164 THE RELATIONS OF THE STATE WITH 



letting of these "houses to any other than fishmongers," 

 and as any fishmongers who might settle there ran the risk 

 of incurring "the penalties against regrators, should they 

 expose to sale again in their shops any fish bought by them 

 at or in the said fish market," it is little wonder that 

 " several of the houses were uninhabited," and that " great 

 loss accrued to the said Richard Hughes thereby." As a 

 means of escape from this dilemma, Parliament allowed the 

 trustees to relieve their lessee of his covenant in regard to 

 two houses, and gave leave to any fishmongers, holding 

 shops for the sale of fish in any of the others, to sell any 

 fish whatever there " although they shall have bought the 

 same in the said market at Westminster." Still setting its 

 heart on the actual erection of this building, Parliament 

 next ordered that no one should sell fish within 500 yards 

 of the site without the licence of the trustees, and even 

 authorised them to compensate one fishmonger who had 

 established himself in Bridge Street for this interference 

 with his business. But neither the fish nor the market 

 came to Westminster, and, after a struggle of over forty 

 years, Parliament in 1790 relieved the trustees of their 

 trust, and, on the pretext that " the providing of apprentices 

 for fishermen was one of the objects " of the original West- 

 minster Market Act, handed over their funds to the Marine 

 Society. 



The history of the Hungerford and Columbia fish markets, 

 founded under the regime 'of freedom from State interference, 

 shows that there was something more than Parliament was 

 able to see that prevented the success of its attempts at 

 market-making. The present phase of the question which 

 the new markets at Shadwell and Farringdon illustrate is an 

 interesting subject for study. Its bearing on the problem 

 of the duty of the State towards this branch of the fisheries 



