fish, had increased from 19,825 to 29,483.

These figures, it is true, have not been generally accepted as an exact measure of the changes which took place during the period investigated; but independent criticism has corroborated their general tendency. It looks as if protection had been encouraging the wrong sort—a process not unknown elsewhere. The explanation possibly lies in the facts adduced by Dr. Fulton that the plaice and lemon-soles spawn only in the deep water outside the closed areas, where they are subject to continuous fishing, with the apparent result of a decrease in the number of eggs and fry inshore; whilst the dabs spawn to a large extent in the protected waters, and many of them in the offshore waters are able, in consequence of their small size, to escape through the meshes of the commercial trawl, even when mature.

Two further experiments, carried out in 1890 and 1901 by the Scottish Fishery Board and the Marine Biological Association respectively, showed for the first time that the annual harvest of a given area bears a much larger proportion to the stock of fish than had been previously supposed. These were experiments with marked fish, designed originally to trace their migrations. Out of more than 1,200 plaice liberated in the Firth of Forth and St. Andrews Bay, more than 10 per cent. were recovered almost exclusively by hook and line. Owing to these waters being closed against trawlers, there is reason to believe that the number actually recaptured by trawl and line together was very much greater. Again, out of more than 400 marked plaice liberated on the Torbay fishing-grounds, 27 per cent. of those liberated in the bay, and 35 per cent. of those set free on the offshore grounds, were recaptured by trawlers.

The evidence derived from statistics has hitherto been, in many respects, unsatisfactory. In spite of the recommendations of more than one Royal Commission, nothing was done towards a systematic collection of fishery statistics until the late Duke of Edinburgh, at a conference held at the Fisheries Exhibition of 1883, happened to read a paper on some statistics collected by coastguards as to the quantity and quality of fish landed. This paper being sent to the Board of Trade, ‘it was decided to establish a collection of fishery statistics for England and Wales on the same lines, and generally by the same machinery, as has been recommended by His Royal Highness.’ Unfortunately, neither the lines nor the machinery have proved sound. The officials have also been hampered by want of funds. The Treasury offered £500 (afterwards increased to £700) a year for statistical purposes—a totally inadequate sum when distributed as wages among the 157 ‘collectors’ scattered round our coasts. The duties of these collectors were to send monthly returns of thirteen different kinds of ‘wet fish’ and three kinds of shellfish, stating the quantities landed and the market value at the port. They had no powers to demand information from anyone, or to examine books or catches or market-and railway-returns; and they were subject to but little if any supervision.

Not only were these statistics untrustworthy, even as a simple record of the quantities of fish landed, but they were rendered practically useless for exact inquiries concerning the decline of the fisheries, through the neglect of any precautions to discriminate between the catches in the home waters and those on distant fishing-grounds of a totally different character. Fish from Iceland, FarÖe, and the Bay of Biscay, as these areas were successively exploited, all went to swell the totals in the single column of ‘fish landed,’ thus rendering it quite impossible to determine the state of the fishery on the older fishing-grounds around our coasts. Taking the statistics as they stand, however, we find that during 1886-1888 the average quantity of fish annually landed on the coasts of England and Wales amounted to 6,263,000 cwt., valued at £3,805,000; during 1890-1892, 6,184,000 cwt., valued at £4,496,000; during 1900-1902, 9,242,000 cwt., valued at £6,543,000.

The average price of fish per cwt. in these periods was consequently 12s. 2d. in 1886-1888, 14s. 6½d. in 1890-1892, and 14s. 3½d. in 1900-1902. The census returns indicate that the population of England and Wales had risen in the meantime from about 28,000,000 in 1887 to 29,000,000 in 1891, and 32½ millions in 1901. We thus see that the people were steadily increasing their expenditure on fish, viz., from 2s. 9d. per head in 1887 to 3s. 1d. in 1891, and to 4s. per head in 1901. The quantity consumed amounted to 25 lb. per head in 1887, 23·9 lb. in 1891, and 38·8 lb. in 1901.

To appreciate the significance of these figures it is necessary to bear in mind that, prior to 1891, the fishing was mostly prosecuted in the North Sea and in the immediate neighbourhood of our coasts. During this period the price rose 20 per cent. and the supply fell—facts which indicate with tolerable certainty that the yield of the older fishing-grounds had reached its limits, if it was not actually declining. But in the following decade the conditions were reversed; the supply increased 50 per cent., and the price fell 3d. per cwt. This was the period of rapid increase in the number of steam-trawlers, of the exploitation of new fishing-grounds in distant waters, and of a great expansion of the herring-fishery.

