HC Deb 10 July 1882 vol 271 cc1915-37
MR. RITCHIE

said, he had given Notice of his intention to move to disagree with two new clauses which the Lords had added to the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER

I understand that the hon. Member intends to move to disagree with Clauses 54a and 54b.

MR. RITCHIE

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER

Then the hon. Member's Motion will be taken presently.

Lords Amendments, as far as new Clause 54a, agreed to.

New Clause 54a (Providing for compensation to Corporation of London), read a second time.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he now rose to move that the House should disagree with the Lords as to the insertion of two new clauses—Clauses 54a and 54b. It would be necessary for him to enter somewhat into detail as to what the Bill proposed to do, as the fate of the Bill depended on the course the House adopted; because if the House agreed with the House of Lords in the insertion of these two clauses the Bill would be practically at an end, as he had the authority of the promoters for saying that if either of those clauses was inserted they would at once withdraw the Bill, and the project would not be proceeded with further. As the matter was one of great importance, not only to his own constituents but to the whole of the Metropolis, in order to guard against such an unfortunate result as that it was necessary that he should detain the House at more than usual length in order to substantiate his case against these clauses. The House would soon be able to see how important the Bill was to those he represented. It was a Bill for the establishment of a Fish Market on a site in the East End called Shadwell. The site of the proposed new Fish Market was in a very densely populated neighbourhood, to which it was of the greatest importance that fish should be supplied, and supplied in abundance. The effect of the two clauses inserted by the Lords would be to destroy utterly the smallest chance of that Market being established. At present, Billingsgate was the only Market available for the purchase and sale of fish from one end of London to the other, and the Corporation of London was the authority under whose auspices the Billingsgate Market was carried on. That Market had been shown to be utterly inadequate for its purposes for many years past. Constant complaints had been made on the subject, not only by those who sold but by those who bought the fish, and by many others who were interested in securing the freedom of the traffic of that part of the City in which Billingsgate was situated. The approaches to Billingsgate, both by land and water, were of such a character as to seriously interfere with the supply of fish which entered into the Market. The approaches by water were of such a nature as to render it necessary that the fish should be carried over planks on men's backs in order to obtain an entrance into the Market. But bad as the approaches from the water side were, those on the land side were infinitely worse. It had long been a standing complaint that those who desired to obtain a supply of fish for distribution in London found it almost impossible to get anywhere near the Market. After 9 o'clock in the morning he understood that all vans, barrows, and carts were cleared out of the City, and subsequent to that hour the fish had to be carried on the backs of men in order to be loaded on to the vans which were compelled to stand outside the area of the City. The natural result of all this was greatly to limit the supply of fish and to enhance the price. This had been a matter of complaint for 20 years at least, and it had more than once been brought before the authorities of the City and others concerned. In 1862, 1868, and 1874 the Corporation of London considered these complaints; but although a certain expenditure had been incurred, and certain things had been done by the Corporation, nothing to render the Market at all adequate to the requirements of the public had been done by the Corporation. In 1880 the attention of the Home Secretary was directed to the state of affairs at Billingsgate; and he had to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the prompt action he took in the matter by appointing a gentleman, thoroughly qualified, to examine into the matter. Mr. Walpole, one of the Inspectors of Fisheries, was directed to institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the case, and he made a valuable Report, which was now on the Table of the House. That Report, among other recommendations, contained the following:— vii. It is impossible to say exactly at what precise spot between the port of debarkation and Billingsgate the 281 tons of fish which came by land went bad; but there is reason to believe that some portion of it went bad during its transit through the streets of London. viii. The risk of its going bad is increased by the delays constantly extending for hours, and occasionally extending over days, which are due to the inadequate approaches to, and want of room outside of, Billingsgate. ix. The delays which thus take place have probably also the effect of enhancing the price of the cheaper kinds of fish in London. x. The delays cannot be avoided unless (a) adequate approaches to the Market are constructed, and adequate standing room for vans is provided, or (b) the market is itself removed. xi. It would probably be a