View report page

Until the end of the fourteenth century the Fishmongers had their own Court of Law (Leyhalmode)
at which all disputes relating to fish were adjudged by the Wardens, whether such disputes
were between members of the Company amongst themselves or with "foreigners" i.e. nonmembers
of the Guild. The Fishmongers appear to have lost their monopoly in the 15th century,
and although their history is not perhaps so full of incident in later centuries it embodies a record
of duties performed and many intersting sidelights on historical events.
The Company's present-day duties are still very largely concerned with the Fishing Industry
and the Fish Trade. Under the Charter of James I the Company's officials (known as "fishmeters")
examine all fish coming into London and condemn that which is bad. In cases where bad fish is
exposed for sale, the Company institute proceedings under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955 against
the offenders.
In addition to the powers granted to them by Charter, the Company has statutory powers
under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, the Fisheries (Oyster, Crab and Lobster)
Act, 1877, the Sea Fishing Industry Act, 19 38 etc
Another part ot the Company's work is concerned with the salmon and freshwater fisheries
of the country and the import of salmon etc. from abroad. For many years the Company has prosecuted
offenders against the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act for illegal methods of fishing
and for marketing during the Close Times.
An important aspect of the Company's work is concerned with shellfish. Samples of oysters,
mussels etc. coming to the City of London from Great Britain and from abroad are regularly examined
by the Company's Bacteriologist and when they do not come up to the Company's standard their
sale is prohibited and enquires are instituted at the source of supply. So that while the Company's
Charter applies only to the City of London, the benefit of its control in guarding against the
spread of such disease as typhoid fever by shellfish extends to the whole of the British Isles.
The Company's Hall has been on its present site near the North Western corner of London
Bridge on the bank of the Thames since 1434 when the site was acquired from Lord Fanhope — it
had previously been inhabited by such .prominent fishmongers as Sir John Lovekyn and Sir William
Walworth. The Hall on this site was destroyed by the Great Fire of 1666 — it was succeeded in
1671 by a building designed by Edward Jarman.
When London Bridge was rebuilt to the west of its old site it was necessary to put the bridge
foot on part of the site of Fishmongers' Hall and the whole Hall was therefore pulled down. The
present Hall, finished in 1834 was designed by Henry Roberts who had working in his office
Gilbert Scott. Country Life has described the result of their work in these words "Gilbert Scott's
collaboration with Roberts began and ended with Fishmongers Hall with the result that Roberts
never carried out as considerable building again, nor Scott so good a one".
Individual doctors associated with the Thames
It is appropriate that I should refer to Sir John Simon the first M.O.H. of the City of London.
He was a renowned pathologist and surgeon before he was appointed M.O.H. It might be thought
that being the M.O. of the City he would have few, if any associations with the Port and the
Thames, in particular. It is not so: he was socatholicin his interests in environment public health
measures that he took a great interest in port health matters as well as City affairs. He was
appointed M.O.H. on 19th October 1848. He was not long in office till cholera became epidemic in
1849 from drinking the barely filtered diluted sewage water of the Thames or the New River. In
addition contaminated hands and flies infected food in the overcrowded dirty City of London.John
Simon thought thatcholera was non contagious and caused by inhalation of contaminated stench from
putrid decomposed matter. He also thought that the diarrhoea if treated in the early stage by
constipating medicine could be prevented from developing into acute cholera. So his preventive
measures in removing filth was right for the wrong reason, but in flushing the sewers into the
Thames to get rid of it, the epidemic was extended by contaminating the water supply. His policy
was the same as Chadwick's in so far as incessant flushing of the sewers into the river was
concerned. In the I840's there were 3 theories concerning the etiology of infection. There was
the germ theory that infection was due to a living organism. This theory had been reformulated
by Henle in 1840 and naturally stressed the contagiousness of disease. It was supported by the
empirical work of men like John Snow and William Budd but lacked conclusive experimental proof.
The second theory was that of spontaneous generation of disease within the blood. This was
a chemical theory and naturally denied contagion.
Thirdly there was the atmospheric theory. This was vague. It was that under certain circumstances
the atmosphere became charged with an epidemic influencewhich in turn became malignant
when it became embued with exhalations of organic decomposition. The resulting gases or maisma