There was thus no question of a general scarcity of fish. Fishing-boats were multiplying, and supplies increasing by leaps and bounds. Between 1891 and 1901 the average annual catch of plaice rose from 677,000 cwt. to 959,000 cwt., that of cod from 367,000 to 748,000 cwt., and that of herrings from 1,400,000 to 2,800,000 cwt. In the absence of specific information as to the yield of the older fishing-grounds, Parliament and the Government turned a deaf ear to the fishermen’s complaints.

But in 1900 it was shown to the Parliamentary Committee on the Sea Fisheries Bill of that year that, during the past decade, characterized (as we have seen) by a general fall in the price of fish, the price of plaice had risen 17 per cent., and that of other valuable flat-fishes from 3 to 6 per cent. It was also shown that, while the catching power had multiplied three-fold in ten years, the catch of trawled fish had only increased 30 per cent. In 1901 the inspectors of fisheries provided a table contrasting for ten years the annual supply of trawled fish at Grimsby, Hull, and Boston (which receive the products of the Icelandic fisheries), with that of other East Coast ports which derive their fish exclusively from the North Sea. In the former ports the supply had increased from year to year, while at the other ports the supply during the years 1895-1900 was in no year so great as in the least productive of the years 1890-1895. The fishermen’s case was at last made out; and in 1902 the late Government decided to participate in the investigations recommended by the Christiania Conference in 1901 for the purpose of formulating international measures for the improvement of the North Sea fisheries.

It is satisfactory to turn from the past records of neglect, from the supineness of the authorities, the imperfections of the statistics, the inadequate pittance devoted to investigations, to the progress which has taken place since the Government decided to devote a reasonable proportion of public funds to the improvement of knowledge on fishery subjects. The collection of official statistics has been reorganized on all our coasts on a system which aims at obtaining complete accounts of the results of each voyage of every first-class fishing-boat; the catches of trawlers and liners are now distinguished; the quantities of fish caught in the North Sea are distinguished from those taken beyond that area; the quantities of large, medium, and small fish are separately recorded in important cases; the numbers, tonnage, and landings of different classes of fishing-vessels are separately enumerated.

It is interesting to note the first results of the more exact system introduced in 1903. Considering only the fish caught in the North Sea and landed on the East Coast, we note a marked decline in the total catch of steam-trawlers during the years 1904, 1905, and 1906, and an increase in the catch of sailing trawlers. The former declined from 4¾ million cwt. in 1903 to 3¾ million cwt. in 1905; the latter increased from 277,000 cwt. in 1903 to 296,000 cwt. in 1905. It is shown, however, that these changes were accompanied by a considerable fall in the amount of fishing by steam-trawlers and a rise in the case of the sailing trawlers, so that inferences concerning impoverishment or the reverse would be premature. Nevertheless a fall in the abundance of haddock may be inferred from the fact that not only the total catch of this species, but also the average catch of the boats fell off continuously from 8·4 cwt. per diem in 1903 to 6·1 cwt. per diem in 1905. The fall is also seen to be mainly due to a scarcity of ‘small’ haddocks in 1904 and 1905 as compared with 1903. With the conclusions to which such data as these are likely to lead we are not now concerned; but these examples are sufficient to show that the official statistics are no longer a confused mass of useless figures, but a rational and fairly accurate system capable of analysis.

We have now to examine those experimental branches of investigation which are equally necessary for the effective solution of fishery problems. The chief possible causes of an impoverishment of the sea are three in number. First, as in the central United States the accumulated richness of a virgin soil produced at first huge crops, so, when fishing began in the North Sea an accumulated wealth, both in the number and in the greater size of the individual fish, was drawn upon. This ‘accumulated stock’ has been fished out.

