But the case was different with regard to Great Britain. She laboured under none of the disadvan tages, and felt none of the necessities, which pressed upon Holland. Her capital was employed in foreign commerce, in the improvement of her agriculture, and in the introduction of some and the perfection of other branches of manufacture. The complaints, therefore, of the indolence of the British; of their buying fish from the Dutch, rather than choosing to undergo the risk and fatigue of catching them, even on their own shores, will not, perhaps, on due consideration, appear to be well-founded. Their conduct may be ascribed rather to the very natural result of being able to employ their capital in a more lucrative, a more pleasing, and less preca rious way. It would be too much to expect that he, who can buy a fish for half the money requir ed to catch one, will quit his present employment and turn fisherman; or that he, who can make a greater and more certain profit in commerce, agri culture, or manufactures, than by fishing, will divert his capital from the former to embark in the latter. The government had repeatedly held out encourage ment for the pursuit of the fisheries; and aided the ef forts of individuals in various ways to promote the suc cess of a branch of national industry of so much im portance to the national wealth and strength. Liberal subscriptions for this purpose have, at various times, been set on foot ; privileges and immunities have been granted; villages built at the public expense; and ships and boats with all the necessary articles and tackle, supplied; premiums have been conferred, bounties granted, duties exempted, the fishermen have been protected from the impress, and those who may have followed the occupation for seven years allowed to set up, and freely exercise, any trade or profession, in any town or place of Great Britain.
The failure, therefore, could not always have been owing to want of protection and encouragement; though it may, in some measure, to the want of knowledge or circumspection in the way of admini stering it. Neither could it be ascribed to the want of funds. In 1580, a plan was matured for raising L.80,000 for establishing the British fishery. In 1615, the same sum was raised by a joint stock com pany. In 1632, a royal fishing company was estab lished, by the sanction of King Charles I., who, in order to increase the demand, prohibited the impor tation of foreign fish, directed a supply to be furnish ed for his fleet, and ordered Lent to be more strict ly observed. In 1660, Parliament granted a remis sion of the salt duties, and freed all the materials employed in the fisheries from customs and excise. In 1661, the national fishery met with great encou. ragement under the auspices of Charles II. In 1677, this monarch incorporated the Duke of York and others into " The Company of the Royal Fishery of England;" but, on this occasion, the miserable capital was exhausted in the purchase and fitting out of a few busses, built in Holland, and manned with Dutchmen, which were seized by the French on the breaking out of the war. In 1713, it was proposed to raise L.180,000 on annuities, for the purpose of establishing a fishing company. In 1749, by the recommendation of George II., in his open ing speech to Parliament, and, in consequence of a Report of a Committee of the House of Commons, the sum of L.500,000 was subscribed for carrying on the fisheries, under a corporation, by the name of " The Society of the Free British Fishery," of which the Prince of Wales was chosen the gover nor. This society, patronised by men of the first rank in the kingdom, promised fair for a little time, but soon began to languish ; nor was the large bounty of 56s. a ton able to prevent its total failure.
The attention of Parliament was again called to this great national object in 1786, when a new corpora tion was formed, under the name of " The British Society for Extending the Fisheries and Improving the Sea Coasts of the Kingdom," which has con tinued, with various modifications, to the present time; and, as we shall presently see, has been of late years in a flourishing and progressive state of improvement Thus, then, it is evident that we must look for the real grounds of the general languishing state of the British fisheries, in other causes than those which have usually been assigned by our ancestors; and though the complaint, in modern times, may, have some foundation, which is almost exclusively levelled against the salt duties, and, after these were wholly removed, against the numerous checks and excise regulations, which are stated to be as griev ous and discouraging as were the duties themselves; yet the impediments which these are alleged to throw in the way of the kayo.* state of the fish eries, have probably been muds exaggerated. There au be no eloobt that much benefit would be derived from a total repeal of all the acts relating to the duties and the regulations of salt; and yet, when the old writers stated their grievances, the article of salt is nei er once mentioned. In fact, there were then neither duties nor restrictions on this article of universal use ; and yet the fisheries did not Sourish under the free and unlimited use of it The salt-duties originated as a tear tax in the ninth year of William III.; and in the first year of Arnie, a regular salt code was established, and confirmed by five several statutes in the same reign. George I. and I 1 added but little to the salt-laws ; but the pre sent reign, as Sr Thomas Bernard observes, bas " greatly enriched tbe code by voluminous and con tradictory clauses, sometimes in the form of guards to the revenue, sometimes in the semblance of boun ties, drawbacks, and allowances, surrounded by pains and penalties, oaths md perjuries, and so extended and involved, as to be quite beyond the comprehen sion of those who are peculiarly affected by them:" be adds, that " since his Majesty's accession, no less than thirty acts have been passed on the subject of these duties, and not less than SOO pages of addi tions made to our sane-code." Sir Thomas, as an active member of " The Association for the Belief of the Manufacturing Poor," took great pains to as certain the bearing which the duties and regulations on salt had on agriculture, manufactures, and the fisheries- His conclusion, with regard to the latter, is, that the act or 57th Geo. III. which permits an un limited allowance of rock-salt, duty free, though it may not come within the reach of the poor solitary fisherman, will benefit those whose capitals are en g2ged on a larger scale. This act, also, by increas ing the allowance of duty-free salt on dry-railed cod, ling, and hake to 70 lbs per cwt. of fish, which, by a former act (55th Geo. I I I.) was limited to 50 lbs. is stated to have had a salutary effect on those fish Erie& As a proof of this, it is mentioned, that, on its being unood, at the time of passing this lat ter act, that tbe duty-free allowance was to be fixed at 70 lbs., the persons concerned in the North Sear and Iceland fisheries, who were preparing to take advantage of it, immediately abandoned the enter prise on finding the blank filled up with 50 lbs. of salt per cwt. of fish.