HC Deb 24 July 1868 vol 193 cc1756-73

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee).

Clause 3 (Constitution of Market Authority).

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he would appeal to his hon. Friend (Mr. Selwin-Ibbetson) to withdraw his Amendment. It would be certain to give rise to much opposition and take up much time; and therefore, in the interest of those who wished that the Bill should pass, it would be more prudent to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, that his sole object had been to advance the measure, but he was prepared, in deference to the wish now expressed, to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he begged on behalf of the ratepayers of London to express his gratification that this Amendment had been withdrawn.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the Corporation of the City of London have declined to give any assurance that they will become the market authority, and have refused the terms the Government have proposed to them in order to induce them to become the market authority, why should their name not be omitted as well as that of the Board of Works? I am quite at a loss to know what the Government are are about. In the first instance the Government themselves proposed the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Committee struck out the Metropolitan Board of Works The Government requested the Board should be introduced, and now when it has been proposed to restore the provision, we are told the Government abandon altogether that part of their plan, and that the Metropolitan Board of Works are not to be their authority at all. This continual change of plan does shake my confidence in the Government. Within the last three days we have had from the Government three different plans. First of all we were told by the Vice President of the Council he felt confident that the City would undertake it. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he had a plan that would be sure to succeed with the City, that they were going to take it into consideration. At the Common Council yesterday, a very formal proceeding took place. A clause was put upon the Paper that the Islington market tolls were to be increased, and that £300,000 was to be advanced to the Corporation of the City of London. Yes: but the City of London rejected that offer. Now, I say, you have no market authority. As for the Commissioners, it is a perfect absurdity. We used to have three characters in this Bill. First, there was the Corporation of the City of London; if they would not take it, then the Metropolitan Board of Works would take it; and if none of these would take it, then there were to be five Royal Cattle Market Commissioners to be appointed by the Government. Well, then, where are we? Many agricultural friends of mine are of opinion that the Government have conducted this question in a very unsatisfactory manner, and I shall move a distinct Resolution that the course they have taken in regard to the Bill under discussion has been of a vacillating and unsatisfactory character. The House has a right to know clearly and distinctly who are to be the parties that are to manage the foreign cattle trade of this country: I beg therefore to ask the First Minister of the Crown—or if the First Minister will not condescend to answer, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer—as the Corporation have refused the office, and the Metropolitan Board of Works has been withdrawn from the Bill, who is to be the market authority in this Bill?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a question a great many times over, which I should have been perfectly ready to answer, if it had only been put to me once. The right hon. Gentleman wished to know what the Government were about? I will tell him very briefly. The Government are doing their best to pass this Bill. He says we have been vacillating in this matter. It is perfectly true that we are unable to pass this Bill in the shape that we should have liked, but that is owing to the machinations—["Oh, oh !"]—As exception seems to be taken to that word, I shall say that we have been compelled to alter our plan, owing to the operations—no one can take exception to the word "operations"—of those Gentlemen who are opposed to the Bill. The operations, I repeat, of those who have opposed us have thrown great difficulties in the way of the Government, and therefore they have been obliged to take the course which they consider most expedient in order to pass this measure. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the withdrawal of the Metropolitan Board of Works from the Bill. Our reason for doing so was this: it was felt that a great deal of lime would have been lost in discussion, had we supported the proposition to keep that body in the Bill. The Metropolitan Board of Works was struck out of the Bill by the Select Committee, and, as time was precious, we did not think it desirable to persist in re-inserting it. Had we retained the Board of Works in the measure they would have been the market authorities. As the Bill stands, however, the Corporation of London may become so if they choose.—[Mr. MILNER GIBSON: They have refused.]—I do not believe that that is the case. They have only refused a proposed compulsory arrangement. An officer of the Corporation made a proposition to the Government, which was entertained; and the Government proposed that, if the proposition was inserted in the Bill, it should be compulsory on the Corporation to become the market authority. We propose to put in the Bill that the Corporation shall be the market authority upon certain terms; and in the event of their refusing, the Commissioners will then become the market authority. We have discussed the question of what funds there will be for the erection of the market, and we decided that the funds which the Commissioners would have to look to for this purpose would be the market tolls. The question has been asked, will persons lend money on the security of those tolls? We have reason to believe that they will. Of course, if capitalists refuse to lend their money the Bill will be inoperative with a Commission; but we understand that persons will lend money upon the security I have mentioned. Believing that to be the case, we shall press forward this Bill, leaving it to the Corporation of London to become the market authority, and failing the Corporation to the Commissioners. I hope I have given a plain answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman—[No !"]—It may not be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman who says "no"; but I have endeavoured to answer the question put to me as practically and as plainly as possible, and I hope the Bill will be allowed to proceed.

