VOLUME X SLICE IV Finland to Fleury, André (continued 5)

From the sugars and ferments it is but a short step to the subject of the proteins, substances which are more directly connected with life processes than any others. The chemistry of the proteins, a subject which bids fair to be Fischer’s great lifework, presents difficulties which are probably without equal in the whole field of chemistry, partly on account of the extraordinary chemical complexity of the substances involved, and partly upon the peculiar manner in which chemical reactions are brought about in the living organism. But by the introduction of new methods, Fischer succeeded in breaking down the complex albuminoid substances into amino acids and other nitrogenous compounds, the constitutions of most of which have been solved; and by bringing about the recombination of these units, appropriately chosen, he prepared synthetic peptides which approximate to the natural products. His methods led to the preparation of an octadeca-peptide of the molecular weight 1213, exceeding that of any other synthetic compound; but even this compound falls far short of the simplest natural peptide, which has a molecular weight of from 2000 to 3000. He considers, however, that the synthesis of more complex products is only a matter of trouble and cost. His researches made from 1899 to 1906 have been published with the title Untersuchungen über Aminosauren, Polypeptides und Proteine (Berlin, 1907). The extraordinary merit of his many researches has been recognized by all the important scientific societies in the world, and he was awarded the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1902. Under his control the laboratory at Berlin became one of the most important in existence, and has attracted to it a constant stream of brilliant pupils, many of whom are to be associated with much of the experimental work indissolubly connected with Fischer.

1 For a brief review of the pharmacology of purin derivatives see F. Francis and J.M. Fortescue-Brinkdale, The Chemical Basis of Pharmacology (1908).

FISCHER, ERNST KUNO BERTHOLD (1824-1907), German philosopher, was born at Sandewalde in Silesia, on the 23rd of July 1824. After studying philosophy at Leipzig and Halle, he became a privat-docent at Heidelberg in 1850. The Baden government in 1853 laid an embargo on his teaching owing to his Liberal ideas, but the effect of this was to rouse considerable sympathy for his views, and in 1856 he obtained a professorship at Jena, where he soon acquired great influence by the dignity of his personal character. In 1872, on Zeller’s removal to Berlin, Fischer succeeded him as professor of philosophy and the history of modern German literature at Heidelberg, where he died on the 4th of July 1907. His part in philosophy was that of historian and commentator, for which he was especially qualified by his remarkable clearness of exposition; his point of view is in the main Hegelian. His Geschichte der neuern Philosophie (1852-1893, new ed. 1897) is perhaps the most accredited modern book of its kind, and he made valuable contributions to the study of Kant, Bacon, Shakespeare, Goethe, Spinoza, Lessing, Schiller and Schopenhauer.

Some of his numerous works have been translated into English: Francis Bacon of Verulam, by J. Oxenford (1857); The Life and Character of Benedict Spinoza, by Frida Schmidt (1882); A Commentary on Kant’s Kritik of Pure Reason, by J.P. Mahaffy (1866); Descartes and his School, by J.P. Gordy (1887); A Critique of Kant, by W.S. Hough (1888); see also H. Falkenheim, Kuno Fischer und die litterar-historische Methode (1892); and bibliography in J.M. Baldwin’s Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology (1905).

FISH, HAMILTON (1808-1893), American statesman, was born in New York City on the 3rd of August 1808. His father, Nicholas Fish (1758-1833), served in the American army during the War of American Independence, rising to the rank of lieutenant-colonel. The son graduated at Columbia College in 1827, and in 1830 was admitted to the bar, but practised only a short time. In 1843-1845 he was a Whig representative in Congress. He was the Whig candidate for lieutenant-governor of New York in 1846, and was defeated by Addison Gardner (Democrat); but when in 1847 Gardner was appointed a judge of the state court of appeals, Fish was elected (November 1847) to complete the term (to January 1849). He was governor of New York state from 1849 to 1851, and was United States senator in 1851-1857, acting with the Republicans during the last part of his term. In 1861-1862 he was associated with John A. Dix, William M. Evarts, William E. Dodge, A.T. Stewart, John Jacob Astor, and other New York men, on the Union Defence Committee, which (from April 22, 1861, to April 30, 1862) co-operated with the municipal government in the raising and equipping of troops, and disbursed more than a million dollars for the relief of New York volunteers and their families. Fish was secretary of state during President Grant’s two administrations (1869-1877). He conducted the negotiations with Great Britain which resulted in the treaty of the 8th of May 1871, under which (Article 1) the “Alabama claims” were referred to arbitration, and the same disposition (Article 34) was made of the “San Juan Boundary Dispute,” concerning the Oregon boundary line. In 1871 Fish presided at the Peace Conference at Washington between Spain and the allied republics of Peru, Chile, Ecuador and Bolivia, which resulted in the formulation (April 12) of a general truce between those countries, to last indefinitely and not to be broken by any one of them without three years’ notice given through the United States; and it was chiefly due to his restraint and moderation that a satisfactory settlement of the “Virginius Affair” was reached by the United States and Spain (1873). Fish was vice-president-general of the Society of the Cincinnati from 1848 to 1854, and president-general from 1854 until his death. He died in Garrison, New York, on the 7th of September 1893.

His son, Nicholas Fish (1846-1902), was appointed second secretary of legation at Berlin in 1871, became secretary in 1874, and was chargé d’affaires at Berne in 1877-1881, and minister to Belgium in 1882-1886, after which he engaged in banking in New York City.

FISH (O. Eng. fisc, a word common to Teutonic languages, cf. Dutch visch, Ger. Fisch, Goth. fisks, cognate with the Lat. piscis), the common name of that class of vertebrate animals which lives exclusively in water, breathes through gills, and whose limbs take the form of fins (see Ichthyology). The article Fisheries deals with the subject from the economic and commercial point of view, and Angling with the catching of fish as a sport. The constellation and sign of the zodiac known as “the fishes” is treated under Pisces.

The fish was an early symbol of Christ in primitive and medieval Christian art. The origin is to be found in the initial letters of the names and titles of Jesus in Greek, viz. Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Ὑιός, Σώτηρ, Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour, which together spell the Greek word for “fish,” ἰχθύς. The fish is also said to be represented in the oval-shaped figure, pointed at both ends, and formed by the intersection of two circles. This figure, also known as the vesica piscis, is common in ecclesiastical seals and as a glory or aureole in paintings of sculpture, surrounding figures of the Trinity, saints, &c. The figure is, however, sometimes referred to the almond, as typifying virginity; the French name for the symbol is Amande mystique.

The word “fish” is used in many technical senses. Thus it is used of the purchase used in raising the flukes of an anchor to the bill-board; of a piece of wood or metal used to strengthen a sprung mast or yard; and of a plate of metal used, as in railway construction, for the strengthening of the meeting-place of two rails. This word is of doubtful origin, but it is probably an adaptation of the Fr. fiche, that which “fixes,” a peg. This word also appears in the English form “fish,” in the metal, pearl or bone counters, sometimes made in the form of fish, used for scoring points, &c., in many games.

FISHER, ALVAN (1792-1863), American portrait-painter, was born at Needham, Massachusetts, on the 9th of August 1792. At the age of eighteen he was a clerk in a country shop, and subsequently was employed by the village house painter, but at the age of twenty-two he began to paint portrait heads, alternating with rural scenes and animals, for which he found patrons at modest prices. In ten years he had saved enough to go to Europe, studying at the Paris schools and copying in the galleries of the Louvre. Upon his return he became one of the recognized group of Massachusetts portrait-painters. Along with Doughty, Harding and Alexander, in 1831, he held an exhibition of his work in Boston—perhaps the first joint display by painters ever held in that city. Though he had considerable talent for landscape, a lack of patronage for such work caused him to confine himself to portraiture, in which he was moderately successful. He died at Dedham, Mass., on the 16th of February 1863.

FISHER, GEORGE PARK (1827-1909), American theologian, was born at Wrentham, Massachusetts, on the 10th of August 1827. He graduated at Brown University in 1847, and at the Andover Theological Seminary in 1851, spent three years in study in Germany, was college preacher and professor of divinity at Yale College in 1854-1861, and was Titus Street professor of ecclesiastical history in the Yale Divinity School in 1861-1901, when he was made professor emeritus. He was president of the American Historical Association in 1897-1898. His writings have given him high rank as an authority on ecclesiastical history. They include Essays on the Supernatural Origin of Christianity (1865); History of the Reformation (1873), republished in several revisions; The Beginnings of Christianity (1877); Discussions in History and Theology (1880); Outlines of Universal History (1886); History of the Christian Church (1887); The Nature and Method of Revelation (1890); Manual of Natural Theology (1893); A History of Christian Doctrine, in the “International Theological Library” (1896); and A Brief History of Nations (1896). He died on the 20th of December 1909.

FISHER, JOHN (c. 1469-1535), English cardinal and bishop of Rochester, born at Beverly, received his first education at the collegiate church there. In 1484 he went to Michael House, Cambridge, where he took his degrees in arts in 1487 and 1491, and, after filling several offices in the university, became master of his college in 1499. He took orders; and his reputation for learning and piety attracted the notice of Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII., who made him her confessor and chaplain. In 1501 he became vice-chancellor; and later on, when chancellor, he was able to forward, if not to initiate entirely, the beneficent schemes of his patroness in the foundations of St. John’s and Christ’s colleges, in addition to two lectureships, in Greek and Hebrew. His love for Cambridge never waned, and his own benefactions took the form of scholarships, fellowships and lectures. In 1503 he was the first Margaret professor at Cambridge; and the following year was raised to the see of Rochester, to which he remained faithful, although the richer sees of Ely and Lincoln were offered to him. He was nominated as one of the English prelates for the Lateran council (1512), but did not attend. A man of strict and simple life, he did not hesitate at the legatine synod of 1517 to censure the clergy, in the presence of the brilliant Wolsey himself, for their greed of gain and love of display; and in the convocation of 1523 he freely opposed the cardinal’s demand for a subsidy for the war in Flanders. A great friend of Erasmus, whom he invited to Cambridge, whilst earnestly working for a reformation of abuses, he had no sympathy with those who attacked doctrine; and he preached at Paul’s Cross (12th of May 1521) at the burning of Luther’s books. Although he was not the author of Henry’s book against Luther, he joined with his friend, Sir Thomas More, in writing a reply to the scurrilous rejoinder made by the reformer. He retained the esteem of the king until the divorce proceedings began in 1527; and then he set himself sternly in favour of the validity of the marriage. He was Queen Catherine’s confessor and her only champion and advocate. He appeared on her behalf before the legates at Blackfriars; and wrote a treatise against the divorce that was widely read.

