tion. Decrease unchecked ends in destruction: and if the haddock-fishery in narrow waters, and the flat-fish fishery all along the coast, are allowed to go on decreasing till they are practically destroyed, we shall have killed a goose that has laid golden eggs of untold value. The inshore haddock-fisheries on the north-east coast give employment to a large number of the smaller boats, and to old men and boys, who are physically unable to follow the deep-sea fishing, as well as to steam-trawlers. If these fisheries have to be abandoned, only the richer fishermen, who are able to build the larger boats, will remain in the trade, the supply of the freshest and best quality of fish will be seriously diminished, and the market will be largely dependent upon the less palatable iced fish that is caught out at sea. Also, the further it is necessary to go to catch the fish, the dearer will it become. Besides, as the number of larger boats increase, so will the offshore banks become more crowded; and there seems to be no reason why the decrease that has begun inshore should not extend further and further from the coast. A greater risk will also be incurred by those taking part in the fisheries.
In the case of soles, the destruction is still more serious, as, not being limited to inshore waters, it may be expected to end in the total extermination of the species. Of all the food-fishes of the sea, the sole is most popular, and if any legislation could prevent its becoming extinct, no time should be lost in initiating it. But it is here that the real difficulty of the question meets us. In what direction is such legislation to proceed? To what cause is the diminution of these three kinds of fish due? If it is due to the force of Nature, we cannot hope to "expel her by the fork" of an Act of Parliament. If, however, it is the result of over-fishing, of fishing in any particular way, or even of general disturbance of the fishing-grounds, the remedy is in our own hands, even if we have to "lay hands on our father Protagoras," in the shape of Political Economy.
It is clearly, then, of the first importance to determine what the cause or causes of the alleged decrease really are. If we were to inquire of the fishermen, we should get but one answer – Trawling is the cause. As, however, we have endeavoured to point out, there are reasons why fishermen just now are not altogether the most impartial judges of the effects of trawling. Moreover, unfortunately for their own general allegations, they have given particulars of the ways in which the mischief is done. These are reducible to four: (1.) Destruction of spawn; (2.) Destruction of immature fish; (3.) Injury to food of fish and bait-beds; (4.) Disturbance and exhaustion of fishing-grounds.
The above charges practically cover the whole case of the opponents of trawling. We propose, therefore, to deal with them seriatim, varying the order in which they appear in the Commissioners' Report, for the purpose of keeping the most important of the four to the last.
Destruction of spawn is alleged to occur by the pressure of the "runners, "which we have described as carrying the trawl-beam; and by the passage of the ground rope along the bottom. It is also alleged that spawn is brought up in the net in great quantities and so killed. Now, for trawling to produce these effects, it is necessary that the spawn should be on the bottom of the sea; and it is a curi-
