LORDS' AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 14 July 1882)

THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE
, in moving that the Lords do insist upon the Amendments to which the Commons had disagreed, wished, as a Member of the Committee, to state his reasons for the Motion. He admitted that the noble Duke who presided over the Committee (the Duke of Leinster) did not share his opinion on the subject; but he desired to point out to their Lordships that the Bill was promoted by a private company, and that its object was to erect a fish market about two miles lower down the river than the existing market. It was admitted that the present Billingsgate Market was in a very unsatisfactory position, and that access to it was specially difficult, the conse- 426 quence being that fish had to be carried a considerable way by water. But he felt a difficulty in disregarding the Charter which granted the Corporation a monopoly of the fish markets within seven miles of London, a Charter which had more than once been renewed, and relying on which the Corporation had spent no less a sum than £300,000 upon the market already existing. Under those circumstances, he failed to see why compensation should be refused to the Corporation, at least on river-borne fish, more particularly when the promoters of the new scheme relied upon securing a dividend of 7½ per cent as soon as the market was opened, and presumably a larger one in the future. Their Lordships also might do well to consider the policy of handing over to a private company, of which the principal promoter was one of the largest North Sea fishermen, the entire control of the sole fish market in London. He thought it was desirable that some public body should have the control of the fish supply of the Metropolis, and that it should not be allowed to become a monopoly in the hands of any company.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said, he hoped that their Lordships would not insist on the retention of the Amendments introduced into this Bill by a Select Committee of their House. That Billingsgate Market was now totally inadequate for the wants of the Metropolis, and that the inconvenience, obstruction, and nuisance existing there were absolutely intolerable, was a matter on which there was no difference of opinion except on the part of the Corporation of the City of London. The question before their Lordships was whether the Select Committee of their House which inquired into that Bill, and affirmed its principle, did not unintentionally introduce into it Amendments which enhanced the cost of its working, and interfered so much with its operation as to render it practically a nullity. The first of those Amendments empowered the Corporation of London, at any time within six months from the passing of the Bill, to purchase that undertaking on payment of the taxed costs of the promoters. The result of that provision might reasonably be expected 427 to be that the body which had hitherto impeded all improvement in this matter would simply convert the Bill into so much waste-paper. The reason why a new fish market was proposed to be erected by a company was because the Corporation of London, closing their eyes to the insufficiency of the present accommodation, had persistently refused to supplement it. But supposing the Corporation did not exercise the option of purchase within the six months, a further Amendment had been introduced into the Bill requiring the company to make full compensation to the Corporation for all loss and injury which they might sustain by reason of the establishment and continuance of the new market, of the tolls and dues of Billingsgate Market, and the basis of such compensation was to be the tolls and dues taken at Billingsgate in the year 1881. Was it, he asked, dignified that a Corporation professing to represent the people of London, and to have at heart their interests, and also presumably possessing its powers for the public good, should claim compensation on account of the erection of a much-needed new market which they had themselves frequently refused to provide, and the sole object of which was to facilitate and cheapen the supply of fish to the Metropolis?

§ THE DUKE OF LEINSTER
said, that, as Chairman of the Select Committee which had inquired into the Bill, he had always been of opinion that these clauses would injure the Bill very much, and that the proposed new market would be of great advantage to the Metropolis, reducing, as it would do, the existing rate of tolls by one-half; and he, therefore, hoped that their Lordships would not insist on their Amendments.

LORD WENT WORTH
said, he thought the supply of fish to the Metropolis was a matter of such great importance that it should be dealt with rather by a Public than by a Private Bill; and he should not be sorry to have the question taken out of the hands of the Select Committee and decided by the House itself. At the same time, he thought there never was a clearer case for compensation than that made by the Corporation of London. There was in the case of the Bill establishing the Central Metropolitan Meat Market a precedent for such compensation. If necessary, the Corporation 428 might be reformed; but that was not a reason why they should be deprived of their property without compensation.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
said, he was of opinion that the Corporation had rather encouraged inquiries in regard to markets. The Corporation also had always endeavoured, as far as possible, to make such provision for the supply of fish as would meet the demand. Within the last 10 years Billingsgate Market had been entirely rebuilt and enlarged, and between £200,000 and £300,000 had been laid out upon it. That seemed to him to have some bearing on the question of compensation.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, he earnestly hoped their Lordships would not insist upon these Amendments. A more important Bill for the welfare and comfort of the people had seldom been introduced. They had never utilized to its full extent the enormous supply of fish in the Metropolis, and what London required was that they should have a market to which they could have easy access, and to whore the fish would be cheap and abundant; and the present Bill gave the people what they wanted. Sixteen public bodies, besides the Metropolitan Board of Works, had presented Petitions in favour of the Bill, with 1,563,000 signatures. The question was one of the sustenance of life, and, therefore, very serious. The Corporation of London opposed the Bill on the ground that Billingsgate Market was sufficient for the purpose. Their plea also was that they would be deprived by the Bill of their tolls and dues; but they were in receipt of large public funds which were to be spent for public purposes. No doubt they had laid out a large sum upon Billingsgate Market; but they had done so in a very improvident manner. In his opinion, the Corporation had no ground to stand on in the present case, and he hoped their Lordships would not insist upon the Amendments.