MR. AYRTON

said, he thought the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had by no means been satisfactory as far as regarded the elucidation of the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. ["Oh, oh !"] Hon. Members must make up their minds to allow the Bill to be discussed, or to postpone the debate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he was unable to proceed with this Bill owing to the machinations of Gentlemen on the Liberal side of the House. He (Mr. Ayrton) denied that such had been the case. The Government themselves were alone to blame for what had occurred. All the difficulties in connection with the Bill had arisen out of the fact that the Government, when they introduced the measure, did not deal frankly and fairly with the question. Had they proclaimed their design at the outset, the country would have been aroused and the Bill would have been defeated. But they kept back the material portion of their scheme until the measure was far advanced in Committee, and the financial scheme which they now brought forward as new they had under their notice when they first devised their scheme. They had therefore created the difficulties and were responsible for the reception which the Bill had met with.

MR. NEATE

said, if it was a matter of Imperial interest, that for the preservation of the food of the country, restrictions should be imposed on the importation of foreign cattle into the port of London, the public generally ought to contribute to meet the expenditure which would thus be incurred, and the whole of the burden ought not to fall upon the inhabitants of the metropolis. He thought the agricultural interest had great cause of complaint against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was willing to give them anything but money. The measure was in a most unsatisfactory condition, and had better be put off till next Session.

COLONEL SYKES

said, that looking at the amount of compensation that would be required, he doubted whether any persons would be found to undertake the duty of Commissioners. Recollecting the great loss which the country had suffered from the cattle plague, he had hitherto supported the Bill, but he should object to constitute the Metropolitan Board of Works as the market authority, because that body was already in debt, and was only able to get money the other day by the guarantee of the Government.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOCKE moved in page 2, line 16 to omit from "if" to the end of the clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given the House no information as to the source whence the required funds were to come. It was quite certain that the City of London had refused to be the market authority. At the present moment the Corporation were losing £6,000 a year by the Copenhagen market, to which cattle of all kinds might be brought; and it was no wonder that they should decline to spend £750,000 or £1,000,000 upon establishing a new one, to which only foreign animals would come. The Committee, in their anxiety that nobody should be injured, said that everybody was to be compensated. The City knew very well what that meant. They would not undertake anything of the sort. It was really impossible to imagine what they would have to lay out, and they would be unworthy of public confidence if they undertook to establish this market for foreign cattle only. Their losses would be tremendous. He only looked at the clause in a common-sense point of view. It was evident that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now in a more melancholy position financially than that in which he had been placed when that subject had last been under discussion. Then he had a prospect of getting money; now he could not hope for a penny. The Corporation of London had declined to accept the responsibility they had been invited to undertake, and it would be idle to expect that they would enter into any compact with the Government in reference to the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that he would provide no money to buy the land or to build the market; but that it might be done by mortgaging the tolls. But if the market were built it would never realize sufficient in tolls to meet the outlay. Land would have to be bought; both banks of the Thames would have to be compensated. When the City authorities, who had all the tolls of Copenhagen market, lost a large sum every year, would any man in his senses lend money on the prospect of such tolls? The whole thing was absurd and ridiculous, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer would advance the money, which he would not, nor would the House agree to his doing so. Would the agriculturists, who were represented by hon. Members opposite, advance the money? As a metropolitan Member he would resist this clause to the utmost, hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to think that metropolitan Members had no feelings whatever in question where beef and mutton were concerned. If hon. Members opposite were not urged on by their constituents, they would take the same view that he did of this scheme, and agree to his Amendment.

Page 2, line 16, Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "if," to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Locke.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. MOFFATT

said, they were told that there were some negotiations pending between the Corporation of London and the Government upon the subject, and he thought it would be convenient if the House were informed as to the state of those negotiations.

MR. HEADLAM

said, the Government were seeking to establish a market in the largest town in the world, contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants, as expressed by their representatives—the executive government of that town having declined to carry out the Bill. He would not have it imputed to him that he had sanctioned such a course even by his silence. The security offered to those who were to build the market was the continuance of a separate foreign cattle market, but he should use whatever influence he possessed here- after to injure and diminish that security by doing away with the system.