Recognizing that the true aim of the scheme of church reform brought forward in parliament in 1529 was to put down the only moral force that could withstand the royal will, he energetically opposed the reformation of abuses, which doubtless under other circumstances he would have been the first to accept. In convocation, when the supremacy was discussed (11th of February 1531), he declared that acceptance would cause the clergy “to be hissed out of the society of God’s holy Catholic Church”; and it was his influence that brought in the saving clause, quantum per legem Dei licet. By listening to the revelations of the “Holy Maid of Kent,” the nun Elizabeth Barton (q.v.), he was charged with misprision of treason, and was condemned to the loss of his goods and to imprisonment at the king’s will, penalties he was allowed to compound by a fine of £300 (25th of March 1534). Fisher was summoned (13th of April) to take the oath prescribed by the Act of Succession, which he was ready to do, were it not that the preamble stated that the offspring of Catherine were illegitimate, and prohibited all faith, trust and obedience to any foreign authority or potentate. Refusing to take the oath, he was committed (15th of April) to the Tower, where he suffered greatly from the rigours of a long confinement. On the passing of the Act of Supremacy (November 1534), in which the saving clause of convocation was omitted, he was attainted and deprived of his see. The council, with Thomas Cromwell at their head, visited him on the 7th of May 1535, and his refusal to acknowledge Henry as supreme head of the church was the ground of his trial. The constancy of Fisher, while driving Henry to a fury that knew no bounds, won the admiration of the whole Christian world, where he had been long known as one of the most learned and pious bishops of the time. Paul III., who had begun his pontificate with the intention of purifying the curia, was unaware of the grave danger in which Fisher lay; and in the hope of reconciling the king with the bishop, created him (20th of May 1535) cardinal priest of St Vitalis. When the news arrived in England it sealed his fate. Henry, in a rage, declared that if the pope sent Fisher a hat there should be no head for it. The cardinal was brought to trial at Westminster (17th of June 1535) on the charge that he did “openly declare in English that the king, our sovereign lord, is not supreme head on earth of the Church of England,” and was condemned to a traitor’s death at Tyburn, a sentence afterwards changed. He was beheaded on Tower Hill on the 22nd of June 1535, after saying the Te Deum and the psalm In te Domine speravi. His body was buried first at All Hallows, Barking, and then removed to St. Peter’s ad vincula in the Tower, where it lies beside that of Sir Thomas More. His head was exposed on London Bridge and then thrown into the river. As a champion of the rights of conscience, and as the only one of the English bishops that dared to resist the king’s will, Fisher commends himself to all. On the 9th of December 1886 he was beatified by Pope Leo XIII.

Fisher’s Latin works are to be found in the Opera J. Fisheri quae hactenus inveniri potuerunt omnia (Würzburg, 1595), and some of his published English works in the Early English Text Society (Extra series. No. 27, part i. 1876). There are others in manuscript at the P.R.O. (27, Henry VIII., No. 887). Besides the State papers, the main sources for his biography are The Life and Death of that renowned John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester (London, 1655), by an anonymous writer, the best edition being that of Van Ortroy (Brussels, 1893); Bridgett’s Life of Blessed John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester (London, 1880 and 1890); and Thureau, Le bienheureux Jean Fisher (Paris, 1907).

(E. Tn.)

FISHER, JOHN ARBUTHNOT FISHER, 1st Baron (1841- ), British admiral, was born on the 25th of January 1841, and entered the navy in June 1854. He served in the Baltic during the Crimean War, and was engaged as midshipman on the “Highflyer,” “Chesapeake” and “Furious,” in the Chinese War, in the operations required by the occupations of Canton, and of the Peiho forts in 1859. He became sub-lieutenant on the 25th of January 1860, and lieutenant on the 4th of November of the same year. The cessation of naval wars, at least of wars at sea in which the British navy had to take a part, after 1860, allowed few officers to gain distinction by actual services against the enemy. But they were provided with other ways of proving their ability by the sweeping revolution which transformed the construction, the armament, and the methods of propulsion of all the navies of the world, and with them the once accepted methods of combat. Lieutenant Fisher began his career as a commissioned officer in the year after the launching of the French “Gloire” had set going the long duel in construction between guns and armour. He early made his mark as a student of gunnery, and was promoted commander on the 2nd of August 1869, and post-captain on the 30th of October 1874. In this rank he was chosen to serve as president of the committee appointed to revise “The Gunnery Manual of the Fleet.” It was his already established reputation which pointed Captain Fisher out for the command of H.M.S. “Inflexible,” a vessel which, as the representative of a type, had supplied matter for much discussion. As captain of the “Inflexible” he took part in the bombardment of Alexandria (11th July 1882). The engagement was not arduous in itself, having been carried out against forts of inferior construction, indifferently armed, and worse garrisoned, but it supplied an opportunity for a display of gunnery, and it was conspicuous in the midst of a long naval peace. The “Inflexible” took a prominent part in the action, and her captain had the command of the naval brigade landed in Alexandria, where he adapted the ironclad train and commanded it in various skirmishes with the enemy. After the Egyptian campaign, he was, in succession, director of Naval Ordnance and Torpedoes (from October 1886 to May 1891); A.D.C. to Queen Victoria (18th June, 1887, to 2nd August 1890, at which date he became rear-admiral); admiral superintendent of Portsmouth dockyard (1891 to 1892); a lord commissioner of the navy and comptroller of the navy (1892 to 1897), and vice-admiral (8th May 1896); commander-in-chief on the North American and West Indian station (1897). In 1899 he acted as naval expert at the Hague Peace Conference, and on the 1st of July 1899 was appointed commander-in-chief in the Mediterranean. From the Mediterranean command, Admiral Fisher passed again to the admiralty as second sea lord in 1902, and became commander-in-chief at Portsmouth on the 31st of August 1903, from which post he passed to that of first sea lord. Besides holding the foreign Khedivial and Osmanieh orders, he was created K.C.B. in 1894 and G.C.B. in 1902. As first sea lord, during the years 1903-1909, Sir John Fisher had a predominant influence in all the far-reaching new measures of naval development and internal reform; and he was also one of the committee, known as Lord Esher’s committee, appointed in 1904 to report on the measures necessary to be taken to put the administration and organization of the British army on a sound footing. The changes in naval administration made under him were hotly canvassed among critics, who charged him with autocratic methods, and in 1906-1909 with undue subservience to the government’s desire for economy; and whatever the efficiency of his own methods at the admiralty, the fact was undeniable that for the first time for very many years the navy suffered, as a service, from the party-spirit which was aroused. It was notorious that Admiral Lord Charles Beresford in particular was acutely hostile to Sir John Fisher’s administration; and on his retirement in the spring of 1909 from the position of commander-in-chief of the Channel fleet, he put his charges and complaints before the government, and an inquiry was held by a small committee under the Prime Minister. Its report, published in August, was in favour of the Admiralty, though it encouraged the belief that some important suggestions as to the organization of a naval “general staff” would take effect. On the 9th of November Sir John Fisher was created a peer as Baron Fisher of Kilverstone, Norfolk. He retired from the Admiralty in January 1910.

FISHERIES,1 a general term for the various operations engaged in for the capture of such aquatic creatures as are useful to man. From time immemorial fish have been captured by various forms of spears, nets, hooks and more elaborate apparatus, and a historical description of the methods and appliances that have been used would comprise a considerable portion of a treatise on the history of man. For the most part the operations of fishing have been comparable with those of primitive hunting rather than with agriculture; they have taken the least possible account of considerations affecting the supply; when one locality has been fished out, another has been resorted to. The increasing pressure on every source of food, and the enormous improvements in the catching power of the engines involved, has made some kind of regulation and control inevitable, with the result that in practically every civilized country there exists some authority for the investigation and regulation of fisheries.

The annexed table shows the department of state and the approximate expenditure on fisheries in some of the chief countries of the world. The figures are only approximate and are based on the expenditure for 1907. In the case of England and Wales the expenditure is not complete, as under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act of 1888 the whole of the coast of England and Wales could be placed under local fisheries committees with power to levy rates for fishery purposes, and in a certain number of districts advantage has been taken of this act. But even with this addition, British expenditure on fisheries is less than that undertaken by most of the countries of northern Europe, although British fisheries are much more valuable than those of all the rest of Europe together.

Administration of Fisheries.

Norway. Sweden. Denmark. Germany. Holland. Belgium.

Department of State Trade and Industry and Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture Imperial Department of Interior Agriculture Agriculture and Woods and Forests.

Approximate Annual Expenditure—

1. Administration £15,000 £5,500 £10,200 Conducted by Maritime States. £12,500 . .

2. Scientific Fishery Research 5,000 4,500 6,300 £27,750 2,500 £1,000

Canada. U.S. America. England and Wales. Scotland Ireland

Department of State Marine and Fisheries. Bureau of Fisheries under Commerce and Labour. Agriculture and Fisheries. Fishery Board Agriculture and Technical Instruction.

Approximate Annual Expenditure—

1. Administration £159,000 Conducted by Costal States £8,000 £13,000 £10,000

2. Scientific Fishery Research 48,000 £141,000 14,000 (expended through agents) 800 . .

The early years of the 20th century witnessed another great expansion of the sea fisheries of the United Kingdom. The herring fishery has been revolutionized partly by the successful introduction of steam drifters, which have markedly increased the aggregate catching power, and partly by the prosecution of the fishery on one part or other of the British coasts during the greater part of the year. The crews of many Scottish vessels which formerly worked at the herring and line fisheries in alternate seasons of the year now devote their energies almost entirely to the herring fishery, which they pursue in nomad fleets around all the coasts of Great Britain. The East Anglian drifters carry on their operations at different seasons of the year from Shetland in the north (for herrings) to Newlyn in the west (for mackerel). In Scotland the value of the nets employed on steam drifters has increased from £3000 in 1899 to £61,000 in 1906, and the average annual catch of herrings has increased from about four to about five million cwts. during the past ten years. In England also the annual catch of herrings, which reached a total of two million cwts. for the first time in 1899, has exceeded three millions in each year from 1902 to 1905.

