26 



voice against the enactment of regulations which could not 

 be shown to have any definite purpose, by which poor and 

 industrious men were burdened and brought within the 

 reach of the law and created offenders, fined and half 

 ruined when no genuine ground could be shown for the 

 law which had fined them. That appeared to be one of 

 the worst forms of modern oppression. It was on that 

 ground that he always ventured to advocate a most careful 

 consideration of all laws and regulations with respect to 

 fisheries, and he was extremely glad to find any one whose 

 judgment he valued so highly and whose knowledge was 

 equalled by that of very few persons now living, boldly 

 coming forward and advocating the same cause. He 

 begged to move a most hearty vote of thanks for the 

 admirable paper he had read. 



Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS, in seconding the motion, said he 

 was sorry time did not admit of going somewhat at length 

 into the important subject before them, but with regard to 

 a waterside market he should like to point out one 

 necessity which had been omitted, namely, that if the 

 market were to be on the waterside it should be capable 

 of being approached by vessels so constructed as to meet 

 the requirements of stormy weather, in other words by large 

 seaworthy vessels, carrying masts, and for that reason it 

 would have to be below the bridges across the Thames. 

 With regard to the proportion of water-borne fish, namely, 

 40,000 tons, as compared with 90,000 brought by land, he 

 would also point out one peculiarity, namely, that the chief 

 portion of fish brought by water was the cheaper kind, 

 what was opprobriously called offal fish, though he strongly 

 objected to such a word being used, especially considering 

 that this kind of fish was eaten by 6000 people every 

 week in the adjoining dining-room. At the same time 



