Star.
London, England, 1825-03-16 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

IrtSH COMPANIES.
Sir E. KNATCH BULL presented a Petition from Ramsgatt,
apinst.the Metropolitan Fish Company Hill.
A similar Petition was presented from Greenwich.
Mr. CALCRAFT explained, that when he before ad-

verted to this subject, he read to the House a passage
. from a prospectus which had since been disclaimed by
the parties. The fact was that there were three Fish Com-
panies now in agitation, and he had made a mi,take in
getting at the real Simon rime. His objection, however, applied
to all such Companies, and be should be able to spew their absur-
dity in the Committee.
Sir J. YORKE objected to see a body of overbearing
monieJ men come forward to the injury of that useful
class, who were engaged in a vet y honourable and a
very ancient employment, as the Apostles themselves would tee-
tify—(A laugh.)
Sir E. HARVEY, in presenting another Petition of
the same nature, said, that there was not a finer or a more praise-
worthy body of men in existence than the fishermen who would be
injured by this Dill, and he should therefore oppose it.
Sir E. KNATCHRULL also expressed his intention
to oppose the Bill.
Mr. CURTEIS said, that the object of the Company
was not to catch fish, but to buy it of the Fishermen for the purpose
of better supplying the mat ket.
Mr. BERNAL said, that if the Company were to
purchase the fish of the fishermen, and it was to be caught in the
present manner, be Should like to know how the public were to
have it cheaper?
Mr. T. WILSON said, that there could not be a more
honourable body of men that the Directors the pro-
posed Company, and he was convinced that their object
was rather to serve the public than to obtain profit for
themselves. He was some years ago applied to by a
respectable fishmonger to present a petition to the
House, with a view of exposing the nefarious pratqces
of the trade. It was notoriously true, that wliep an
• unusually large supply of fish came into the market,
it was bought up and kept back to the nest day; and that, ra-
. Ott- than let it come cheap to the public, it was the custom to
throw it into the river. The object of this Company was to let
the public have the advantage of all the supply which came, into
the market. He understood, tbat there were 'many respectable
Fishmongers ready to give evidence before the Committee that in ,
their opinion the Bill would be advantageous to the trade.
Mr. Alderman Wows spoke against the Bill, and Mr. J. Swill'
supported it.—The Petitions were ordered to lie on the table.
Sir IL FERGUSON presented a Petition from Dundee, avainst
the Leith Docks Bill.
Sir A. CD [CHESTER presented a Petition from the Mother
of Commerce in Belfast, in favour of the Manchester and Stockton
Rail Read Bill.

THAMES QUAY AND TERRACE. .
Colonel TRENCH moved the bringing up the Report of the
Thames Quay and Terrace Committee. The report stated that the
Standing Orders bad been complied with, and upon the motion for
leave to bring. in the Bill,
Mr. CALCKAFT said, he was sorry to oppose
what would certainly be a splendid improvement and
ornament to the Banks of the Thames ; but he felt
bound to do so on account of the injury which this
measure would cause to the property of private indivk

. .
duals. The Honourable Member contended that the
Standing Orders had not been complied with, notwith-
standirg the Report of the Committee, and upcn that
ground the Bill could not pass this Session. It was
stated in some of the prospectuses, that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer was to advance 200,0001. in support
of the project; but from the known prodence of that
Right Honourable Gentleman he was convinced that so
large a sum of the public money would be applied to
no such visionary purpose. It was, in fact, a splendid
impossibility, and monstrous to suppose that it could
be carried into effect at anything like the expense
estimated in the prospectus. They would not only
have to incur the expense of building the Quay, but
they must compensate individuals tor the injury of
their property, their loss of business—and in short, to
buy them out altogether; so that the sum required
would be grime or four millions, instead of three or four
hundred thousand pounds. The Duke of Northumberland and
Lord Liverpool bad made a successful resistance to the project, so
that it was not to be carried to their premises. He did not see why
the Duke of Norfolk and other parties were not also to be relieved
from it, and if the House seemed disposed to go along with him,
he would divide upon this stage of the proceeding.
Mr. HOBHOUSE made similar objections to the
uwasure, end **toted his conviction that it was quite Impossible
to carry It into effect.
Colonel TRENCH thought the plan not only of
paramount importance but of absolute necessity. The
Committee had been advised by the best legal autho-
rities, not to give notice to the petitioners, as the plan
only referred to the improvement of the navigation of
the River, and the best judges were of opinion, that the
navigation would be materially improved. The incon-
venience and loss would be temporary, while the ad-
vantage Would be permanent. The variations in the
plan had arisen from the suggestions of proprietors on
the banks of the River. The banks of the Thames were
' a disgrace to the City and the country at large. The
plan was perfectly practicable, and.the Strand was no
longer competent to perform its functions. The estimate