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inform the House who the persons in the City were whom he represented as ready to advance the funds for establishing this market on the security of the tolls. He did not think any man out of a lunatic asylum would be found ready to advance the money on tolls which really presented no security whatever; for what guarantee could be given that any cattle would come to the market at all. Certainly, if the respective Orders in Council should be repealed, the foreign cattle would go back to its old channels, to be sent to London via Harwich, Newhaven, and Southampton, without going near the new foreign cattle market at all. Sheep might now be imported into Harwich (in vessels which did not bring cattle), and the moment the restrictions were removed the importation of sheep into the port of Harwich had revived. That would be the case with cattle as soon as the restriction was removed. This Bill had been supported by hon. Members on the other side in the hope that it would restrict the number of cattle coming into the London market. If the importation was to be limited, how were the tolls contemplated by the Bill as a security for repayment of the expenses of the scheme to be raised?

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, that the opinions of hon. Members opposite were contradictory. They maintained, on the one hand, that the Bill would be inoperative if it became law; if so, it followed that it could do neither good nor harm. If that were their honest belief, why did they come down, day after day, to oppose the Bill, losing both their time and their temper in the operation?

MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE

said, that while he admitted his belief that the Bill would be inoperative, he opposed it because it would affirm a had principle.

MR. HENLEY

said, that hon. Gentlemen opposite had been vehement in their objections to the creation of the market proposed by the Bill; they now asserted that the market could never be started, even if the Bill passed. Nothing would suit the Liberal opponents of the Bill. Why could they not allow it to pass? They would do so if they really believed, as they said, that none but lunatics would advance money under the Bill towards the expenses of the market. It might be true that the City of London were losing £6,000 a year by their market, but it must be remembered that that market was in the heart of London and in a most expensive locality, and it did not at all follow that a market seven miles out of London would not pay its expenses. If the Bill could not be carried into effect, why should there be so much opposition? Let the responsibility of such a great failure—if failure it was to be—rest with the Government who proposed the scheme. Considering, however, the support the Bill had received in that House, let the proposal be at least tried.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that if the Bill was now inoperative it was because the exertions of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had made it so. They had succeeded in sweeping away the proposals to rate the inhabitants of the metropolis, and to raise the necessary security by increasing the tolls in the market at Islington; a concession had also been made in the case of sheep, and in those three important respects the Bill had thus been rendered innocuous. In fact the financial part of the scheme had completely broken down. The Bill must be a complete failure. He should be glad, however, to understand explicitly from the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) whether the report was correct that the Court of Common Council had refused to consider the Bill unless the compensation clauses were withdrawn, and further whether the noble Lord intended to secure the support of the City by abandoning those clauses, or to retain them and encounter the opposition of the City?

MR. AYRTON

said, the only object in pressing the Bill was to get the vicious principle it contained confirmed, and for that same reason he opposed it. ["Divide !"] As the Committee seemed indisposed to continue the discussion, he would move that they should report Progress.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Ayrton.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 105: Majority 73.

MR. AYRTON

said, he must complain that while hon. Gentlemen opposite listened with great attention to charges brought against his side of the House, they met his vindication with persistent interruption. He was not disposed to submit to that. He maintained it was a false charge to say that his side of the House was doing what was absurd and inconsistent. There was nothing inconsistent in refusing to pass a measure that would not work, but which contained principles that were pernicious and mischievous. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given some colour of practicability to the measure by telling the House that there were some commercial gentlemen who were willing to carry out the measure by contract. But what he wanted to know from the right hon. Gentleman was, whether they would undertake to pay for the compensations contained in the Bill?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I did not say we had received a tender; but that we had reason to believe that persons would come forward with the money.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

Sir, I contend that this is a measure of confiscation. One individual will be deprived of property which, if sold in the market, would fetch £7,000 or £8,000. You are going to prevent the constituents of the Member for the Tower Hamlets from using their freehold property as the law allows them, though the Committee has decided that such a taking away of private property for the public benefit cannot be carried out without compensation.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I rise to Order. The question is, whether certain persons should be appointed Commissioners? and the hon. Gentleman is going into the question of compensation.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

That is a reason why they should not be appointed.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

It is not competent now to discuss it.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment does not involve the question of compensation.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

