Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

27 articles on this Page

---SALTNEY AND INCORPORATION.…

CLOSE OF THE DEE SALMON SEASON.…

[No title]

COUNTY POLICE COURT. 0

CITY POLICE COURT. +

NESTON PETTY SESSIONS. +

[No title]

CHESTER BOARD OF GUARDIANS.…

BROXTON PETTY SESSIONS.

AUCTION SALES. ♦

[No title]

CO-OPERATORS & THE DRINK TRAFFIC.…

[No title]

[No title]

"""'--""'-J_"'-'''''''F''F..r''''''''F''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''-''-'F''''.....,.,...,.....F..F1''''-_''…

News
Cite
Share

"J_F''F..r'F'F' F.. F 1' THE DEE SEA FISHERY ABSORPTION SCHEME. Sir,—I imagine that most of the members of the Cheshire County Council are as surprised as myself at the remarks made at the meeting of the Lancashire Sea Fisheries Joint Committee on the 23rd inst. by Mr. A. T. Wright, their re- presentative on that committee. Mr. Wright is reported to have said: Those members of the County Council, who had considered the subject, were in accord with the proposals of the Lancashire Committee." I do not propose to argue the question, but to confine myself to a brief record of facts. At the quarterly meeting of the Cheshire County Council, on 12th November, a letter from Mr. John Fell, the chairman of the Lan- cashire Joint Committee, was considered, asking if the County Council would be willing to be represented at a conference on the amalgamation question. Mr. Wright urged the advantages to follow such an amalgamation. I, understanding that the Lancashire Com- mittee were aiming at the annexation of the estuary of the Dee, rose to reply to Mr. Wright. I had no sooner got the ear' of the Council than Mr. Wright rose to interrupt me, and said that I was evidently mistaken, as the Lancashire Committee bad no intention whatever of encroaching within the estuary. Mr. Wright, as a member of the Lancashire Joint Com- mittee, spoke with authority, so I turned to the chairman of the Council and said Then, sir, if Mr. Wright gives me the assurance that that is so, I have not a word further to say." The assurance was given, and I, simply remarking that I still thought the intention of the Lancashire Com- mittee was as I had stated, sat down. A committee, consisting of Mr. Wright, Mr. Thorny croft, and myself, was appointed with the distinct understanding, as expressed by his Grace the Duke of Westminster, that the com- mittee should have no power to pledge the Council. At the meeting of the County Council on Feb. 11th last, an application was made by the clerk of the River Dee Fishery Board for a grant of JE150 towards the adminis- tration of the Sea Fishery Bye-laws in the estuary. His Grace the Duke of West- minster moved, and I seconded, that, subject &c., a sum of £150 be granted- Mr. Wright rose to oppose the grant, and moved as an amendment that the consideration thereof, pending the report of the committee appointed in November, be referred to a com- mittee. The amendment met with no seconder, and therefore fell to the ground, and the motion was carried. N.B.—You will observe the inconsistency of Mr. Wright, that, whereas he had stated in November that the amalgamation was not to affect the Dee estuary, he here proposes to cripple the Dee Fishery Board by taking away from them their only means of protecting it. The conference between the representatives of the County Councils interested was held on the 11th May, and the amalgamation was fully discussed. There was at first no doubt as to the proposed boundaries of the district. The mask, if there ever was one (which I never believed), was thrown off, and the Lancashire representatives urged that the Dee estuary should be included in the scheme, but before the close of the conference I under- stood that the chairman gave way on this point. The recommendation of the Cheshire Committee, made on this understanding, was as follows:—" Your representatives beg to recommend that the Counc il gives its approval to the proposed amalgamation conditional that the ratable value contribution to be made by this Council towards the cost of the expenses of the administration of the Joint Committee for the proposed combined district should each year be reduced by such amount not exceeding £200, as the Council may from time to time grant to the River Dee Fishery Board towards the expenses to Jbe incurred by them as a Local Fisheries Committee under the Sea Fishery Regulation Act for the estuary of the River Dee." The report of the Committee, on the motion of Mr. Thornycroft, seconded by his Grace the Duke of Westminster, was received and the recommendations contained therein were adopted. Facts speak for themselves, and I leave the public to judge whether the County Council, by deciding to retain a sum not exceeding £200 from the ratable value contribution, did or did not mean to approve the Dee estuary being absorbed by the Western Fishery Scheme. I should not have troubled you at such length but for three reasons. 1. Mr. Wright's asssertions —so contrary to the facts—have got the start, and need correction. 2. There will be no other opportunity of correcting them before the County Council meeting in November. 3.1 wished the public at once to be able to consider the matter under the light of the facts as they occurred. I am, however, able to state that representations opposed to the scheme have already been, or will be, sent to the Board of Trade by all the parties interested in keeping the Dee estuary out ef it.—I am, your obedient servant, JOHN THOMPSON. August 28th, 1897.

A FISHERMAN'S PROTEST.

'LEST WE FORGET.'

CHESTER FISHERMEN AND THE…

THE SCARCITY OF DEE SALMON.

HOBBY HORSE MUSIC AT MALPAS.

[No title]

TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION IN CHESHIRE.…

CHESHIRE FEDERATION OF TRADES…

WEEKLY STATE OF THE CHESTER…

Advertising

Family Notices

Advertising