by Diane Dey published in MLHS Magazine 2006/7 Issue 2
In pursuit of a piece of information that had no connection whatsoever with fishing, I came across a fascinating pamphlet some 70 pages in length and entitled ‘The Lancashire Sea Fisheries’, a lecture delivered in 1899 at The Chadwick Museum, Bolton by one Charles L. Jackson, member of the Institute of Civil Engineers and Honorary Naturalist Director of Southport Aquarium.
Jackson was passionate about fish and sea fishing and was not only an expert on the subject but felt intimately in touch with the industry, having worked with fishermen all his life and lost four of his own crew companions “when the Southport and St Anne’s lifeboats were wrecked.” His lecture was given and published following a request from the industry to arouse public awareness of the draconian bye-laws introduced by the County Council in response to a recent government Sea Fisheries Act.
“I am at first sight rather in an invidious position tonight he begins, “because I feel very strongly indeed, with the fishermen along the Lancashire coast, that they are being harassed and ill- treated by the group of scientists who have obtained possession of the ears of the County Council and are regulating the fisheries according to their ideas.”
These scientists, having pursued their research over 10 years, had not only failed to come up with even one new “solitary fact that wasn’t well known 20 years since”, they were culpable of being “most ignorant of what they are most assured …… as makes the angels weep.”
“It is hard to fight against what have now become vested interests but justice and common sense must prevail and in time the present advisers of the C.C. will be glad for the public to forget the cruelty and hardship they have inflicted on a hard-working and deserving class by their legislation in the dark.” He asserts that the Council are spending £3,000 per annum on the regulation of the industry and goes on to say that “I was shocked to find that the idea that seemed to possess them [LCC] was not that information should be sought, but that something must be done to stop some people from doing something ………… .. The question of the exhaustion of our Sea Fisheries is practically as old as the hills in spite of the fact that yield increases every year. There is, I believe, a clause in Magna Carta prohibiting certain nets being used because certain sea fishes were falling off…fisheries ebb and flow beyond the control of man” and he cites the example of whiting which far from flourishing under protective legislation, actually disappeared and up to the 1850’s there was a most important herring industry in the Bay with “more that 200 boats fishing every night but more than 30 years since, the herring deserted the Bay. Why, no one knows …… I fancy it is a question of food but old fishermen say that the Artillery practice at Fleetwood and Morecambe was the cause.”
He then launches into a well-argued and unforgiving case against the legislation and the management of the Lancashire sea fisheries in particular. He pointed out for instance, the “enormous power of reproduction of cockles” and fish species. “The female cod deposits on average 9 million eggs …… . the conger eel from my own observations [ !!! ] deposits 14 to 15 million eggs ……. if the eggs laid along the Lancashire coast alone in one year were all to hatch and grow to adult size, you could not sail a ship across to Ireland.”
He took the strongest exception to the vilification of the hard-working fisherman as rapists of the sea. One bye-law was to restrict the size of netting mesh used by the shrimpers to the detriment of the fisherman and without understanding the implications. The “shrewd” shrimpers, he declared, chose to net away from small fish shoals that impeded their work and are the best judge of size of mesh – what is good for their business is also good for the ecology of the fishing grounds. And “What about the wives and children of the poor fishermen?” The loss to the families caused by increasing the size of mesh he estimated at some £150,000. “No wonder Dutch shrimps are sold in Southport since this authority was established …… .. no wonder the fishermen feel they are cruelly and wantonly shut out .. …. .. if the present persecution continues …… .. the character of the men must deteriorate.” [The Dutch presumably had seen no need to impose restrictions on their own fishing industry].” …… . in regard to size of mesh and later on in regard to size of cockles and mussels, Dame Nature and the laws of political economy have provided absolute gauges which cannot be violated by the fishermen except at their own cost ……. The more man takes, the more room he leaves and the more will grow to full size”, the latter point he explained at length by reference to his own experiments and observation.
Controlling the width of the cockle rake he equally regarded as misguided – “Twenty years ago, the railway companies took from Morecambe Bay alone 3,000 tons/annum of cockles and they probably take more today …….. A flock of scoter numbering 1000 would destroy per year 60 tons and the oystercatcher is responsible for an enormous destruction of cockles … I hope I will have shown you the misery that is being wrought ……. “
Further, he illustrates the “stupidity” of the means of regulation. “When these bye-laws were passed, it was decided to have a steamer in order to ‘protect the fisheries””. This “toy” as he deemed it, was fit only for Windermere, not the open sea.
In the Manchester Guardian 17 May 1899, it was reported that the cocklers of Morecambe Bay were petitioning the Board of Trade for the relaxation of ‘the oppressive Bye-laws on the grounds that they cannot make a living ……. ” and were asking for a “deputation” to go out and judge for themselves. The plea was rejected.
Jackson believed that more money would be “hopelessly squandered” but “what can you expect ……. with such a proposal as this:” he quotes, “When the time comes, as it probably will when it will be cheaper and surer to farm fish than to hunt them, when fish are bred, reared and fed up for market …… ” “Certainly”, he thinks, “the wildest scheme which ever was floated on The Stock Exchange is the soberest common sense compared with such a proposal ……. ” With the benefit of hindsight, do we see this as weakening his argument?
In summary, he concludes that the legislation is unworkable, thus confounding the first principle of law-making. “As soon as the public understand the question, the whole mass of legislation founded on dense ignorance will be swept away ……. ” He proposed more quality “original” research. “We are a rich county; we can afford the capital for anything that is worth it.”