In steam trawling also great enterprise has been shown. In 1906 Messrs Hellyer of Hull launched a new steam trawling fleet of 50 vessels for working the North Sea grounds, and the delivery of new steam trawlers at Grimsby was greater than at any previous period, these vessels being designed more especially to exploit the distant fishing grounds, the range of which has been extended from Morocco to the White Sea. About 100 vessels were added to the Grimsby fleet in the course of twelve months. These new vessels measure about 140 ft. in length and over 20 ft. in beam, and exceed 250 tons gross tonnage, the accommodation both for fish and crews being considerably in excess of that provided in vessels of this class hitherto.

Returns of the steam trawlers registered in 1907 in the chief European countries show the expanse of this industry, and the enormous preponderance of Great Britain. The numbers are as follows:—

Belgium 23

Denmark 5

France 224

Germany 239

Netherlands 81

Norway 20

Portugal 13

Spain 12-18

Sweden 11

Scotland 292

Ireland 6

England and Wales 1317

A simultaneous development of the sea fisheries has been manifested in other maritime countries of Europe, particularly in Germany and Holland, but the total number of steam trawlers belonging to those countries in 1905 scarcely exceeded the mere additions to the British fishing fleet in 1906.

The relative magnitude of British fisheries may best be gauged by a comparison with the proceeds of the chief fisheries of other European countries. The following table is based upon official returns and mainly derived from the Bulletin Statistique of the International Council for the Study of the Sea. It represents in pounds sterling the value of the produce of the various national fisheries during the year 1904, except in the case of France, for which country the latest available figures are those for 1902.

Values in Thousands of £.

Herring. Cod. Plaice. Other Fish. Total.

British Isles 1870 1015 1100 5496 9,481,000

Norway 352 834 . . 443 1,629,000

Denmark 117 60 171 223 571,000

Germany 220 642 402 5122 836,000

Holland 575 53 58 311 997,000

France (1902) 635 8513 . . 3562 5,048,000

The total value of the sea fisheries in the three chief subdivisions of the British Isles in the year 1905, according to the official returns, was as follows:

Fish landed in Excluding Shellfish. Including Shellfish.

England and Wales £7,200,644 £7,502,768

Scotland 2,649,148 2,719,810

Ireland 360,577 414,364

Total £10,210,369 £10,636,942

These figures show an increase of £1,000,000 as compared with the total value in 1900, and of more than £3,000,000 as compared with 1895 (cf. Table I. at end).

In England and Wales the trawl fisheries for cod, haddock, and flat fish yielded about three-quarters of the total, and the drift fisheries for herring and mackerel nearly the whole of the remaining quarter. The line fisheries in England and Wales are now relatively insignificant and yield only about one-fortieth of the total (cf. Table VIII. at end).

In Scotland, on the other hand, there is not so much difference in the relative importance of the three chief fisheries. In 1905 herrings and other net-caught fish yielded rather more than one-half of the total, the trawl fisheries nearly three-eighths, and the line fisheries one-eighth (cf. Table X.).

Fishery. Trawl and Line. Drift and Stake-nets. Shellfish.

Thousands of cwt. Thousands of £. Thousands of cwt. Thousands of £. Thousands of £.

England and Wales, 1905—

East Coast 6017 4713 3042 1145 202

South Coast 303 245 728 268 64

West Coast 1002 720 219 111 36

Scotland, 1906—

East Coast 2296 1202 2709 819 25

Orkney and Shetland 114 42 1735 642 10

West Coast 148 62 591 210 38

Ireland, 1905—

North Coast 9 5 177 70 7

East Coast 79 70 110 32 18

South and West Coast 46 35 577 148 28

In Ireland the mackerel and herring fisheries provide nearly three-quarters of the total yield, the mackerel forming the chief item in the south and west, and the herring on the north and east coasts. The remaining quarter is mainly derived from the trawl fisheries, the headquarters of which are at Dublin, Howth and Balbriggan on the east, and at Galway and Dingle on the west coast.

The value of the fishing boats and gear employed in the Scottish fisheries during 1905 is returned as nearly £4,120,000. Upon a moderate estimate, the total value of the boats and gear employed in the fisheries of Great Britain and Ireland cannot be less than £12,000,000.

The relative yield and value of the various fisheries on the separate coasts of the British Isles is illustrated in the table of landings from the latest data available.

From these figures it is manifest that the yield and value of the east coast fisheries of England and Scotland preponderate enormously over those of the western coasts, whether attention be paid to the drift-net fisheries for surface fish or to the fisheries for bottom fish with trawls and lines.

The preceding statistics and remarks, as well as the supplementary tables at the end of this article, indicate that the British fishing industry has enjoyed a period of unexampled prosperity. The community at large has benefited by the more plentiful supply, and the merchant by the general lowering of prices at the ports of landing (see Tables I.-IV. at end). But it is to be noted that this wave of prosperity, as on previous occasions, has been attained by the application of increased and more powerful means of capture and by the exploitation of new fishing grounds in distant waters, and not by any increase, natural or artificial, in the productivity of the home waters,—unless perhaps the abundance of herrings is to be ascribed to the destruction of their enemies by trawling. British fisheries are still pursued as a form of hunting rather than of husbandry. In 1892 the Iceland and Bay of Biscay trawling banks were discovered, in 1898 the Faroe banks, in 1905 rich plaice grounds in the White Sea. In 1905 one-half of the cod and a quarter of the haddock and plaice landed at east coast ports of England were caught in waters beyond the North Sea.

Table showing, in Thousands of Cwt., the Quantity of Fish landed by Steam Trawlers on the East Coast of England from Fishing Grounds within and beyond the North Sea respectively.

Year. Within the North Sea. Beyond the North Sea.

Cod. Haddock. Plaice. All Kinds. Cod. Haddock. Plaice. All Kinds.

1903 729 2301 812 4776 470 389 114 1189

1904 637 2032 658 4228 447 429 284 1389

1905 640 1560 621 3739 603 518 244 1682

The statistics of the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries have distinguished since 1903 between the catch of fish within and beyond the North Sea, and between the catch of trawlers and liners. Neglecting the catch of the liners as relatively insignificant, and of the sailing trawlers as relatively small and practically constant during the three years in question, we see from the board’s figures (see table above) that the total catch of English steam trawlers within the North Sea during 1904 and 1905 was in each year 500,000 cwt. less than in the year before, amounting to a gross decrease of more than 25% in 1905 as compared with 1903, and, in relation to the catching power employed, to an average decrease of 2½ cwt. per boat per diem. This decrease may be largely explained by the occurrence in 1903 of one of those periodic “floods” of small cod and haddock which take place in the North Sea from time to time; but the steady decline in the number of North Sea voyages by English steam trawlers—from 29,300 in 1903 to 26,700 in 1905—affords a clear indication of the fact that many of our trawling skippers are deserting the North Sea for more profitable fishing grounds. The number of Scottish steam trawlers “employed” at Scottish North Sea ports has also declined during the same period from 240 in 1903 to 228 in 1905.

The following table shows the number of British and foreign steam trawlers registered at North Sea ports, and for English vessels the number of fishing voyages made within and beyond the North Sea respectively:—

Year. Boats Registered. English Steam Trawlers. Voyages.4 Scottish. Employed. German, Dutch and Belgian. Registered.

Within North Sea. Beyond North Sea.

1903 1060 29,328 1822 240 181

1904 1049 28,589 2120 233 199

1905 1064 26,670 2671 228 228

Unfortunately the North Sea gains no rest from this withdrawal of British trawlers, since the place of the latter is filled year after year by increasing numbers of continental fishing boats. The number of fishing steamers (practically all trawlers) registered at North Sea ports in Germany and Holland was 159 in 1903, 177 in 1904, 205 in 1905, and 330 in 1907.

It is satisfactory under these circumstances to note the increased attention which has been paid in recent years to the acquisition of more exact knowledge upon the actual state of the fisheries and upon the biological and other factors which influence the supply.

A comprehensive programme of co-operative investigations, both scientific and statistical, was put into execution in the course of 1902 under the International Council for the Study of the Sea (see below). The Fishery Board for Scotland and the Marine Biological Association for England were commissioned to carry out the work at sea allotted to Great Britain, and the English fishery department was equipped soon afterwards with the means for collecting more adequate statistics.

Trawling investigations and the quantitative collection of fish eggs have located important spawning grounds of cod, haddock, plaice, sole, eel, &c.; marking experiments with cod, plaice and eel have thrown much light upon the migrations of these fishes; and the rate of growth of plaice, cod and herring has been elucidated in different localities. The percentage of marked plaice annually recaptured in the North Sea has been found to be remarkably high (from 25 to 50 %), and throws a significant light on the intensity of fishing under modern conditions. It seems probable that the impoverishment of the stock of plaice on the central grounds of the North Sea is mainly attributable to the excessive rate of capture of plaice during their annual off-shore migrations from the coast. On the other hand, it has been shown that the growth-rate of plaice on the Dogger Bank is constantly and markedly greater (five- or six-fold in weight) than on the coastal grounds where these fish are reared,—facts which open up the possibility of increasing the permanent supply of plaice from the North Sea by the adoption of some plan of commercial transplantation (see Pisciculture).

History.—A brief review may now be given of the history of the administration of British sea-fisheries since 1860, and of the steps which have been taken for the attainment of scientific and statistical information in relation thereto.