Well, then, you propose to appoint Commissioners; I object to your appointing Commissioners. And why do I object? Because you have told us distinctly that these Commissioners are not to be provided with any funds. If you appoint Commissioners to take away property for which the owners are entitled to compensation, those Commissioners must be provided with money to give that compensation. This measure reminds one of the times of the French Revolution. ["Oh, oh!"] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to cry "Oh !" whose estates are not going to be meddled with; but if they were the owners of valuable wharves and landing- places, and were told that Commissioners were to be appointed to take away their property without funds to compensate them, there would be a perfect rebellion amongst them. Island here to resist this pernicious attempt to appoint Commissioners to take away private property without the consent of the owners, and without the means of compensating them. Is it necessary to have Commissioners to manage a dirty market, to be placed, as I understand, at the outlet of the main sewer, the most disagreeable place near the metropolis? ["Oh, oh !"] I deny that I am using arguments unfit to be heard in the House of Commons, though I may appear to be more energetic than I ought to be. The principle I advocate is a sound one—the principle you advocate is a dangerous one—a revolutionary one. I object to the appointment of Crown Commissioners to manage a cattle market. The proposition is ludicrous when we consider that these Royal Commissioners, with all their dignity, are not to have a farthing of money. I have another objection—I think it is a most objectionable principle to appoint Royal Commissioners to look after municipal affairs. A metropolitan market ought to be under the management of the metropolitan local authorities, and if there is a strong objection on the part of the municipal authorities to the scheme you propose, you have no right to force the municipality to carry it into effect, or to appoint Royal Commissioners to do so. If yon cannot induce the local municipal authorities of the City to undertake your scheme, rely upon it they believe that scheme not to be for the benefit of their constituents. The opposition to the Bill has been successfully carried on in two respects. First, it was proposed by the Bill to exclude all foreign cattle and sheep. Some of the sheep are now to be let in. Then, with respect to the 2nd clause, which provided for the imposition of rates on the inhabitants of London for the support of the market, the Government has been induced to withdraw that obnoxious proposal to tax the ratepayers of London in order to carry out a Bill which was intended to increase the price of their meat. ["No, no !"] Why, the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council admitted that the Bill would have that effect, and I can prove, out of the mouths of the witnesses for the Bill, that its operations would have that pernicious effect. Indeed, I will confine myself exclusively, in my criticism of the Bill, to the evidence of the Government themselves. Now, with regard to the price of meat ["Question, question!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman is out of Order.

MR. LOWE

said, he was as favourable as the Government could be to the principle of this Bill, and he did not approve some of the means which had been used in the course of these discussions to defeat it. But he wanted to make an appeal to the Government. It was quite clear that the market, if it was to be established, would involve a large expenditure of money. If they were in earnest—and he was in earnest in wishing to see it established—they ought to provide money for it. It appeared to him that they must have one of three things—either they must have rinderpest continually in this country; or they must seriously interfere with the internal traffic in cattle; or they must have all foreign cattle killed on their arrival. He believed the last was the best course to adopt; but he thought that in bringing in a Bill with that object the Government ought not to ask the approval of Parliament to a measure which would have no effect. If the carrying out of the Bill would involve a large expenditure of money the Government ought to show Parliament there was some reasonable exectation that the money would be forthcoming. To do them justice, he must say they had tried to do so. They had first proposed that the money should come from a body having large estates—the Corporation of London—and that the Corporation should depend upon the prospect of being re-paid by tolls. But he understood it was now admitted—in this, perhaps, he might be wrong—that the Corporation were not willing to take the matter up.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

They are not willing to bind themselves.

MR. LOWE

said, be was not astonished at that, because already they had a large market by which they were losing money. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Milner Gibson) had said that the Corporation resisted this Bill because it would not benefit their constituents. Not at all. They resisted it because they had an interest in another market. Then the Government had proposed that the market should be established by rates to be levied by the Metropolitan Board of Works; but he did not wonder that there should be a strong objection in the metropolis to have the expense of what was a national object thrown on the inhabi- tants of London alone. What, then, remained. As the Bill stood Commissioners, were to be appointed who would have power to charge tolls in the market when it was made, and who would have the power of borrowing money on the security of those tolls. The question, then, was, as to whether the security was adequate. The Commissioners would have the Act of Parliament empowering them to make the market; but the financial success of the market would depend upon its having a monopoly. What security would there be for its having a monopoly? The Orders of the Privy Council, which the Privy Council could at any time rescind or alter? That was not good mercantile security. It was not security on which to raise the large sum of money that would be necessary in this case. Therefore, what he would say to the Government was this—If they really thought this Bill one of great importance, as he really thought it was, let them be prepared to make some proposal, by means of which the money could be raised. It would be necessary to have, not only the security of the market itself, but also the security of a monopoly, which monopoly should not rest on the Orders of any Government. It seemed to him, therefore, to be essential that the whole subject should be dealt with by an Act of Parliament, and that the fate of the market should not be left to Orders in Council. If the Government were not prepared to adopt that course, the only other proposal they could make was one for providing the required funds out of the Revenue of the country. If the Government could not meet the difficulty to which he had directed their attention, he did not see any use in their proceeding with a measure which would be of no practical benefit.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he desired to know—supposing there was no difficulty about security—how the charge of £12,000 (4 per cent upon £300,000) a year was to be met for the first few years of the trust, and where the money was to come from to pay the interest of the money borrowed. If compensation was given, there would be no funds to pay the interest, and if the interest was paid there would be no money to pay the compensations.

