§ Lord John Fitzroy moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Calcraftobserved, that this was one of the many delusive schemes of the presentday. About sixteen years ago, it fell to his lot to oppose a bill, which, under the pretence of employing the boys of the Marine Asylum, went to supersede the trade of industrious persons who got their living by selling fish. He undertook then to show that the bulk of fish sold at the rate of 1d. per pound died; he would undertake now to show, that the great bulk of the fish brought to the London market, was sold at seven farthings per pound. Could any company supply fish at so cheap a rate as that? In the prospectus of this company it was stated, that the Dutch engrossed nearly the whole of the British fisheries. This proved the ignorance of those who undertook, if they could catch 300,000l., to furnish all London with fish. The Dutch were only engaged in the turbot and eel fisheries. In all other descriptions of fish the British 966 market was supplied by British fishermen. At this end of the town, no doubt the consumer paid high for his fish; but, were delicacies and dainties to be selected, except at a high price? If those who were nice in the supply of their table would have nothing but the very finest fish, ought they not to pay for it? The new company proposed to supply the poor with fish. Could the poor be supplied with fish at a lower rate than fish was now purchased at at Billingsgate market? The poor were dainty with respect to fish: they would never have it but when it was at the highest price. If it was a low-price they immediately fancied it could not be good. He objected, however, to the principle of this bill, calculated, as it was, to injure the regular fishermen, who were entitled to protection and encouragement. He was informed that the first step which the company had taken was to employ an agent at a salary of 2,000l. This was, to be sure, an economical mode, of going to work! He would not oppose the second reading of the bill; but when he met the supporters of it in the committee, he would dare them to a proof of the statements contained in their prospectus.
§ Mr. J. Smithsaid, that the company might do good; but harm, he thought, they could not do.
§ Mr. Curteisobserved, that the Dutch fishermen did not confine themselves to taking eels and turbot, but also brought to the English market flounders, cod, and other fish.
§ Mr. J. P. Grantopposed the bill. He thought the House could not do any thing more injurious to the regular supply of the market, than to give a chimerical company advantages which were not possessed by the regular fishermen.
§ The bill was read a second time.