In 1860 a royal commission, consisting of Professor Huxley, Mr (afterwards Sir) John Caird, and Mr G. Shaw-Lefevre (afterwards Lord Eversley), was appointed to inquire into the condition of the British sea-fisheries, the harmfulness or otherwise of existing methods of fishing, and the necessity or otherwise of the existing legislation. The important report of this commission, issued in 1866, embodied the following main conclusions and recommendations:—(1) the total supply of fish obtained upon the British coasts is increasing and admits of further augmentation; (2) beam-trawling in the open sea is not a wastefully destructive mode of fishing; (3) all acts of parliament which profess to regulate or restrict the modes of fishing pursued in the open sea should be repealed and “unrestricted freedom of fishing be permitted hereafter”; (4) all fishing boats should be lettered and numbered as a condition of registration and licence.

In 1868 full effect was given to these recommendations by the passing of the Sea Fisheries Act. Regulations for the registration of fishing boats were issued by order in council in the following year. (New regulations were introduced in 1902.)

In 1878 a commission was given to Messrs Buckland and Walpole to inquire into the alleged destruction of the spawn and fry of sea fish, especially by the use of the beam-trawl and ground seine. Their report is an excellent summary of the condition of the sea fisheries at the time, and shows how little was then known with regard to the eggs and spawning habits of our marine food fishes.

In 1882 the former Board of British White Herring was dissolved and the Fishery Board for Scotland instituted, the latter being empowered to take such measures for the improvement of the fisheries as the funds under their administration might admit of. Arrangements were made in the following year with Professor M’Intosh of St Andrews which enabled the latter to fit up a small marine laboratory and to begin a series of studies on the eggs and larvae of sea fishes, which have contributed greatly to the development of more exact knowledge concerning the reproduction of fishes. Under the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Amendment Act of 1885 the board closed the Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay against trawlers as an experiment for the purpose of ascertaining the result of such prohibition on the supply of fish on the grounds so protected. The treasury also, by a further grant of £3000, enabled the board to purchase the steam-yacht “Garland” as a means of carrying out regular experimental trawlings over the protected grounds. Reports on the results of these experiments have been annually published, and were summarized at the end of ten years’ closure in the board’s report for 1895. Dr Fulton’s summary showed that “no very marked change took place in the abundance of food-fishes generally, either in the closed or open waters of the Firth of Forth or St Andrews Bay,” as a consequence of the prohibition of trawling. Nevertheless, among flat fishes, plaice and lemon soles, which spawn off-shore, were reported to have decreased in numbers in all the areas investigated, whether closed or open, while dabs and long rough dabs showed a preponderating, if not quite universal, increase.

The results of this classical experiment point strongly to the presumptions (1) that trawling operations in the open sea have now exceeded the point at which their effect on the supply of eggs and fry for the upkeep of the flat fisheries is inappreciable; and (2) that protection of in-shore areas alone is insufficient to check the impoverishment caused by over-fishing off-shore. (For critical examinations of Dr Fulton’s account see M‘Intosh, Resources of the Sea, London, 1889; Garstang, “The Impoverishment of the Sea,” Journ. Mar. Biol. Ass. vol. vi., 1900; and Archer, Report of Ichthyological Committee, Cd. 1312, 1902.)

A laboratory and sea-fish hatchery were subsequently established by the board at Dunbar in 1893, but removed to Aberdeen in 1900.

In 1883 a royal commission, under the chairmanship of the late earl of Dalhousie, was appointed to inquire into complaints against the practice of beam-trawling on the part of line and drift-net fishermen. A small sum of money (£200) was granted to the commission for the purpose of scientific trawling experiments, which were carried out by Professor M’Intosh.

The report of this commission was an important one, and its recommendations resulted in the institution of fishery statistics for England, Scotland and Ireland (1885-1887).

In 1884 the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom was founded for the scientific study of marine zoology and botany, especially as bearing upon the food, habits and life-conditions of British food-fishes, crustacea and molluscs. Professor Huxley was its first president, and Professor Ray Lankester, who initiated the movement, succeeded him. A large and well-equipped laboratory was erected at Plymouth, and formally opened for work in 1888. The work of the association has been maintained by annual grants of £400 from the Fishmongers’ Company and £1000 from H. M. treasury, and by the subscriptions of the members. The association publishes a half-yearly journal recording the results of its investigations.

In 1886 a fishery department of the Board of Trade was organized under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act of that year. The department publishes annually a return of statistics of sea-fish landed, a report on salmon fisheries (transferred from the home office), and a report on sea fisheries. It consists of several inspectors under an assistant secretary of the board; it has no power to make scientific investigations or bye-laws and regulations affecting the sea-fisheries. In 1894 the administration of the acts relating to the registration of fishing vessels, &c., was transferred to the fisheries department.

In 1888 the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act provided for the constitution (by provisional order of the Board of Trade) of local fisheries committees having, within defined limits, powers for the regulation of coast fisheries in England and Wales. The powers of district committees were extended under Part II. of the Fisheries Act 1891, and again under the Fisheries (Shell Fish) Regulation Act 1894. Sea-fisheries districts have now been created round nearly the whole coast of England and Wales. Under bye-laws of these committees steam-trawling has been prohibited in nearly all the territorial waters of England and Wales, and trawling by smaller boats has been placed under a variety of restrictions. Local scientific investigations have been initiated under several of the committees, especially in Lancashire by Professor Herdman of Liverpool and his assistants.

In 1890 an important survey of the fishing grounds off the west coast of Ireland was undertaken by the Royal Dublin Society, with assistance from the government, and in the hands of Mr E.W.L. Holt led to the acquisition of much valuable information concerning the spawning habits of fishes and the distribution of fish on the Atlantic seaboard.

In 1892, under powers conferred by the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act of 1889, the Fishery Board for Scotland closed the whole of the Moray Firth—including a large tract of extra-territorial waters—against trawling, in order to test experimentally the effect of protecting certain spawning grounds in the outer parts of the firth. The closure has given rise to a succession of protests from the leaders of the trawling industry in Aberdeen and England. It seems that the difficulty of policing so large an area, as well as the absence of any power to enforce the restriction on foreign vessels, have defeated the original intention; and the bye-law appears to be now retained mainly in deference to the wishes of the local line-fishermen, the decadence of whose industry—from economic causes which have been alluded to above—is manifest from the figures in Table X. below. The controversy has had the effect of causing the transference of a number of English trawlers to foreign flags, especially the Norwegian.

Statistics.—The following tables summarize the official statistics of fish landed on the coasts of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and give some information relative to the numbers of fishing-boats and fishermen in the three countries.

Table I.—Summary of Statistics of Fish landed, imported and exported for the United Kingdom.

Year. Fish landed (excluding Shell-fish). Net Imports. Exports of British Fish.

Cwt.

1890 12,774,010 £6,361,487 £2,315,572 £1,795,267

1895 14,068,641 7,168,025 2,453,676 2,282,406

1900 14,671,070 9,242,491 2,937,486 3,000,852

1905 20,164,276 10,210,369 2,250,259 4,164,869

Note.—Imported fish afterwards re-exported (consisting chiefly of salted or cured fish to the value of over £900,000 in 1905) are not included in the above values of imports and exports. The exports consist mainly of herrings.

Table II.—Quantity and Average Landing Value of Flat Fishes landed on the Coasts of England and Wales (all caught with Trawl-nets, except Halibut in part).

Year. Quantity (in Thousands of Cwt.). Average Price (per Cwt.).

Sole. Turbot. Brill. Plaice. Halibut. Sole. Turbot. Brill. Plaice. Halibut.

£ s. £ s. £ s. £ s. £ s.

1890 72.1 51.9 15.4 623 95 6 7 3 13 2 8 0 19 1 10

1895 82.8 77.9 19.0 789 114 6 16 3 17 2 11 1 1 1 15

1900 75.3 60.7 20.7 752 136 7 11 4 3 2 14 1 4 1 14

1905 80.1 89.5 22.4 1074 120 5 18 3 11 2 11 0 19 1 17

Table III.—Quantity and Average Landing Value of Round Fishes, caught with Trawls and Lines, landed on the Coasts of England and Wales.

Year. Quantity (in Thousands of Cwt.). Average Price (per Cwt.).

Cod. Haddock. Hake. Ling. Sundries. Cod. Haddock. Hake. Ling. Sundries.

s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d.

1890 363 1585 . . 96 1151 13 10 9 7 . . 14 3 14 0

1895 496 2433 132 114 1013 12 5 9 9 16 2 11 8 13 7

1900 589 2487 233 100 1190 14 8 13 8 15 10 12 10 14 10

1905 1423 2148 484 165 1425 12 4 12 5 13 4 11 3 9 8

Table IV.—Quantity and Average Landing Value of Surface Fishes landed on the Coasts of England and Wales (caught with Drift-, Seine-, and Stow-nets).

Year. Quantity (in Thousands of Cwt.). Average Price (per Cwt.).

Mackerel. Herring. Pilchard. Sprat. Mackerel. Herring. Pilchard. Sprat.

s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d.

1890 509 1332 61 99 15 5 7 2 5 10 3 0

1895 375 1437 65 91 16 3 5 10 5 3 3 1

1900 321 2425 106 73 15 9 7 8 4 6 4 11

1905 682 3062 169 75 8 11 7 7 5 0 3 6

Table V.—Quantity and Average Landing Value of Shell-fish landed on the Coasts of England and Wales.

Year. Number. Average Price.

Thousands. Mills. Thousands of Cwt. Per Hundred. Per Cwt.

Crabs. Lobsters. Oysters. Sundries. Crabs. Lobsters. Oysters. Sundries.

£. s. £. s. s. d. s. d.

1890 4808 922 47.6 505 1 4 4 18 6 1 5 0

1895 4501 677 25.3 590 1 4 4 8 6 2 4 11

1900 5177 654 37.8 539 1 2 4 7 7 0 5 8

1905 5106 503 35.4 423 1 3 4 15 5 9 5 6

Table VI.—Total Quantity of the more important Fishes and Shell-fish landed in Scotland.

Year. In Thousands of Cwt. Cwt. Number (Thousands).

Herring. Lemon Sole. Flounder, Plaice, and Brill. Halibut. Cod. Ling. Haddock. Whiting. Skate. Mussels. Crabs. Lobsters. Oysters.

