The Sun.
London, England, 1833-10-29 00:00:00

2,-.IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN-CAUGHT FISH.

By the statute 1 Geo. 1., eat. 2. c. 18, 1714, entitled
"An Act for better preventing fresh fish taken by
foreigners being imported into this kingdom," reciting a
former Act, IS Charles 11., c. 2, " against importing fish
taken by foreigners," and that the same had been evaded
"by the fraudulent practices of persons trading in English
smacks and other vessels, who, when they are off at sea,
buy great quantities of fish caught by foreigners, and
import and market the same in this kingdom, to the grit
discouragement and impoverishment of his Majesty's
subjects, and the manifest detritnent of the fishery and
navigation ;" the importation of sea-fish of every descrip.
Lion (except turbots and lobsters, eels, stock. fish, anchovies,
sturgeon, botargo, and caveat.), " taken by, bought of,
or received from foreigners, or out of foreign vessels," is
prohibited under a penalty of 50/., which prohibition is
also contained in the table of prohibited goods in the
statute for granting the duties of customs, 6 Geo. IV.,
c. 107, s. 52 ; and heavy penalties and forfeiture are by
the same statute and by the 6th George IV., c. 10S,
imposed upon the parties, both foreigners and British
subjects, who may be implicated in such transactions.
Notwithstanding, however, the prohibition before.
mentioned, your Committee have been much surprised to
find that a very large illegal importation of foreign-caught
fish does, in fact, take plice ; and from the evidence
before them it appears that about one-third of the fish
supplied to the London market is procured from foreigners,
including in that estimate the turbots, eels, and lobsters,
which may be legally imported.
It is also proved to the satisfaction of your Committee,
that however secretly and to a less extent this practice
may have formerly been carried on, it is only within the
last few years it has been practised openly, and without
interruption on the part of the Government or officers of
his Majesty's Customs ; and notwithstanding the fisher-
men upon different parts of our coast have made frequent
complaints to the custom-house officer., and requested
them to interfere and prevent this practice, yet, from the
answers which they have generally received, namely,
" that if they could prove the fish to have been purchased
from foreigners, the custom house officers would then
interfere," and from other information which your Com-
mittee have received, they have reason to believe that the
general omission to enforce these laws has arisen from
misapprehension of the provisions of the statutes; and
they think it probable that less attention has been paid
to the subject by the officers of customs on the coast, in
consequence of the evasion of the laws in this particular
not being attended with any loss of revenue to the State.
Your Committee, however, beg to remark, that the
existence of the practice has been extremely injurious to
the English fishermen, not only by preventing such of
them us live at a distance from London from sending
their fish, as they used to do, to the London market, but
also by inducing the French fishermen to remain upon the
English coast, and thereby creating the destructive
competition before mentioned, as applicable to the coas's
of Kent and Sussex ; and that if their supplying the
English markets was prevented, they would not continue
upon our coast. Your Committee, therefore, strongly
recommend that effectual measures be immediately taken
for preventing the continuance of this system, which they
are of opinion may be easily done by proper instructions
being given, as before suggested, to the officers of Customs
and of the Revenue, and other cruising vessels upon the
coast, not to permit the transhipment of fish out of foreign
fishing vessels into the carrier boats which now attend
them for that purpose, nor to suffer such fish to be
otherwise imported into this country ; and your Committee
refer particularly to the sections 2d and sth of the statute
6 George IV., c. 108. which render forfeited any English
vessel eagaged in such transhipment within four league,,
of the coast between the North Foreland, in Kent, and
Beachey-head, in Sussex, or within eight leagues of any
other part of the coast; and also render forfeited any
foreign vessel having such prohibited articles on board
within one league of the coast of this kingdom, and not
proceeding on her voyage; and they refer also to the
pecuniary penalties imposed by other sections of the same
statute, and to the powers of seizure and proceeding before
magistrates, contained therein.
_ _

The practice complained of appears to prevail chiefly
off the mouth of the Thames, and upon the coasts of Kent
and Sussex, and to operate most injuriously during the
mackerel and herring seasons ; and as the latter season
will commence again in the end of September or beginning
of October next, your Committee desire to express their
hope that the protection suggested may be afforded pre-
viously to the commencement of that season, and to point
out its great importance in the present state of our
fisheries.