Secondly, a given area of the sea, like a given area of land can support but a limited quantity of produce. There is a definite amount of food for fish in a definite volume of sea; a limit is therefore set to the number of fish in that volume of water. Professor Hensen and Professor Brandt, of Kiel, have shown that a square metre of the Baltic produces an average of 150 grammes of dry organic material in the shape of diatoms, copepods, and other floating organisms. A similar area of land produces 180 grammes of ultimate food-substance. The productivity of the sea is judged on this basis to be about 20 per cent. less than that of the land. The actual amount is of less importance than the consequences it entails. If the methods of fishing are more destructive of one species than another, comparatively worthless species may become dominant in areas where they were formerly scarce, and thus consume the food which should be reserved for their betters. It is commonly reported that the dab has tended to usurp the position formerly taken by the plaice, not only in the Scottish firths, but on the Dogger Bank, in the Devonshire bays, and in other localities. Dr. Garstang, of the Marine Biological Association, tells us that small plaice transplanted to the Dogger Bank in 1904 grew three times as much in weight as did their fellows on the coastal banks; but in the following year they grew only twice as much, owing to the presence of vast quantities of small haddocks, which ate the plaice’s food and were nevertheless too small and worthless themselves to be landed by the fishermen. Yet formerly the Dogger teemed with large plaice and haddock. It was stated to the Royal Commission in 1863 that the fishermen avoided the Bank as causing gluts of fish and depreciation of price; and witnesses from Yarmouth and Hull assured the Commission that between two and three tons of fish, chiefly haddock and plaice, were frequently taken by smacks in a three hours’ haul. As small plaice are confined to the coastal banks, and large plaice are now scarce, it follows that the great food-reserves on the Dogger Bank, which seem providentially designed for the fattening of plaice, are wasted on worthless dabs and baby haddocks. Thus may one cause of impoverishment lead on to another. Perhaps the right remedy in a case like this is to promote the wholesale transplantation of young plaice, as in the case of oysters, mussels, etc. The experiments already made by the Marine Biological Association point strongly in this direction.

Thirdly, the excessive destruction of young fish is another, and perhaps the greatest, cause of the impoverishment of the sea. The destruction is enormous. In the winter of 1882-1883 it was estimated that in the Firth of Forth, the Firth of Tay, and the Moray Firth, 143,000,000 of young herrings and a much greater quantity of sprats were captured. These were mostly sold as manure. Yet the herring does not decrease; it is the flat-fish, the plaice and the sole, that suffer most. In 1896, 368 tons of small fish were seized by the Fishmongers Company at Billingsgate; in 1897, 143 tons; and in 1898, 96 tons. These were sold as manure or destroyed. Mr. Holt estimates that, while over 7,000,000 mature plaice were landed in the port of Grimsby during the year April, 1893, to March, 1894, over 9,000,000 plaice not sexually mature were brought to port; or, taking the trade distinction between ‘small’ and ‘large’ fish, over 6,500,000 plaice under 13 inches in length were landed, as against 9,700,000 over 13 inches. So many as 10,407 young plaice have been taken from a single drag of a shrimp trawl. These are but a few instances out of many, showing the great destruction which is going on among the young of our more valuable food-fishes.

The questions they suggest are still a matter of discussion. Whether even this destruction has an appreciable effect on the adult population is debatable. It does not seem to have affected the herring; and we must not forget the prodigious number of offspring given to fish. The taking of immature fish is not in itself uneconomic, unless by that means we so far reduce the total number that the adult stock begins to dwindle. Sardines are more valuable than their adult form, the pilchard; whitebait, mainly composed of young sprats, with from 1 to 20 per cent. of young herrings, fetch more in the market than the parent form; and so long as the adults exist in sufficient number to keep up the stock of fry, sardine and whitebait fishing is perfectly legitimate.

But, assuming impoverishment from one or other or all of the causes enumerated, we should ask what steps can be taken to check it, especially as regards the more valuable flat-fish. It is at this stage that scientific knowledge becomes particularly important. At least nine out of every ten Acts of restrictive legislation have been shown by experience to be futile, or to have produced results absolutely different from those anticipated. It is equally plain that the failure of these attempts to interfere with the natural course of events has been largely due to inadequate knowledge of the complicated factors which affect the growth, multiplication, and distribution of fish, and of the influence which particular modes of fishing exert upon the sources of supply.