1890 3980 17 81 20 449 170 754 75 54 181 2882 643 350

1895 4077 19 80 29 459 165 1001 43 59 194 2548 610 239

1900 3520 21 102 26 434 157 761 75 72 143 3128 680 796

1905 5343 31 561 36 677 151 932 184 100 103 1990 760 218

Table VII.—Total Quantity of the more important Fishes and Shell-fish returned as landed on the Irish Coasts.

Year. In Thousands of Cwt. Number (Thousands).

Mackerel. Herring. Sole. Turbot. Cod. Ling. Haddock. Whiting. Hake. Oysters. Crabs. Lobsters.

1890 502 85 4.5 1.4 39.6 14.8 16.4 13.5 25.3 576 228 238

1895 339 171 1.8 1.0 43.6 29.7 30.9 11.9 18.7 563 240 276

1900 278 284 3.1 1.5 33.6 11.9 12.4 11.9 16.3 236 202 286

1905 505 354 3.5 0.8 18.6 9.1 11.3 18.3 7.1 348 175 236

Note.—The Irish statistics of shell-fish are very incomplete, owing to the inadequate means at the disposal of the authorities for collecting statistics over large sections of the coast.

Table VIII.—Classified List of British Fishing Boats on the Register for 1905, omitting 2nd Class Steamers and Vessels under 18 Ft. Keel or Navigated by Oars only and Vessels unemployed.

Mode of Fishing. England and Wales. Scotland. Ireland.

Steamers. Sailing. Steamers. Sailing. Steamers. Sailing.

1st Cl. 1st Cl. 2nd Cl. 1st cl. 1st Cl. 2nd Cl. 1st Cl. 1st Cl. 2nd Cl.

Trawling 1173 904 586 244 .. 68 10 142 283

Drift-nets 263 562 539 .. .. .. .. .. ..

Lines 56 29 685 209 3403 2910 .. 229 2776

Various 21 215 2277 .. .. .. .. .. ..

Total 1513 1710 4087 453 3403 2978 10 371 3059

Note.—1st class = steamers of at least 15 tons gross tonnage, and other boats of at least 15 tons registered tonnage (in Scotland exceeding 30 ft. keel).

2nd class = less than 15 tons tonnage, or from 18 to 30 ft. keel.

Table IX.—Number (A) of Men and Boys constantly employed and (B) of other Persons occasionally employed in Fishing.

Year. England and Wales. Scotland. Ireland. United Kingdom.

A. B. A. B. A. B. A. B.

1890 32,503 9312 34,319 20,829 10,121 13,981 78,450 46,337

1895 32,229 8995 31,044 12,329 8,692 18,218 73,090 41,230

1900 31,589 7994 27,288 10,288 8,677 18,982 68,708 37,814

1905 34,318 8132 29,064 10,487 8,744 17,079 73,293 36,131

Table X.—Catch and Value of Line-caught and Trawled Fish landed in Scotland.

Year. Line-caught Fish. Trawled Fish.

Cwt. Cwt.

1890 1,577,299 £591,059 291,812 £203,620

1895 1,479,654 548,629 531,695 291,165

1900 757,416 371,173 1,077,082 703,427

1905 735,654 348,610 1,745,431 948,117

In 1893 a select committee of the House of Commons took evidence as to the expediency of adopting measures for the preservation of the sea-fisheries in the seas around the British Islands, with especial reference to the alleged wasteful destruction of under-sized fish. They recommended the adoption of a size-limit of 8 in. for soles and plaice, and 10 in. for turbot and brill, below which the sale of these fishes should be prohibited, on the ground that these limits would approximate to those already adopted by foreign countries.

In 1899 the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act transferred the powers and duties of the inspectors of Irish fisheries to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland. The department is provided with a steam cruiser, the “Helga,” 375 tons, fully equipped for fishery research, as well as with a floating marine laboratory. Mr Holt, formerly of the Marine Biological Association, was appointed to take charge of the scientific work.

In 1900 another select committee of the House of Commons was appointed to consider and take evidence on the proposals of the Sea Fisheries Bill, which had been framed in accordance with the recommendations of the select committee of 1893, but had failed to pass in several sessions of parliament. Owing to marked divergencies of opinion on the question whether the low size-limits proposed would be effectual in keeping the trawlers from working on the grounds where small fish congregated, the committee reported against the bill, and urged the immediate equipment of the government departments with means for undertaking the necessary scientific investigations.

In 1901 an international conference of representatives of all the countries bordering upon the North and Baltic Seas met at Christiania to revise proposals which had been drafted at Stockholm in 1899 for a scientific exploration of these waters in the interest of the fisheries, to be undertaken concurrently by all the participating countries. The British government was represented by Sir Colin Scott-Moncrieff, K.C.M G., with Professor D’Arcy W. Thompson, Mr (afterwards Professor) W. Garstang and Dr H.R. Mill as advisers. The proposals were subsequently accepted, with some restrictions, and an international council of management was appointed by the participating governments. The Fishery Board for Scotland and the Marine Biological Association from England were commissioned in 1902 to carry out the work at sea allotted to Great Britain, and a special grant of £5500 per annum was made to each body by the Treasury for this purpose. Two steamers, the “Huxley” and the “Goldseeker,” were chartered for the investigations and began work in 1902 and 1903 from Lowestoft and Aberdeen respectively. Reports on the work of the first five years were published in 1909.

In 1901 the Board of Trade appointed a committee (the Committee on Ichthyological Research) to inquire and report as to the best means by which scientific fishery research could be organized and assisted in relation to the state or local authorities. The committee consisted of Sir Herbert Maxwell, M.P. (chairman), Mr W.F. Archer, Mr Donald Crawford, Rev. W.S. Green, Professor W.A. Herdman, Hon. T.H.W. Pelham, Mr S.E. Spring Rice and Professor J.A. Thomson. Sir Herbert Maxwell resigned his chairmanship before the report was drawn up (September 1902), and was succeeded by Sir Colin Scott-Moncrieff. The committee recommended the provision of more complete statistics; the provision and maintenance of five special steamers (where not already existing) to work in connexion with as many marine laboratories, viz. one for each of the three coasts of England and Wales, and one each for Scotland and Ireland; the provision of three biological assistants at each laboratory; the grant of statutory powers to local sea-fisheries committees to expend money on fishery research; the constitution of a fishery council for England and Wales, and of a conference of representatives of the central authorities in England, Scotland and Ireland. In 1903 the fishery department of the Board of Trade was transferred to the Board of Agriculture, Mr W.E. Archer, chief inspector of fisheries, becoming an assistant secretary of the new Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

In 1907 a departmental treasury committee was appointed to inquire into the scientific and statistical investigations carried on in relation to the fishing industry of the United Kingdom. The committee consisted of Mr H.J. Tennant, M.P. (chairman), Lord Nunburnholme, Sir Reginald MacLeod, Mr N.W. Helms, M.P., Mr A. Williamson, M.P., Dr P. Chalmers Mitchell, F.R.S., Mr J.S. Gardiner, F.R.S., the Rev. W.S. Green, Mr R.H. Rew and Mr L.S. Hewby. This committee reviewed the work that had already been done and urged its continuation and extension under the direction of a central council composed of representatives of the government departments concerned with fishery matters in England, Scotland and Ireland, with a scientific chairman and director, and further insisted on the need of international co-operation in the investigations.

United States Fisheries.—The administration of the fisheries of the United States of America is under the control of the several coastal states, but the Bureau of Fisheries at Washington, which reports to the secretary of commerce and labour, conducts a vast amount of scientific fishery investigation, issues admirable statistical and biological reports, and conducts on a very large scale work on the replenishment of the fishing stations by artificial means (see Pisciculture). Although in recent years Canada has given an increasing amount of state support to the investigation, control and assistance of her fisheries, an amount actually and relatively far exceeding that given in Great Britain, the fishing industry of the United States still far exceeds that of Canada. A considerable bulk of fish, taken by American ships from the Newfoundland coasts and from those of other British provinces, is landed at American ports, but as the following recent table shows, it is much less than that taken from American waters.

Quantities and Values of Fish landed by American Vessels at Boston and Gloucester, Mass., in 1905.

Quantities. Value.

(a) From fishing grounds off U.S. coasts 152,241,139 £669,640

(b) From fishing grounds off Newfoundland 17,165,083 103,145

(c) From fishing grounds off other British provinces 32,608,343 192,517

The fisheries of the United States show a substantial increase from year to year. There has been a decline in some important branches owing to indiscreet fishing and to the inevitable effects of civilization on certain kinds of animal life and in certain restricted areas. Such diminution has been more than compensated for by growth resulting from the invasion of new fishing grounds made possible by increase in the sea-going capacity of the vessels employed, by improvement in the preservation and handling of the catch, and by the greater utilization of products which until comparatively recently were disregarded or considered without economic value. The annual value of the water products taken and sold by the United States fishermen now amounts to over £11,000,000, and this sum does not include the very large quantities taken by the fishermen for home consumption or captured by sportsmen and amateurs. Between two and three hundred thousand persons make a livelihood by the industry, and the capital involved exceeds £16,000,000.

The oyster is the most valuable single product, and the output of the United States industry exceeds the combined output of all other countries in the world. The most notable feature of this fishery is that nearly half the total yield now comes from cultivated grounds, so that the business is being placed on a secure basis. Virginia has now taken the first rank as an oyster-producing state, oyster farming being now highly developed with an annual yield of nearly nine million bushels.

The high-sea fisheries for cod, haddock, hake, halibut, mackerel, herring, and so forth are on the whole not increasing in prosperity, the annual value being between one and two million pounds. The lobster fishery shows a markedly diminishing yield, the diminution having been progressive since about 1890, and being attributed to over-fishing and violation of the restrictive regulations. At present a large part of the lobsters consumed in the United States comes from Nova Scotia, but there is evidence of useful results coming from the extensive cultural operations now being carried out.

The whale fishery, at one time the leading fishing industry of the country, is now conducted chiefly in the North Pacific and Arctic oceans, but is decaying, being now expensive, uncertain and often unremunerative. The annual value of the take is now under £200,000.