MR. DE GREY

said, he thought it was evident that the intention of hon. Members on the other side was to defeat the measure by any means in their power. Their opposition was elaborately obstructive, and it might save time if the right hon. Gen- tleman at the head of the Government would give them an assurance that he was determined, under any circumstances, to pass the Bill, and that he would not advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament until the Bill was passed.

MR. CANDLISH

said, that the Bill, if carried, would probably be inoperative; and why, therefore, should it be pressed? ["No !"] Well, where was the money to be procured by means of which to carry out the provisions of the Bill?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the question had been repeatedly answered. He had stated several times that if the matter were left to the Commissioners they would have nothing but the tolls as a security for raising the money. The Corporation so raised money when the Islington Cattle Market Bill was passed. He had been assured that in the event of the Bill passing persons could be found who would be willing to advance money upon that security, and also that there would be no practical difficulty in constructing the market. In reply to remarks of the right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), he could only say that a monopoly would be secured to the market as far as cattle coming into the port of London, and sheep coming with them, were concerned; though if the right hon. Gentleman were of opinion that the security was insufficient, it would, of course, be open to him to move that no cattle should come into the metropolitan area, except through that market.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he felt assured that his right hon. Friend the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe) had no intention of interposing a difficulty. In his opinion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had failed to give a satisfactory answer to the question as to how the money was to be raised. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, indeed, that he understood parties were ready to lend money on the security of the tolls; but he had omitted to mention how much money they were willing to lend, and for what purposes. This pecuniary part of the business had naturally been examined by the Common Council, who had estimated that £500,000 would be required to construct the market, and had arrived at the conclusion that, even if the interest was at a very moderate rate, there would be a deficiency on the Foreign Cattle Market Account of no less than £13,000 a year. It was true that in the case of the Islington Market the Corporation had had only the tolls to offer as security; but the result was that a deficiency of £7,000 a year had to be paid out of the general revenue of the Corporation, and that deficiency would be increased by the new market. It was not likely, therefore, that the Corporation would be willing to incur a fresh liability on account of the Foreign Cattle Market. Probably the gentlemen alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be willing to lend money for the purpose of building the market, but not for the purpose of paying the compensations. The last clause of the Bill provided that no compensation should become payable until the market was opened; and Consequently it might be possible to find persons sanguine enough to advance money to build the market; but would they advance on the sole security of the tolls the £500,000 which, according to the lowest estimate, would be required for the construction of the market and compensation?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he understood that parties who obtained compensation would have a lien upon the tolls. A remedy was provided in the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, and he believed that any person entitled to compensation might, if necessary, appoint a receiver to take in his behalf the tolls of the market, ["No, no!"] At all events, he was of opinion that under the last clause every such person would have a legal mode of enforcing his rights. It was evident, therefore, that persons advancing money on the security of the tolls would take into consideration the circumstance that the individuals who were entitled to compensation would be able to enforce their rights and get possession of the revenues of the market. He did not know what would be the amount required for building the market, but he imagined it would be considerably less than the sum named by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone). He had been informed, indeed, that only £300,000 would be required for that purpose, though he could not say what the compensation would amount to. Persons concerned in promoting the Bill had informed him that £100,000 would be a very liberal estimate for purchasing the freehold of all the premises used in the cattle trade, and of course if those premises were devoted to other purposes, the amount of compensation would be very small. Under all the circumstances he thought the, Committee need not be frightened by the sum of £500,000, which had been spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In conclusion, he could only say he had been assured, during the last two days, that persons were willing to come forward with the money on the security of the tolls, even taking into consideration what would have to be paid by way of compensation.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, that the persons advancing the money might probably require the rules to be made more stringent than they would be as the Bill now stood. At present the Privy Council could make rules as to slaughtering cattle, which would interfere with the market. He understood that the offer of money did not include capital for compensation.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, it was his opinion that no part of the money to be borrowed under the Bill would be applicable to compensation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was clearly wrong in his interpretation of the Bill. The mortgagees would have nothing to do with compensation. They would get an immediate first charge upon all the tolls, apart entirely from compensation, and in point of fact the Bill was entirely deficient in any means whatever for providing compensation.