Let us examine the first-mentioned cause of impoverishment, the destruction of the ‘accumulated stock.’ This formula has been eagerly adopted by some who hesitate to admit the existence of any form of over-fishing. It implies that a state of equilibrium is possible between the forces of destruction and the forces of repair; that on virgin territory older individuals tend to accumulate beyond what is necessary for the maintenance of the ‘current stock’; and that their removal entails no real injury to the supply. In scientific terms this means that the average age of mature individuals of a natural stock may be reduced by man to a lower point which represents the economic optimum. The Patagonian cannibals seem to have been early converts to the soundness of this theory. The difference between the Patagonian who eats his mother-in-law and the fisherman who destroys the overgrown plaice is that the former’s actions are deliberate and limited, while the removal of the accumulated stock is not so much an object of the fisherman as an unpremeditated consequence of the intensity with which fishing operations tend to be conducted. Does the fisherman abate his operations when the economic optimum has been reached? Clearly not. He fishes till it ceases to pay; and no other motive affects him. It is plainly a question for scientific inquiry whether, in a given case, the fishery has been prosecuted to excess, and has reduced the average age too far, or not.

On this question the International North Sea Investigations have already thrown valuable light, for the study of the intensity of fishing by means of definite experiments with marked fish has formed an important part of the programme; and the investigation of the age of plaice, cod, and other species has been vigorously prosecuted. According to the latest report of the Council of the Marine Biological Association, more than 7,000 marked plaice have been set free by their staff, and 24 per cent. altogether have been recaptured. Of the medium-sized fish which, furnish the best test of the intensity of fishing, 30 per cent. in twelve months have been captured in the southern part of the North Sea, where sailing trawlers predominate, and 40 per cent. on the Dogger Bank and adjacent grounds, where the fishing is done by steam-trawlers. It seems, however, that some of the fish lose their labels before being caught again. A still closer idea of the severity of the fishing may perhaps be got from another experiment with weighted bottles, which were specially devised by Mr. G. P. Bidder to act as indicators of bottom currents, and were thrown overboard from the Huxley in the winter of 1904-1905, in the southward parts of the North Sea. Out of 600 bottles more than 54 per cent. were returned by trawl fishermen within twelve months. If anything like half the adolescent stock of plaice is taken by our trawlers every year on the deep-sea fishing-grounds, the establishment of the fact must profoundly affect our views as to the causes of depletion and the remedies to be applied; for the fishing in these instances seems not to have been on the so-called ‘small-fish’ grounds or nurseries, but in areas which have always been recognized as legitimate fields of work.

The possibility of determining the age of fish is quite a recent discovery, and is based on the observation that the scales, vertebrÆ, and especially the ‘otoliths’ or ear-stones of fish, show alternate dark and light rings of growth, corresponding with the summer and winter seasons of the year, exactly like the rings in the wood of trees. Many difficult problems are likely to be cleared up by a knowledge of the age of fish on different fishing-grounds; and, to judge from the scale on which this investigation is being pursued, it will not be long before we may expect something in the nature of an age-census. The Council of the Marine Biological Association have reported no less than 12,000 age-determinations of plaice by their North Sea staff up to June last; and the German and Dutch investigators are working on similar lines.

To conclude our argument, we should now examine the question whether it is possible to determine to what extent and in what manner the destruction of immature fish, which is admittedly enormous, is injurious to the permanent supply. We have already referred to Mr. Holt’s statistics, which showed that 40 per cent. of the plaice landed in Grimsby in the year 1893-1894 were below 13 inches in length. In 1904, 30 per cent. of the plaice landed from the North Sea on the whole East Coast were below 11 inches in length. German statistics show that from 1895 to 1904 there was no sensible increase in the total weight of plaice landed in that country, but the proportion of ‘small’ fish (below 14 inches in length) steadily increased from 68 per cent. in 1895 to 87 per cent. in 1904. There can thus be little doubt that the supply is being maintained only by drawing more and more upon the fish of smaller size and of less value.

It seems to have been too readily assumed, however, that this increasing destruction of small plaice is the great cause of the declining catches of better fish. Has the cart not been put before the horse? In view of what has been said above concerning the general severity of the fishing, does it not look as though the capture of increasing quantities of small plaice were a consequence, and not the cause, of the general depletion of the grounds? The people demand plaice. The proprietor of a large fried-fish shop in the East End was a witness before the House of Lords Committee on the Sea-Fisheries Bill of 1904. His customers numbered from 500 to 3,000 daily; and there were 2,000 other establishments of the same kind in London. He told the Committee: ‘Plaice is the most popular fish in our line of business; people do not care for any other.’ Owing to the higher price of plaice, however, he was often compelled to substitute cheaper kinds of fish. In one month he had even made five purchases of small turbot and brill, against only two of plaice, in order to meet the demand. ‘You must understand,’ he added, ‘that amongst the class of people we deal with we do not sell turbot and brill as turbot and brill; we have to sell it as plaice. Plenty of people, if you said you had turbots, would not have them.’ It is obvious that fishermen would not land small plaice if large were plentiful. It was not until the large fish became scarce that fishermen began to take the small.