The important group of anadromous fishes (those like salmon, shad, alewife, striped bass and sea perches, which ascend the rivers from the ocean) has continued to provide an increasing source of income to fishermen, the combined value of the catch on the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards now amounting to over £3,000,000 annually. The fisheries of the Great Lakes yield about £600,000 annually.

(W. Ga.; P. C. M.)

1 For fisheries in the cases of Coral, Oyster, Pearl, Salmon, Sponges and Whale, see these articles; for fishing as a sport see Angling.

2 Estimated as regards about one-third of the total.

3 Including the Newfoundland fishery.

4 Excluding the voyages of the fleeting trawlers which supply London by means of carriers.

FISHERY (Law of). This subject has (1) its international aspect; (2) its municipal aspect. On the high seas outside territorial waters the right of fishery is now recognized as common to all nations. Claims were made in former times by single nations to the exclusive right of fishing in tracts of open sea; such as that set up by Denmark in respect of the North Sea, as lying between its possessions of Norway and Iceland, against England in the 17th century, and against England and Holland in the 18th century, when she prohibited any foreigners fishing within 15 German miles of the shores of Greenland and Iceland. This claim, however, was always effectively resisted on the ground stated in Queen Elizabeth’s remonstrance to Denmark on the subject in 1602, that “the law of nations alloweth of fishing in the sea everywhere, even in seas where a nation hath propertie of command.” The enunciation of this principle is to be found, also, in the award of the arbitration court which decided the question of the fur-seal fishery in Bering Sea in 1894. (See Bering Sea Arbitration; Arbitration, International.) The right of nations to take fish in the sea may, however, be restrained or regulated by treaty or custom; and Great Britain has entered into conventions with other nations with regard to fishing in certain parts of the sea. The provisions of such conventions are made binding on British subjects by statutes.

Instances of these are the conventions of 1818 and 1872 between Great Britain and the United States as to the fisheries on the eastern coasts of British North America and the United States within certain limits, and the award of the Bering Sea arbitration tribunal under the treaty of 1892; the conventions between Great Britain and France in 1839 and 1867 as regards fishing in the seas adjoining these countries, the latter of which will come into force on the repeal of the former; the agreement of 1904 with respect to the Newfoundland fisheries (see Newfoundland); the convention of 1882 between Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain and Holland, regarding the North Sea fisheries; that of 1887 between the same parties concerning the liquor traffic in the North Sea; and the declaration regarding the same waters made between Great Britain and Belgium for the settlement of differences between their fishermen subjects in such extra-territorial waters. At the instance of the Swedish government the British parliament also passed an act in 1875 to establish a close time for the seal fishery in the seas adjacent to the eastern coasts of Greenland.

Cases have come before British courts with regard to the whale fishery in northern and southern seas; and the customs proved to exist among the whaling ships of the nations engaged in a particular trade have been upheld if known to the parties to the action. In territorial waters, on the other hand, fishery is a right exclusively belonging to the subjects of the country owning such waters, and no foreigners can fish there except by convention.

(a) Tidal Waters.—-In British territorial waters, it may be stated, as the general rule, that fishery is a right incidental to the soil covered by the waters in which that right is exercised.

The bed of all navigable rivers where the tide flows and reflows, and of all estuaries or arms of the sea, is vested in the crown; and therefore, in Lord Chief Justice Hale’s words, “the right of the fishery in the sea and the creeks and arms thereof is originally lodged in the crown, as the right of depasturing is originally lodged in the owner of the waste whereof he is lord, or as the right of fishing belongs to him that is the owner of a private or inland river.” “But,” he continues, “though the king is the owner of this great waste, and as a consequent of his propriety hath the primary right of fishing in the sea and the creeks and arms thereof, yet the common people of England have regularly a liberty of fishing therein as a public common of piscary, and may not without injury to their right be restrained of it unless in such places or creeks or navigable rivers where either the king or some particular subject hath gained a propriety exclusive of that common liberty.” (De Jure Maris, ch. iv.).

This right extends to all fish floating in the sea or left on the seashore, except certain fish known as royal fish, which, when taken in territorial waters, belong to the crown or its grantee, though caught by another person. These are whales, sturgeons and porpoises; and grampuses are also sometimes added (whales, porpoises and grampuses being “fishes” only in a legal sense). In Scotland only whales which are of large size can be so claimed; but the rights of salmon fishing in the sea and in public and private rivers, and those of mussel and oyster fishing, except in private rivers, are inter regalia, and are only enjoyable by the crown or persons deriving title under it. As salmon fishery was formerly practised by nets and engines on the shore, and the mussel and oyster fisheries were necessarily carried on on the shore, the opinion was held at one time that angling for salmon was a public right, but the later decisions have established that the right of salmon fishing by whatever means is a jus regale in Scotland. In England the crown in early times made frequent grants of fisheries to subjects in tidal waters, and instances of such fisheries belonging to persons and corporations are very common at the present day: but by Magna Carta the crown declared that “no rivers shall be defended from henceforth, but such as were in defence in the time of King Henry, our grandfather, by the same places and the same bounds as they were wont to be in his time”; and thus bound itself not to create a private fishery in any navigable tidal river. Judicial decision and commentators having interpreted this statute according to the spirit and not the letter, at the present day the right of fishery in tidal waters prima facie belongs to the public, and they can only be excluded by a particular person or corporation on proof of an exclusive right to fish there not later in its origin than Magna Carta; and for this it is necessary either to prove an actual grant from the crown of that date to the claimant’s predecessor in title, or a later grant or immemorial custom or prescription to that effect, from which such an original grant may be presumed. This exclusive right of fishing may be either a franchise derived from the crown, or may arise by virtue of ownership of the soil covered by the waters.

In Lord Hale’s words: “Fishing may be of two kinds ordinarily, viz. fishing with a net, which may be either as a liberty without the soil, or as a liberty arising by reason of and in concomitance with the soil or an interest or propriety of it; or otherwise it is a local fishing that ariseth by or from the propriety of the soil,—such are gurgites, wears, fishing-places, borachiae, stachiae, which are the very soil itself, and so frequently agreed by our books. And such as these a subject may have by usage; either in gross, as many religious houses had, or as parcel of or appurtenant to their manors, as both corporations and others have had; and this not only in navigable rivers and arms of the sea but in creeks and ports and havens, yea, and in certain known limits in the open sea contiguous to the shore. And these kinds of fishings are not only for small sea-fish, such as herrings, &c., but for great fish, as salmons, and not only for them but for royal fish.... Most of the precedents touching such rights of fishing in the sea, and the arms and creeks thereof belonging by usage to subjects, appear to be by reason of the propriety of the very water and soil wherein the fishing is, and some of them even within parts of the seas” (De Jure Maris, ch. v.)

An instance of the former kind of fishery is to be found in the old case of Royal Fishery of the River Bann (temp. James I., Davis 655), and the modern one of Wilson v. Crossfield, 1885, 1 T.L.R. 601, where a right of fishery in gross was established; but the latter kind, as Hale says, is much more common, and the presumption is always in its favour; à fortiori where the fishing is proved to have been carried on by means of engines or structures fixed in the soil. In England the public have not at common law, as incidental to their right of fishing in tidal waters, the right to make use of the banks or shores for purposes incidental to the fishery, such as beaching their boats upon them, landing there, or drying their nets there (though they can do so by proving a custom from which such a grant may be presumed); but statutes relating to particular parts of the realm, such as Cornwall for the pilchard fishery, give them such rights. In Scotland a right of salmon fishing separate from land implies the right of access to and use of the banks, foreshores or beach for the purposes of the fishing; and so does white fishing by statute. But otherwise there is no right to do so, e.g. in a public river for trout fishing. A similar privilege is given to Irish fishermen for the purpose of sea fishery by special statute. There is no property in fish in the sea, and they belong to the first taker; and the custom of the trade decides when a fish is taken or not, e.g. in the whale fishery the question whether a fish is “loose” or not has come before English courts.

(b) Fresh Waters.—In non-tidal waters in England and Ireland, for the reason given above, the presumption is in favour of the fishery in such waters belonging to the owners of the adjacent lands; “fresh waters of what kind soever do of common right belong to the owners of the soil adjacent, so that the owners of the one side have of common right the property of the soil, and consequently the right of fishing usque ad filum aquae, and the owners of the other side the right of soil or ownership and fishing unto the filum aquae on their side; and if a man be owner of the land on both sides, in common presumption he is owner of the whole river, and hath the right of fishing according to the extent of his land in length” (Hale, ch. i.). There is a similar presumption that the owner of the bed of a river has the exclusive right of fishery there, and this is so even though he does not own the banks; but these presumptions may be displaced by proof of a different state of things, e.g. where the banks of a stream are separately owned the owner of one bank may show by acts of ownership exercised over the whole stream that he has the fishery over it all. The crown prerogative of fishery, never it seems, extended to non-tidal waters flowing over the land of a subject, and it could not therefore grant such a franchise to a subject, nor has it any right de jure to the soil or fisheries of an inland lake such as Lough Neagh (Bristow v. Cormican, 1878, 3 App. Cas. 641). The public cannot acquire the right to fish in fresh waters by prescription or otherwise although they are navigable; such a right is unknown to law, because a profit à prendre in alieno solo is neither to be acquired by custom nor by prescription under the Prescription Act. It has been decided that the “dwellers” in a parish cannot acquire such a right, being of too vague a class; but the commoners in a manor may have it by custom; and the “free inhabitants of ancient tenements” in a borough have been held capable of acquiring a right to dredge for oysters in a fishery belonging to the corporation of the borough on certain days in each year by giving proof of uninterrupted enjoyment of it from time immemorial, on the presumption that this was a condition to which the grant made to the corporation was subject.

In Scotland the law is similar. The right to fish for trout in private streams is a pertinent of the land adjacent, and owners of opposite banks may fish usque ad medium filum aquae; and where two owners own land round a private loch, both have a common of fishing over it. The public cannot prescribe for it, for a written title either to adjacent lands or to the fishery is necessary. A right of way along the bank of a river or loch does not give it, nor does the right of the public to be on or at a navigable but non-tidal river. The right of salmon fishing carries with it the right of trout fishing: and eel fishing passes in the same way.