Upon the further question suggested by the complaint
of our fishermen, that they are so much injured by the
continued permission given to foreigners to import turbots
free of duty, your Committee find that, by the statute
before cited, 1 Geo. 1., stet. 2, c. 18. s. 10, turbots
were allowed to be imported " duty free," which per-
mission appears to have been continued down to the pre-
sent time by the various statutes regulating the duties of
customs. Your Committee have also felt themselves
called upon to make minute inquiry, not only from the
fishermen a limn they have examined, but also from
London fish-salesmen, and other disinterested witnesses,
in order to ascertain whether, if relief were afforded in
this respect also to the English fishermen, the markets of
this country would still be adequately supplied with this
valued species of fish: and your Committee have to report
that according to all the evidence which they have exa-
mined, and to which they bag particularly to refer, it has
been proved not only that the English fishermen will ade-
quately supply the British markets with turbots, without
increased prices, if foreigners are prohibited from im-
porting them, but that the alteration of the law in this
respect will tend very materially to revive the fisheries
connected with the coasts of Norfolk and Essex, and also
with those of Kent and Sussex, and will be of great
value to our fisheries in general. At the same time your
Coo mittee would observe, that as the turbot is con-
sidered to be a somewhat scarce fish in the Channel, the
chief supply of which appears to have been obtained for
upwards of a century by this country from the Dutch,
and is principally caught off the coast of Holland, though
in waters which are equally open to our own fishermen,
they think it would not be politic to prohibit the importa-
tion of turbots by foreigners until time has been afforded
to enable the British fishermen to prepare for making good
the decrease of supply thereby occasioned ; but that after
that time the importation of foreign•caught turbots should
be put under the same regulations as appiy to other prohi•
bited fish.

Yuur Committee also desire to state, that they are fully
satisfied that the further deficiency of supply to the Lon-
don market, which will be occasioned by the strict en-
forcement of the statute, as recommended in reference to
other fish at present imported contrary to law, will imme-
diately and without difficulty be made good by the Eng-
lish fishermen ; the injury resulting from the present
system being principally sustained by them during the
herring and mackerel seasons, and there being a sufficient
number of fishermen and vessels upon our coast to catch
whatever quantity of fish may be required for the supply
of our markets.

&fore quitting this branch of their inquiry, your Com
mittee would also mention that the English fishermen are
not allowed to import any description of fish into Fiance
or Holland ; but they represent it would be of consider-
able advantage to them if, when driven into any port of
these countries or of Belgium, by stress of weather or fur
repairs, they were permitted to sell a sufficient portion of
their fish to provide themselves with necessaries for their
support, an indulgence which it appears is permitted,
though perhaps without legal sanction, to the fishermen
both of France and Holland, under similar circumstances,
iu the ports of this country.
3.—SCARCITY OF FISH IN THE CHANNEL.
It has been proved to the satisfaction of your Committee
by the concurring testimony of witnesses from a'l pat is of
the coast, that a very great and increasing scarcity of all
fish which breed in the Corinne! (not including mackerel
or herrings, which are fish of passage), compared with
what was the ordinary supp!), from 15 to 20 years ago,
has long prevailed; and that, operating prejudicially to
the fishermen, at the same time that a continued fall of
prices has taken place In the markets, it is perhaps the
principal cause of their distress.