MR. AYRTON

said, he must again protest against the Bill being proceeded with, and the property of his constituents confiscated without any security for their being indemnified.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN moved that the Committee should report Progress. It was now half-past One, and he thought that at any rate the debate should be suspended till three o'clock, in order to allow the other Business on the Paper to proceed. When that Business had been disposed of, they might again resume the consideration of the Bill in Committee, and go on with it until the next morning. It was quite clear that, inasmuch as it contained near forty clauses, it would take two months to pass it.

Motion negatived.

MR. SAMUELSON

said, that no means had been provided for making this market, and the Bill would be totally inoperative.

MR. FRESHFIELD

said, he understood that parties were willing to lend the necessary funds, and that the market authority could create a mortgage on the tolls in respect of such loan.

MR. COWEN

said, he was convinced it was totally imposssible to make this market by the means proposed by the Bill.

SIR ROUNDELL PALMER

said, the Bill provided for raising £300,000, which was £200,000 short of the sum required for opening the market. The people who advanced this would be empowered to sweep away the whole tolls of the market, and no means whatever of giving compensation were provided.

MR. FRESHFIELD

said, that if the sum of £300,000 were not sufficient the figures might be altered, and a sum sufficient to build and to compensate inserted in the Bill. He thought that sum should be £500,000. If the market authority was not provided with the means of compensating there would be an end of the Bill.

MR. LEEMAN

said, he regretted the want of security in the Bill for compensation.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield) had taken him by surprise. That Gentleman had said that the estimated cost of the market, including compensation, would amount to £500,000. That was not the case. The opinion of the financial agents of the Bill was that £300,000 would be an extravagant estimate, including compensation. Those agents stated that the fee simple of all the property for which compensation could be claimed would not amount to £100,000, and that those who claimed compensation would find it difficult to prove any appreciable loss of trade from the operation of the Bill.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he wished to know whether the clause relating to the Islington tolls that had been withdrawn was not in existence last winter?

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, it was not in existence a week ago.

MR. AYRTON

asked whether the substance of it had not been made known in the winter?

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

replied in the negative.

MR. J. LOWTHER

called attention to the fact that this clause was not in the Bill, and there was no necessity for discussing it.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought up a Paper prepared by his agent which contained a statement of the sum required for compensation; but did the right hon. Gentleman vouch for its accuracy? And who is his agent? Did anyone ever hear of the responsibility of a Minister being shifted to the shoulders of an unknown agent? He (Mr. Milner Gibson) had heard that the compensation would amount to £750,000. The name of the agent might give them some security that the calculation was correct.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the Parliamentary agent promoting the Bill was his authority for the figures he had laid before the Committee.

MR. AYRTON

said, the best authority was the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield), who was a Member of the Committee; and he told them the whole cost would be £500,000. They ought not to proceed with the Bill until they should learn what was the source from which the £200,000 required for compensations was to be derived.

MR. FRESHFIELD

said, the Bill was a merely permissive measure, and could not be carried into effect unless the money were found. He therefore saw nothing to justify the pertinacious opposition it had encountered. That opposition seemed to him to be nothing short of factious.

MR. LOCKE

said, that no one would advance money on the security afforded by the Bill. He hoped that the Committee would not stultify itself by appointing the proposed Commissioners.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 31: Majority 52.

On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?"

MR. AYRTON

said, that this Question involved considerations which the Committee had not yet even approached. He moved that the Chairman report Progress.

MR. DISRAELI

said, that he was on the point of rising to make the same Motion, and he need not therefore say that he assented to it.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he hoped that if the Motion were agreed to, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets would give some assurance that he would not interpose these obstructions to the future progress of the Bill.

MR. AYRTON

said, he had not the least desire to interpose obstructions, if hon. Members would only listen with patience to what he had to say.

SIR PERCY BURRELL

said, he must complain of the manner in which the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had wasted the time of the Committee by repeating his arguments usque ad nauseam.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.