In England and Ireland private fisheries have been divided into (a) several (separalis), (b) free (libera), (c) common of piscary (communis), whether in tidal or non-tidal waters. The distinction between several and free fisheries has always been uncertain. Blackstone’s opinion was that several fishery implied a fishery in right of the soil under the water, while free fishery was confined to a public river and did not necessarily comprehend the soil. He is supported by later writers, such as Woolrych and Paterson. On the other hand, the opinions of Coke and Hale are opposed to this view. “A man may prescribe to have a several fishery in such a water, and the owner shall not fish there; but if he claim to have common of fishery or free fishery the owner of the soil shall fish there” (Co Littl. 122 A); “one man may have the river and others the soil adjacent: or one man may have the river and soil thereof, and another the free or several fishing in that river” (De Jure Maris, ch. i.). Lord Holt, though in one instance he distinguished them, in a later case thought that they were “all one.” Later decisions have established the latter view, and it is now settled that although the owner of the several fishery is prima facie owner of the soil of the waters, this presumption may be displaced by showing that the terms of the grant only convey an incorporeal hereditament, and that the words “sole and exclusive fishery” give a several fishery in alieno solo. In the words of Mr Justice Willes, “the only substantial distinction is between an exclusive right of fishery, usually called ’several,’ and sometimes ‘free,’ as in ‘free warren,’ and a right in common with others, usually called ‘common of fishery,’ and sometimes ‘free,’ as in ‘free port.’ A several fishery means an exclusive right to fish in a given place, either with or without the property in the soil” (Malcolmson v. O’Dea, 1863, 10 H.L.). A common of piscary, or “a right to fish in common with certain other persons in a particular stream,” is usually found in manors, the commoners of which may have the right to enjoy it to an extent sufficient for the sustenance of their tenements; but they cannot, except by immemorial special prescription, exclude the lord of the manor therefrom, and have no rights over the soil itself. Decisions also establish that a grant of “fishery” will prima facie pass an exclusive fishery; a grant of soil covered by water or a lease of lands including water will pass the fishery therein; a several fishery will not merge on being resumed by the crown; and a fishery situate within a manor is presumed to belong to the owners of adjacent land, and not to the lord. A several fishery, as already seen, being an incorporeal hereditament, can only be transferred by deed, and therefore cannot be abandoned, and so acquired by the public, even on proof that the public have, as far back as living memory, exercised the right of fishing in the locus in quo to the knowledge of and without interruption from the claimant of the fishery. But to establish a title to a several fishery, a “paper title,” i.e. one founded on documentary evidence only, is not sufficient; it must be supported by evidence of acts of ownership in recent times, for otherwise it will be presumed that a person other than the alleged owner is the real owner. If the waters of a tidal river leave their old channel and flow into another, the owner of a several fishery in the old channel cannot claim to have it in the new one; but, on the other hand, the owner of a several fishery can take advantage of a gradual encroachment by the river upon and into the land of a riparian owner, the limits of whose land are ascertained. The owner of an exclusive fishery, whether in tidal or fresh waters, has the right to take as many fish as he can, and may do so by means of fixed engines or dredging, provided that in navigable waters he does not interfere with the right of navigation, and that in navigable and other waters he does not interfere with the fishing rights of his neighbours or infringe the provisions made by old or modern statutes as to the methods of taking the fish, e.g. by weirs. These were forbidden in rivers by Magna Carta and later statutes, and on the seashore by a statute of James I.; but all weirs in navigable fresh waters traceable to a date not later than 25 Edward III. are lawful, for the statutes forbidding weirs do not apply to navigable waters. It seems, however, that at common law any fixed structures put up by the owner of a fishery in his part of a river, which at all prevent the free passage of fish to the waters above or below, give the owners of fisheries therein a right of action against him. So the grantee of an exclusive fishery with rod and line in an unnavigable river can prevent any person from polluting the river higher up and so damaging the fishery. At common law there is no property in fish when enjoying their natural liberty; the taker is entitled to keep them unless they are caught from a tank or small pond; or except in the case of salmon by statute.

Modern statutes now regulate all fisheries, sea or fresh, in territorial or inland waters. As regards sea fishery in England, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries has (since 1903, when it took it over from the Board of Trade) power by order to create sea fisheries districts, comprising any part of the sea within which British subjects have, by international law, the exclusive right of fishing, and to provide for the constitution of a local fisheries committee to regulate the sea fisheries in such district, which can make by-laws for that purpose. It appoints fishery officers to enforce them, prescribes a close time for sea fish (which does not include salmon as defined in the Salmon Act), has summary jurisdiction over offences committed on the sea coast or at sea beyond the ordinary jurisdiction of a court of summary jurisdiction, can enforce the Sea Fisheries Acts, or regulate, protect and develop fisheries for all or any kind of shell fish. Special provision is also made by statute for the oyster fishery and herring fishery (applicable also to Scotland), and that of mussels, cockles, lobsters and crabs (applicable to all the United Kingdom). In Scotland the Fishery Board can constitute sea fishery districts, and boards with like powers to those in England, and has general control over the coast and deep-sea fisheries of Scotland; and there are acts relative to herring, mussel and oyster fisheries, and allowing the appropriation of money intended to relieve local distress and taxation towards the encouragement of sea fisheries, and marine superintendence and enforcement of Scottish sea fisheries laws. In Ireland the sea fisheries are under the direction of the inspectors of Irish fisheries, who have replaced the former fishery commissioners and special commissioners for Irish fisheries; special statutes, besides the general ones applying to all the United Kingdom, deal with oyster fisheries and mussel fisheries; and money is also appropriated for sea fisheries under the head of technical instruction. In all three component parts of the United Kingdom there are also special statutes relative to salmon and freshwater fish: for England, the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Acts 1861-1907, and the Freshwater Fisheries Acts 1878-1886; for Scotland the chief Salmon Acts are those of 1862-1868, and for trout and freshwater fish those of 1845-1902; for Ireland, the Fisheries (Ireland) Acts 1842-1901. A similar scheme is adopted in each case, namely, fishery districts and district boards are set up which regulate the fishing by by-laws and protect the fish by fixing a close time, and prescribing passes, licences, inspection and the like, breaches of which are punishable by courts of summary jurisdiction. The supreme authorities in each case are—for England the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, for Scotland the Fishery Board, and for Ireland the inspectors of fisheries, and in England a certain official number of conservators on such boards are appointed by the county councils. The Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1907 gives the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries power to make provisional orders for the regulation of salmon fisheries or freshwater fisheries within any area on the application of any board of conservators, or of a county council, or of the owners of one-fourth in value of private fisheries. There are also special acts dealing with the fishing in certain rivers, such as the Thames, Medway, Severn, Tweed and Esk. (The act of 1907 applies, however, to the Esk, but not otherwise to Scotland nor to Ireland.) Throughout the United Kingdom the use of dynamite or other explosive substance to catch or destroy fish in any public fishery is prohibited, as it is also in England in any private waters subject to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Acts 1878, in which it is also forbidden to use poison or other noxious substance for destroying fish. Officers in the army or marines are forbidden (under penalty) to kill fish without written leave from the person entitled to grant it. There are also provisions of the criminal law dealing with the protection of fisheries generally, as well as the provisions of the acts already mentioned dealing with special kinds of fish.

Special provision is made by the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894-1906 for sea-fishing boats (except in Scotland and the colonies), relating to their registration, carrying official papers, carrying boats in proportion to their tonnage, the punishment of offences on board, the wages of their crews, and keeping record of all casualties, punishments and the like on board. As regards trawlers, especially in the case of those of 25 tons and upwards, a statutory form of agreement with the crew is prescribed, as well as accounts of wages and discharges; and skippers and second hands must have certificates of competency, which are granted under similar conditions to those required in the case of sea-going ships and are registered with the Board of Trade. Scottish fishing boats are regulated by a special statute of 1886 (except as regards agreements to pay crew by share of profits, dealt with by the above act) and by the Sea Fisheries Act of 1868, which applies to all British fishing boats. Particular lights must be carried by fishing boats in navigation. An act of 1908 (The Cran Measures Act) legalized the use of cran measures in connexion with trading in fresh herrings in England and Wales, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries being empowered to make regulations under the act.

Authorities.—Green, Encyclopaedia of Scots Law (Edinburgh, 1896); Stewart, Law of Fishing in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1869); Woolrych, Waters (London, 1851); Paterson, Fishery Laws of the United Kingdom (London and Cambridge, 1863); Stuart Moore, Foreshore (London, 1888); Phillimore, International Law (3rd ed., London, 1879); Martens, Causes célèbres du droit des gens (Leipzig, 1827); Selwyn, Nisi Prius, Fishery (London, 1869).

(G. G. P.*)

FISHGUARD (Abergwaun), a market town, urban district, contributory parliamentary borough and seaport of Pembrokeshire, Wales, near the mouth of the river Gwaun, which here flows into Fishguard Bay of St George’s Channel. Pop. (1901) 2002. Its railway station, which is the chief terminus of the South Wales system of the Great Western railway, is at the hamlet of Goodwick across the bay, a mile distant to the south-west. Fishguard Bay is deep and well sheltered from all winds save those of the N. and N.E., and its immense commercial value has long been recognized. After many years of labour and at a great expenditure of money the Great Western railway has constructed a fine breakwater and railway pier at Goodwick across the lower end of the bay, and an important passenger and goods traffic with Rosslare on the opposite Irish coast was inaugurated in 1906.

The importance of Fishguard is due to the local fisheries and the excellence of its harbour, and its early history is obscure. The chief historical interest of the town centres round the so-called “Fishguard Invasion” of 1797, in which year on the 22nd of February three French men-of-war with troops on board, under the command of General Tate, an Irish-American adventurer, appeared off Carreg Gwastad Point in the adjoining parish of Llanwnda. To the great alarm of the inhabitants a body of about 1400 men disembarked, but it quickly capitulated, practically without striking a blow, to a combined force of the local militias under Sir Richard Philipps, Lord Milford and John Campbell, Lord Cawdor; the French frigates meanwhile sailing away towards Ireland. For many years the castles and prisons of Haverfordwest and Pembroke were filled to overflowing with French prisoners of war. Close to the banks of the Gwaun is the pretty estate of Glyn-y-mel, for many years the residence of Richard Fenton (1746-1821), the celebrated antiquary and historian of Pembrokeshire.