If these facts are correctly stated, the remedial treatment of the undersized-plaice problem must be taken up from a new standpoint. We must apparently give up the expectation that by merely stopping the destruction of small plaice we shall replenish the sea. The fishing seems to be too severe for that. Every autumn our trawlers fish the waters between the Dogger and the eastern grounds, confident that they will take a good catch of medium-sized plaice averaging 12 to 15 inches in length. These are fish which no fisherman in these days would despise. Though mixed with a considerable proportion of still smaller fish, no possible size-limit will prevent him from reaping this annual harvest. These fish, as has now been shown by the North Sea experiments, are undertaking their first migration from the coastal grounds to the deeper waters. However much we protect the still smaller fish inshore, this wall of nets will be interposed every autumn between the shore and the open sea. The greater the benefits of protection inshore, the denser will be the barrier confronting the fish outside, and the smaller the chances of escape.

To this must be added a new disturbing element, mentioned by Dr. Garstang in his evidence before the House of Lords Committee in 1904. It is generally agreed that the only possible form which protection can take is that of a size-limit, below which it shall be illegal to land or sell fish. In the case of steam-trawlers this limit must be high enough to render it unprofitable for the boats to fish on grounds where the small plaice are most abundant, since the majority of undersized fish are too much injured in the process of capture to be capable of survival if returned to the sea. It is otherwise with the small local sailing-boats (whether Danish, German, or Dutch) which are accustomed to fish on the small-fish grounds. These boats catch the fish alive and throw the undersized fish overboard in a living condition. As they can operate nowhere else, it may be taken for granted that the Governments of their respective countries, however anxious they may be to improve the fisheries, will scarcely consent to impose such a size-limit as to render it unprofitable for their local boats to fish.

The utmost possible protection of the small plaice would consequently be attained by determining (a) a high size-limit for steam-trawlers, practically debarring them from fishing on the coastal grounds; and (b) the highest size-limit for sailing-boats that would be consistent with the profitable pursuit of their calling. The first pick of the fish would consequently fall to the local boats; and, if protection should result, as it is reasonable to expect, in an increase in the number of plaice on the coastal grounds, there would be every inducement for these local boats to multiply in number, with the laudable object of catching as many as possible of the marketable plaice before they could migrate to the offshore waters. In practice some fish would escape; but, in the absence of any restriction upon the number of local boats, there seems no reason to expect that the number of emigrant plaice would, in the long run, be any greater than at present. Even under existing conditions, the local fishery on the west coast of Denmark has developed from a value of about £40,000 in 1897 to nearly £80,000 in 1904.

If, however, we are right in assuming that a given area of ground can only produce a given weight of fish per annum, it is fairly certain that, under protection, the increased density of the fish inshore will result in a retardation in the average rate of growth, an example of which we have given on a previous page. This must produce one or other of two results: either the small fish will remain longer on the inshore grounds before emigration, or they will emigrate offshore at a smaller size than at present. Judging, therefore, from the evidence available, it seems probable that legislative restrictions on the lines indicated can do little to replenish the offshore fishing-grounds, while such restrictions may lead to a slight, and possibly a substantial, increase in the number of small boats fishing along the coasts affected.

While Great Britain can grudge no benefit to the fisheries of other countries, it is the improvement of the deep-sea fisheries which is the paramount interest of this country. Doubts, it has been said, are resolved by action; but if we have correctly analyzed the complicated factors which affect this problem, we have also shown how essential to right action is the fullest possible knowledge concerning all the factors involved. Grave as the North Sea problem undoubtedly is, it is equally certain that the condition of the fishing industry generally was never more prosperous than at the present time. The figures quoted in an earlier part of this article prove this statement to be no paradox. Interference of some kind, whether by legislation, transplantation, artificial culture, or some combination of all these means, seems ultimately to be inevitable. But, if we are to interfere with the fishing industry more successfully than our predecessors, we should take advantage of the present time of prosperity to increase our knowledge on every side—scientific, statistical, experimental—so as to be able to act with conviction when the whole circumstances are clearer and the adequacy of our proposals is less open to doubt. Moreover, in view of the growing interest of other countries, especially Germany and Holland, in deep-sea trawling, and of the international character of the most critical problems, there can be no two opinions as to the desirability of continuing these investigations on some kind of international basis, a basis which has already been productive of very promising results.

