§ The order of the day having been read for the second reading of this Bill, Mr. Herbert moved to postpone it until Wednesday the 24th of April. After some conversation, in which Mr. P. Moore, Mr. Tremaine, Mr. Curwen, Mr. Calcraft, sir T. Turton, sir J. Newport, &c. participated, Mr. Herbert withdrew his motion; and Mr. Curwen moved that the Bill be read a second time on Monday next, A division ensued.
| For Mr. Curwen's motion | 27 |
| Against it | 56 |
| Majority | —29 |
§ On the question that the Bill be now read a second time, an Amendment was moved by sir W. Lemon, "That it be read a second time this day six months."
Mr. Roseargued in favour of the Bill, contending that the Deep Sea Fishery was of the utmost importance, and ought to be encouraged by every possible means. He 681 was persuaded that the efforts of individuals on this subject could never be productive of such advantageous results as those of joint stock companies.
§ Mr. Calcraftallowed that if we were at peace, the fisheries might be encouraged with great benefit to the country: but at a time when the foreign markets were shut, and the home markets glutted, the increase of our fisheries could be advantageous neither to the individuals immediately concerned, nor to the public at large. In any case, the association of a joint stock company for the purpose, was unnecessary. Let it once be seen that the undertaking was a profitable one, and individuals enough would be found with capitals ready to engage in it.
§ Mr. Giddyexpressed his conviction that the question was one of the greatest public interest. To encourage our fisheries seemed at the first view of it, a desirable object; but what was the state of the markets? It must be recollected, that if we had driven the enemy out of the sea, the enemy had shut us out of the land. To accumulate a quantity of fish which we could not sell, would not be to encourage, but to destroy our fisheries. The fisheries of Cornwall and of Newfoundland, and the whale fishery, were all prosecuted without joint stock companies; and the establishment of one in the present instance appeared to him to be by no means advisable.
Mr. Marryattopposed the Bill, the tendency of which was to produce a competition that would be destructive to the existing fisheries, without being advantageous to the public. It was the duty of parliament to maintain the interests of those fisheries which were already established. The Newfoundland fishery had been the cause of more wars between this country and France, than almost any other subject of contention, and having successfully defended it from foreign attack, we should surely abstain from destroying it with our own hands. He instanced several cases in which projects similar to that under consideration had been destructive, first to the competitors of the projectors, but ultimately to the projectors themselves.
§ Admiral Harveysaid, he understood that it was intended to employ men from Holland and the Low Countries, to assist in catching and curing the fish. It was well known, that on former occasions, such pervious had returned, and become pilots to the French vessels.
§ The Amendment was then put and carried without a division; so that the Bill is lost.