FISHKILL LANDING, or Fishkill-on-the-Hudson, a village of Fishkill township, Dutchess county, New York, U.S.A., about 58 m. N. of New York City, on the E. bank of the Hudson river, opposite Newburgh. Pop. (1890) 3617; (1900) 3673, of whom 540 were foreign-born; (1905) 3939; (1910) 3902, of Fishkill township (1890) 11,840; (1900) 13,016; (1905) 13,183; (1910) 13,858. In the township are also the villages of Matteawan (q.v.), Fishkill and Glenham. Fishkill Landing is served by the New York Central & Hudson River and the New York, New Haven & Hartford railways; by railway ferry and passenger ferries to Newburgh, connecting with the West Shore railway; by river steamboats and by electric railway to Matteawan. Four miles farther N. on Fishkill Creek is the village of Fishkill (incorporated in 1899), pop. (1905) 579. In this village are two notable old churches, Trinity (1769), and the First Dutch Reformed (1731), in which the New York Provincial Congress met in August and September 1776. At the old Verplanck mansion in Fishkill Landing the Society of the Cincinnati was organized in 1783. Among the manufactures of Fishkill Landing are rubber-goods, engines (Corliss) and other machinery, hats, silks, woollens, and brick and tile. The village of Fishkill Landing was incorporated in 1864. The first settlement in the township was made about 1690. The township of Fishkill was, like Newburgh, an important military post during the War of Independence, and was a supply depot for the northern Continental Army.

FISK, JAMES (1834-1872), American financier, was born at Bennington, Vermont, on the 1st of April 1834. After a brief period in school he ran away and joined a circus. Later he became a hotel waiter, and finally adopted the business of his father, a pedlar. He then became a salesman for a Boston dry goods firm, his aptitude and energy eventually winning for him a share in the business. By his shrewd dealing in army contracts during the Civil War, and it is said by engaging in cotton smuggling, he accumulated a considerable capital which he soon lost in speculation. In 1864 he became a stockbroker in New York and was employed by Daniel Drew as a buyer. He aided Drew in his war against Vanderbilt for the control of the Erie railway, and as a result of the compromise that was reached he and Jay Gould became members of the Erie directorate. The association with Gould thus began continued until his death. Subsequently by a well-planned “raid,” Fisk and Gould obtained control of the road. They carried financial “buccaneering” to extremes, their programme including open alliance with the Tweed “ring,” the wholesale bribery of legislatures and the buying of judges. Their attempt to corner the gold market culminated in the fateful Black Friday of the 24th of September 1869. Fisk was shot and killed in New York City by E.S. Stokes, a former business associate, on the 6th of January 1872.

FISK, WILBUR (1792-1839), American educationist, was born in Brattleboro, Vermont, on the 31st of August 1792. He studied at the university of Vermont in 1812-1814, and then entered Brown University, where he graduated in 1815. He studied law, and in 1817 came under the influence of a religious revival in Vermont, where at Lyndon in the following year he was licensed as a local preacher and was admitted to the New England conference. His influence with the conference turned that body from its opposition to higher education as immoral in tendency to the establishment of secondary schools and colleges. Upon the removal in 1824 of the conference’s academy at New Market, New Hampshire, to Wilbraham, Massachusetts, Fisk became one of its agents and trustees, and in 1826 its principal. He drafted the report of the committee on education to the general conference in 1828, at which time he declined the bishopric of the Canada conference. He was first president of Wesleyan University from the opening of the university in 1831 until his death on the 22nd of February 1839 in Middletown, Connecticut. His successful administration of the Wesleyan Academy at Wilbraham and of Wesleyan University were remarkable. He was an able controversialist, and in the interests of Arminianism attacked both New England Calvinism and Unitarianism; he published in 1837 The Calvinistic Controversy. He also wrote Travels on the Continent of Europe (1838).

See Life and Writings of Wilbur Fisk (New York, 1842), edited by Joseph Holdich, and the biography by George Prentice (Boston, 1890), in the American Religious Leaders Series; also a sketch in Memoirs of Teachers and Educators (New, York, 1861), edited by Henry Barnard.

FISKE, JOHN (1842-1901), American historical, philosophical and scientific writer, was born in Hartford, Connecticut, on the 30th of March 1842, and died at Gloucester, Massachusetts, on the 4th of July 1901. His name was originally Edmund Fiske Green, but in 1855 he took the name of a great-grandfather, John Fiske. His boyhood was spent with a grandmother in Middletown, Connecticut; and prior to his entering college he had read widely in English literature and history, had surpassed most boys in the extent of his Greek and Latin work, and had studied several modern languages. He graduated at Harvard in 1863, continuing to study languages and philosophy with zeal; spent two years in the Harvard law school, and opened an office in Boston; but soon devoted the greater portion of his time to writing for periodicals. With the exception of one year, he resided at Cambridge, Massachusetts, from the time of his graduation until his death. In 1869 he gave a course of lectures at Harvard on the Positive Philosophy; next year he was history tutor; in 1871 he delivered thirty-five lectures on the Doctrine of Evolution, afterwards revised and expanded as Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy (1874); and between 1872 and 1879 he was assistant-librarian. After that time he devoted himself to literary work and lecturing on history. Nearly all of his books were first given to the public in the form of lectures or magazine articles, revised and collected under a general title, such as Myths and Myth-Makers (1872), Darwinism and Other Essays (1879), Excursions of an Evolutionist (1883), and A Century of Science (1899). He did much, by the thoroughness of his learning and the lucidity of his style, to spread a knowledge of Darwin and Spencer in America. His Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy, while Setting forth the Spencerian system, made psychological and sociological additions of original matter, in some respects anticipating Spencer’s later conclusions. Of one part of the argument of this work Fiske wrote in the preface of one of his later books (Through Nature to God, 1899): “The detection of the part played by the lengthening of infancy in the genesis of the human race is my own especial contribution to the Doctrine of Evolution.” In The Idea of God as affected by Modern Knowledge (1885) Fiske discusses the theistic problem, and declares that the mind of man, as developed, becomes an illuminating indication of the mind of God, which as a great immanent cause includes and controls both physical and moral forces. More original, perhaps, is the argument in the immediately preceding work, The Destiny of Man, viewed in the Light of his Origin (1884), which is, in substance, that physical evolution is a demonstrated fact; that intellectual force is a later, higher and more potent thing than bodily strength; and that, finally, in most men and some “lower animals” there is developed a new idea of the advantageous, a moral and non-selfish line of thought and procedure, which in itself so transcends the physical that it cannot be identified with it or be measured by its standards, and may or must be enduring, or at its best immortal.

It is principally, however, through his work as a historian that Fiske’s reputation will live. His historical writings, with the exception of a small volume on American Political Ideas (1885), an account of the system of Civil Government in the United States (1890), The Mississippi Valley in the Civil War (1900), a school history of the United States, and an elementary story of the American Revolution, are devoted to studies, in a unified general manner, of separate yet related episodes in American history. The volumes have not appeared in chronological order of subject, but form a nearly complete colonial history, as follows: The Discovery of America, with some Account of Ancient America, and the Spanish Conquest (1892, 2 vols.); Old Virginia and her Neighbours (1897, 2 vols.); The Beginnings of New England; or, The Puritan Theocracy in its Relations to Civil and Religious Liberty (1889); Dutch and Quaker Colonies in America (1899); The American Revolution (1891, 2 vols.); and The Critical Period of American History, 1783-1789 (1888). Of these the most original and valuable is the Critical Period volume, a history of the consolidation of the states into a government, and of the formation of the constitution.

(C. F. R.)

FISKE, MINNIE MADDERN (1865- ), American actress, was born in New Orleans, the daughter of Thomas Davey. As a child she played, under her mother’s name of Maddern, with several well-known actors. In 1882 she first appeared as a “star,” but in 1890 she married Harrison Grey Fiske and was absent from the stage for several years. In 1893 she reappeared in Hester Crewe, a play written by her husband, and afterwards acted a number of Ibsen’s heroines, and in Becky Sharp, a dramatization of Thackeray’s Vanity Fair. In 1901 she opened, in opposition to the American theatrical “trust,” an independent theatre in New York, the Manhattan. She won a considerable reputation in the United States as an emotional actress.

FISTULA (Lat. for a pipe or tube), a term in surgery used to designate an abnormal communication leading either from the surface of the body to a normal cavity or canal, or from one normal cavity or canal to another. These communications are the result of disease or injury. They receive different names according to their situation: lachrymal fistula is the small opening left after the bursting of an abscess in the upper part of the tear-duct, near the root of the nose; salivary fistula is an opening into the salivary duct on the cheek; anal fistula, or fistula in ano, is a suppurating track near the outlet of the bowel; urethral fistula is the result of a giving way of the tissues behind a stricture. These are examples of the variety of the first kind of fistula; while recto-vesical fistula, a communication between the rectum and bladder, and vesico-vaginal fistula, a communication between the bladder and vagina, are examples of the second. The abnormal passage may be straight or tortuous, of considerable diameter or of narrow calibre. Fistulae may be caused by an obstruction of the normal channel, the result of disease or injury, which prevents, for example, the tears, saliva or urine, as the case may be, from escaping; their retention gives rise to inflammation and ulceration in order that an exit may be obtained by the formation of an abscess, which bursts, for example, into the gut or through the skin; the cavity does not close, and a fistula is the result. The fistulous channel remains open as long as the contents of the cavity or canal with which it is connected can pass through it. To obliterate the fistula one must remove the obstruction and encourage the flow along the natural channel; for example, one must open up the nasal duct so as to allow the tears to reach the nasal cavity, and the lachrymal fistula will close; and so also in the salivary and urethral fistulae. Sometimes it may be necessary to lay the channel freely open, to scrape out the unhealthy material which lines the track, and to encourage it to fill up from its deepest part, as in anal fistula; in other cases it may be necessary to pare the edges of the abnormal opening and stitch them together.