Now , it has been strongly pressed upon the attention of

ro. r
your mitteek has been satisfactorily
proved, that this scarcity• of filth- bar-been occasioned 47
the great destruction of the spawn and brood of fish, con-
sequent upon the non-observance of the lawi which• at
Present exist for their preservation, and by which the fish.
ing with ground or drag-nets within a certain distance of
the shore during particular sewn., or with drift or float-
ing nets at all seasons of the year, having the mesh of the
net under certain dimensions, has been declared unlawful :
and your Committee are of opinion that such laws have
not been enforced solely by reason of the insufficient pro.
visions which they contain for giving effect to their
enactments, and for want of proper officers being locally
appointed as conservators, or inspectors, to enforce them.
The statutes in question are the 3 James 1., c. 12 (anno
1605), entitled " An Act for the better preservation of
sea fi.h," which, reciting that "forasmuch as it is cer-
tainly known that the brood of sea fish is spawned and
Beth in still waters, where it may have rest and receive
nourishment to grow to perfection, and that those who
use draw nets, nets with canvass, or engines in the midst
of them, do, every day they fish, destroy the brood of all
sorts of fish in great multitudes," provides (sec. 2) that
" Every person who shall fish in any haven, harbour, creek,
or within five miles of the mouth of any haven, harbour, or
creek, with any draw net or drag net under three inches
mesh—viz., one inch and a half from knot to knot, or
with any net with canvass, or other engine or device
whereby the spawn, fry, or brood of sea fish may be de-
stroyed, shall forfeit such net and also 105.," to be reco-
vered as therein mentioned ; but permitting by another
clause the taking of herrings, pilchards, sprats, or lavi-
daian, with nets of a lesser mesh.

The 14th Charles IL, C. 28 (1662), " for regulating
the pilchard fishery in the counties of Devon and Corn-
wall," enacts (sect. 2), " That from the Ist of June to
the 30th of November in every year no person shall take
fish in the high sea, or in any bay, port, creek, or coast
of or belonging to Cornwall or Devon, ivith any drift-
net, trammel or stream-net or nets, or other nets of that
sort, unless at the distance of one league and a half from
the shore," under the penalty of forfeiting the nets, or
their value ; and one month's imprisonment of the of-
fender.

The 1 George 1., stat. 2, c. 18, (1714), entitled, "An
Act for the better preventing fresh fish taken by foreigners
being imported into this kingdom, and for the better pre
servation of the fish, Sm.," which, after prohibiting the
importation and sale in England of fish taken by or re•
ceived from foreigners, as before cited, providta (sect. 4),
'6 That the meshes of nets used at sea upon the coast of
England (except for herrings, pilchards, sprats, or lavi-
daian), shall not be less than three inches and a half from
knot to knot," under the penalty of forfeiture of the nets,
and of 201., with power of imprisoning the offender.
And by the same statute (sect. 7,) provision is made
for preventing the sale of fish under certain specified sizes,
under a penalty to be recovered before one justice.
And the 331 Gen. 11., c. 27, (1759), entitled " An
Act (among other things) to punish persons who shall
take or sell any spawn, brood, or fry of fish, &c." which
provides (sect. 13), "That no person shall kill or destroy
or knowingly have in his or her possession, either on the
water or on shore, or shall bring to shore, or offer for sale
or exchange, any spawn, fry, or brood of fish, or any tin
' sizeable fish, or fish out of season," under the penalty of
20s. and forfeiture of the baskets or other packages ire
which the spawn or fish shall be contained.

These statutes, it itthe opinion of your Committee,
should be revised : and; that a Bill repealing such of the
provisions before-mentioned as do not relate exclusively to
the coasts of Devon and Cornwall, and enacting others in
lieu of them, with better remedies for their observance,
should be introduced in the next session of Parliament;
and your Committee deem it essentially necessary for pre-
serving the spawn and brood of fish, that by such Bill the
use of trawl or drag-nets in the bays within one league from
low-water mark, or in less than 10 fathoms' water,
should be prohibited during the months of May, June,
July, and August,' in every year, the same being the
spawning or breeding season of the fish, and before their
young broad become of sufficient size to take refuge in
deeper waters; it being of the utmost importance that
during this period the spawn and young bro td should not
he destroyed or taken by nets which drag upon the ground,
dthough the fish may at the same time, and in the same
waters, be taken with floating ordrift-nets of a proper siz_el
mesh. And it also appears to your Committee, that con-
servators or overseers should be appointed for the purpose
of enforcing the Act.
Upon this part of the subject your Committee would
also observe, that from the evidence adduced before them,
they h tve reason to believe that it would still further tend
to increase materially the breed and supply of sea fish in
the Channel if the above period of restriction were ex-
tended to the end of September or October, or even later,
until the young fish, as the cold weather rapproacheQ,
retire from the shallows and breeding grounds in the bays
into deeper water: but your Committee having regard to
the other means of occupation for fishermen during this
period of restriction, do not think it prudent, at least in
the first instance, that the present practice of trawling in
the bays should be prevented beyond the time which they
before recommended ; more particularly because the fisher-
men have comparatively little emp'oyenent in the month
of September, which intervenes between the mackerel and
herring seasons; but your Committee desire to state that
it has been proved to their s itisfaction that the same boats
may be beneficially employed in the deeper waters beyond
the prescribed limits during the period which they recom-
mend for restriction ; and that whatever lass, if any, may
be sustained in that period, will be abundantly compen-
sated by the increased quantity of fish preserved.
In support of this opinion your Committee would also
refer to the report and evidence taken before a Select
Committee of this House in the year 1817,f appointed to
inquire into the state and condition of the fisheries on the
south coast of Devon, from which evidence it appears that
in the year 1816 the trawl fishermen in the several bays
on the coast of Devon, acting under the advice of the
Hon. Mr. Vernon (now Lord Vernon), who then resided
in that neighbourhood, tried the experiment, by mutual
consent, of preserving their breeding_orounds in chose
bays undisturbed from the Ist of July to the 20th of
September in that year, the consequence of which was a
greater abundance of fight in the ensuing season than had
ever before been known upon that coast, and the fishermen
were desirous that the restraint which they had thus
voluntarily imposed upon their fishing should in future be
enforeedb