Before turning our attention to the various bodies which administer and investigate the fisheries of England, a short consideration of what is done in the two great countries which have scientifically developed their fisheries may be profitable. In Germany we have the Kiel Commission, and in the United States the Commission of Fish and Fisheries. The Kiel Commission exists for the scientific investigation of the German seas. It was established in 1870 at the suggestion of a German sea-fishery society—an interesting example of the belief which the German layman has in science. It consists of four Kiel professors—Hensen representing physiology, Karl Brandt zoology, Reinke botany, and KrÜmmel geography—and of Dr. Heincke, director of the biological station on Heligoland. An annual grant of £7,500 is made by the German Government for the maintenance of the laboratories at Kiel, the cost of steamers for investigations, the cost of the handsome reports published under the name of ‘Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen,’ and for salaries; of these the five members of the Commission divide but £270 between them. The German Government has also spent considerable sums on the biological station in Heligoland, and make it an annual allowance of about £1,000.

The American Commission, like that of Kiel, is not an administrative body, but concerns itself with the acquisition and application of knowledge concerning fisheries; like it, too, it is independent of official control. It reports directly to Congress. It was established in 1871. Its work is, however, of a more practical kind; besides general scientific investigation, it collects fishery statistics and undertakes commercial fishery inquiries, assists in finding markets, and generally advises the trade and the Legislature when diplomatic action is indicated; finally, it is by far the most energetic fish-breeding institution in the world. Much of its work is concerned with the vast system of inland waters—rivers and lakes—which traverse the Continent. The work has been carried out on a scale unknown elsewhere, and Congress has supported it with ample funds. The appropriation in 1897-1898 exceeded £97,000, of which £41,000 was spent on salaries, £16,000 on scientific investigations and upkeep of steamers, £37,000 on fish-culture (mostly fresh-water), and £3,000 on administration and statistics. Besides this central body, many of the States possess fish commissions of their own. The commissioners control numerous laboratories and fish-hatcheries, two sea-going vessels, and many railway-cars specially designed for the transport of fish-fry.

Space does not permit our dealing with the Scottish and Irish Fishery Boards. The former has existed for a century, and, being independent of departmental control, while enjoying a moderate income and the advice of such zoologists as Goodsir, Allman, Sir John Murray, Cossar Ewart, W. C. McIntosh—who has done more than anyone in the Empire to elucidate the life-histories of marine fishes—and D’Arcy Thompson, together with an able staff, the Fishery Board for Scotland has done much thorough and useful work. The fisheries of Ireland suffered from the economic disturbances which overtook Ireland during the nineteenth century, and reached, perhaps, their lowest ebb in 1890. The industrial revival, with which the name of Sir Horace Plunkett is so indissolubly connected, has included in its scope the Irish fisheries. The fishery branch of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction receives an annual grant of £10,000, and, under the guidance of the Rev. S. Green and Mr. E. W. L. Holt, is already doing much to promote the fishing of the well-stocked Irish seas.

The English official fishery staff seems to have sprung from the requirements of the Salmon Fishery Act of 1861. To carry out the regulations over fresh-water fisheries recommended by that Act two inspectors were appointed, and these were at first attached to the Home Office; a further Act in 1886 transferred these inspectors to the Board of Trade, and extended their duties so as to include the preparation of annual reports on sea-fisheries. In 1903 another transfer took place; and the inspectors were transferred to the Board of Agriculture, which then became the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

At present the central staff consists of an assistant secretary and two inspectors, in addition to a body of statistical experts. Their duties are far too numerous for so small a staff. Much of their time is taken up with the comparatively unimportant fresh-water fisheries; and these are the subject of a separate report. Without actually administering the byelaws of the local committees, they exercise a certain supervision over their actions. They have to attend numerous inquiries all over the country, and to prepare annual reports; and they are responsible for the collection of the statistics which have recently assumed so extensive a development. Besides the central authorities at the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, there are local fisheries committees established by an Act of 1888. These committees can be established by the county and borough councils on application to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, which defines the area over which a committee shall have jurisdiction. One-half of such a committee is chosen by the local councils, and one-half by the central authority. The necessary money is raised by a local rate. A committee may draft byelaws; but these only become operative if confirmed by the Board. These byelaws differ, according to conditions, in different parts of England. They deal largely with restrictions on trawling. No steam-trawler is allowed to trawl within the three-mile limit around the coast of England; even the sailing trawler is forbidden. The byelaws also deal with the sizes of the meshes of nets, shrimping, crabbing, etc.

