§ Several petitions were presented against this bill.
Mr. Calcraftrose, to explain an inaccuracy into which he had fallen upon a former evening when speaking of this company. There were in fact three fish companies, whose objects were nearly similar, and in endeavouring to detect the 1021 real Simon Pure, he had happened to take up the wrong prospectus. The mistake, however, which related to the connection which he imagined to exist between this company and the Dutch fisheries was immaterial, and did not at all affect his argument against it. The effect of this and every similar company was, to take the bread out of the mouths of industrious individuals, and it was upon that ground principally that he opposed it. The public would derive no benefit from these companies, as they already procured fish at as cheap a rate as the nature of the commerce would allow. There were many respectable names attached to this company. If lord George Seymour, Mr. Mocatta, and other respectable persons chose to become fishmongers, he could have no possible objection; but he felt a strong objection to their uniting for the purpose of ruining the poor but honest and industrious individuals, with whose means of subsistence the monopoly of such a company would materially interfere.
§ Sir J. Yorkeagreed, that it was extremely iniquitous to interfere with the hard earnings of a class of persons whose calling was honourable, and of great anti-quity, as it was followed by the apostles.
§ Sir E. Harveycontended, that the House ought to protect those who were engaged in the fisheries; as they were a fine race of seamen, who would, when occasion required, be useful to our navy.
§ Mr. Curteisdenied that the new company interfered with the fisheries at all. They were purchasers offish, and would, therefore, be useful to those who were engaged in that trade.
§ Mr. T. Wilsonsaid, that the company had, in his opinion, been subjected to much undeserved obloquy. Those who formed it were most respectable. And what was their object? To give cheap fish to the inhabitants of the metropolis. Was there any thing reprehensible in such an object; and would it be contended that it was uncalled for? As far as his experience went, the practices of the fishmongers in London were occasionally most nefarious. He had been informed, that it was not unusual, when there was a superabundance of fish, to throw it into the river, in order to prevent the price which they had chosen to lay upon it from being lowered. The object of the company was, to counteract this system, by giving to the public the 1022 benefit of all the fish that came into the market.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that the effect of this bill would be a monopoly in the sale, and not in the catching of fish. An agent was appointed at a salary of 2,000l. to buy up fish; and it was evident when so much capital was brought into the market, that fish would rise, instead, of becoming cheaper.
§ Mr. J. Smiththought that much good would arise from the establishment of this company.
§ Ordered to lie on the table.