By the report of the Committee it also appears that
" they considered it had been clearly made out, that
although in the reign of James I. the attention of the
legislature was particularly drawn to the preservation of
the spawn of sea fish, and attempts had since been
made by' subsequent enactments to preserve the fisheries
on our coast, yet that much was still left to be done ;"
' and accordingly, in the year 1819, in furtherance o
the views taken by this Committee a Bill was brought
into this House " to prevent the destruction of the brood;
and spawn of fish," by which Bill it was proposed that
the justices in quarter sessions, in every county, should
appoint conservators or overseers of the bays, creeks, an 4
arms of the sea, for the preservation of fish con4ng
there to spawn, and of their brood or try, and generally
for enforcing the Act ; and that they should also appoint
fence days, or times for preventing fishing with trawls or
drag-nets in such bays or creeks; and it was further
proposed by the Bill to regulate the size of nets, and
fish for sale, and to inflict penalties for injuries done to,
fishing-boats and nets at set, with summary remedies by.
proceeding before a magistrate. In the Committee on
this Bill other clauses were added, limitieg its application,
to within one league and a half at sea, and to restrain, it
from affecting the fisheries in any arm of the sea, esNarv,
or river, or interfering with private or corporate rights,
This Bill, however, was lost in this House upon the
third reading; but again in the session of 1822 was
brought forward in precisely the same form and passed
this House, but was afterwards lost in the House of Loma
in consequence only, as your Committee are informA of
the late period of the session at which it was introduced ;,
and since that time no further attention appears to have
been paid to this subject, but the evils which were then
so much complained of have continued unredressed and in-

creasing.
Your Committee would also refer, in further confirma-
tion of their opinion, to the extract from a manuscript
treatise on the state of the Cannel fisherie,, by James Cor-
nish, Rol., one of the witnesses examined, and to the letters
of that gentleman and the Hon. George Vernon, all which
are appended to this report.
By such legislative provisions as kfore suggested, and
by their enfocement by the officers of customs, and of the
revenue and Government cruising vessels upon
_ the coasr,
your Committee are of opinion that an effectual remedy
wi'l he applied to the evil complained of, and a more
abundant supply of fish speedily secured; but in reference
also to this part of the subject, they wish to notice,

- - -
* From the French ordinance before cited, it appears that
they protect their bays and breeding-grounds from the 15th of
April to the Ist of September yearly.
"1- See Reports on Fisheries, " Devon ,and Cornwall," 1817,
vol. iii., p. 113, in the library.
See the evidence of Waiter Smith, who was with Lord
Vernon in his yacht on the 20th of September, 1816, and Aails
theiresue colt oflietcion this
ofexperiment.
Billsrimen in the library,Fisheries," voltt.
Se
xxii., 587
11 ldem, p. 601.

4; TM! STOW•BOAT FISKERY, OR CATCHING OF SPRATS