Neither the central authorities, whose chief function is to administer the law and collect statistics, nor the local committees, whose expenditure is limited to the ‘shell-fisheries’—and, stretch the Act to the breaking point, you still cannot make a flat-fish into a shellfish—have either the time or the money for scientific experiment. This has to a large extent been left to local or private enterprise, and is mainly confined to three centres—the Northumberland coast, the Lancashire and western district, and the Channel and North Sea. The first-named area has recently been supplied by a private benefactor with funds for an efficient laboratory at Cullercoats, from which much useful work may be expected.

It is difficult to disentangle the Lancashire and Western Sea-fishery Committee from Liverpool University on the one hand, and from the Liverpool Marine Biological Committee or Society on the other. The Committee owns a handsome marine station at Port Erin, on the Isle of Man; here and at the fish-hatchery at Peel, in Cumberland, the largest fish-breeding experiments in England are carried out. In 1904, 5,000,000 young plaice were reared and put into the sea from Port Erin alone. The Committee publishes annual reports and a series of ‘Memoirs.’ It is probably to this Committee that the University owes its connexion with the local sea-fisheries authorities. In the laboratories and museums of the University the scientific work of the local districts is carried on by officials paid by the Fisheries Committee; and special rooms in the handsome new zoological department have been assigned to these two organizations. The connecting link between the three bodies is the professor of zoology, Dr. Herdman, who is honorary director of the scientific work, and to whose untiring energy the University and the district owe a large debt. With him work two trained naturalists, Dr. Jenkins, the Superintendent of the District Committee, and Mr. James Johnstone, whose lucid and admirable work is mentioned at the head of this article. From it many of our figures and facts have been taken.

The third and last body occupied with original marine research is the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. It is the most important of these institutions, and aims at a national rather than a local activity. The fine laboratory which dominates the eastern end of Plymouth Hoe was erected at a cost of £12,000, and opened in 1888. The object of the Association is to ‘promote researches leading to the improvement of zoological and botanical science, and to an increase of our knowledge as regards the food, life-conditions, and habits of British food-fishes and molluscs.’ Although a high average of scientific work has been displayed in the published ‘Memoirs’ connected with the Plymouth laboratory, great attention has also been paid to matters of practical interest. In a list of some 350 papers published, with the aid or under the auspices of the Association, between 1886 and 1900, nearly one-half deal directly with economic problems. From 1892 to 1895 the officers of the Association carried on at Grimsby extensive investigations into the destruction of immature fish; and it is gratifying to find that the Select Committee of 1893 extended its recognition to the ‘facts and statistics’ submitted by the Scotch Fishery Board and by the Association. In the summer of 1902 the Association, at the request of the Government, undertook to carry out the English portion of the International Investigation of the North Sea. The scope of this inquiry is immense; and its importance to the largest fisheries available for our fishermen is incalculable. Some idea of the kind of work accomplished has been furnished in the preceding pages.

What now seems to be most required, in addition to the maintenance of the work already in progress, is a closer co-operation of these various bodies with one another and with the central authority now established under the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. The outlines of some such scheme seem plainly indicated by the existing constitution of these various bodies. The Fisheries Department is responsible for administration, statistics, and general advice to the President of the Board on fishery matters. The Marine Biological Association undertakes general marine investigations of a national as distinct from a local character, as well as such local investigations and experiments as can conveniently be carried out at its laboratories. The Sea-fishery Committees need additional powers to enable them to carry out local scientific investigations more fully in their respective areas. Perhaps an annual conference between the representatives and experts of these bodies and the officials of the Fishery Department, for the express purpose of drawing up plans of work for the ensuing year, would, in the first instance, be the best means of leading up to more intimate co-operation and organization.

The Reports on the North Sea Investigation so far published deal only with the work of the earlier years of the investigations; but already the great prospective value of the results is fully apparent. The Marine Biological Association has carried out the portion of the general scheme entrusted to it with energy and success; and Englishmen have no need to fear comparison with the work done in other countries.