serious loss to the public and the trade if the Market were removed from the riverside. From this it will be seen that Mr. Walpole reported that it was impossible to meet the requirements of the public unless the Market was either removed from Billingsgate, or larger accommodation and adequate approaches provided at the existing Market. Mr. Walpole wound up his recommendations by expressing a strong opinion that in the event of a new Market being provided, it should be at the waterside. The Report of Mr. Spencer Walpole was communicated by the Home Secretary to the Corporation of London, and, on the receipt of it, the Corporation took action by appointing a Fish Supply Committee to inquire into the present unsatisfactory state of the fish supply of the Metropolis, and the increased cost of fish to the consumers. The House would see from the terms of the Reference that the Corporation acknowledged two things—first, that the fish supply to the Metropolis was unsatisfactory; and, secondly, that the unsatisfactory state of the supply had resulted in increased cost of fish to the consumers. The conclusions at which the Corporation Committee arrived were that one wholesale Market was calculated to meet the requirements of the trade; that, in the interests of the public, such Market should be at the riverside, and that the existing approaches to Billingsgate were utterly inadequate. That was the conclusion at which the Corporation Committee arrived after a most laborious investigation. But that was not the only inquiry by a public body into the matter. The Metropolitan Board of Works also inquired into it, and they arrived at the con- clusion that Billingsgate was utterly inadequate; that the deficient accommodation limited the supply of fish and increased the cost; that the Charter granted to the Corporation was out of date; that it acted prejudicially to the 4,000,000 inhabitants of the Metropolis; and that it should be altered by legislation so that local Markets might be established. The House would, therefore, see that the net result of three independent inquiries was as follows:—That Billingsgate was utterly inadequate; that the price of fish was thereby increased; and that the Market should be at the waterside. The Corporation, after the receipt of the Report of the Committee, referred it back to the Committee to consider the question of site. The Fish Supply Committee reported that one Market would be the proper thing to have, and that it should be at the waterside. The second Committee to whom the matter was referred—being practically the same Committee as the first—arrived at the conclusion that there should be two Markets; that the new Market should be inland, and that Farringdon Market, provided for fruit and vegetables, should be utilized for fish. The House would see that the Committee arrived at a conclusion diametrically opposite and in direct contradiction to Mr. Walpole's Report, and to the Report of the previous Committee of the Corporation. The propriety of utilizing Farringdon Market was brought before Mr. Walpole in the course of his examination before the House, and he said— I do not think that that proposal of Farringdon Market, or whatever you choose to call it, would meet the requirements of the case. But he (Mr. Ritchie) did not think that the Corporation were ever serious in proposing Farringdon Market. They themselves expressed their belief that it would never succeed, and all the evidence showed that it would be an utter failure. Their opinion of the matter was shown conclusively by a Motion submitted to the Court of Common Council a few days ago for taking power to re-convert that Farringdon Market into a Fruit Market again. That Market was an inland Market, and, looking to the fact that their own Committee came to the unanimous conclusion that no inland Market would be satisfactory, but that a riverside Market afforded the only means of meeting the difficulty, this proposal must be regarded as a mere sop to public opinion in order to induce the people of London to believe that the Corporation were at least disposed to do something. He would like the House to remember that there had been no proposal by the Corporation to enlarge and increase Billingsgate Market, as recommended by Mr. Walpole. On the contrary, a motion to that effect was defeated in the Common Council by a considerable majority. It having been seen that the Corporation of London would neither enlarge Billingsgate nor propose some other riverside Market to meet the requirements of the case it became a serious question what further steps should be taken in the matter. It was evident that the unsatisfactory condition of things then existing ought not to be allowed to continue, and it was also evident that the Corporation of London intended to do nothing adequate in the matter. It was only then that private enterprise stepped in order to supply a public want. The present Bill was the result. In order that the House might see how important it was to provide this new Market, he would read half-a-dozen answers given in the course of the inquiry before the Committee of the House by a fishmonger well known in the West of London. The gentleman to whom he referred was Mr. Charles, who said— Q. 1293. You would have double the supply of fish in three months without any question, if there were proper water accommodation to unload the fish coming by water. 1294. There is no question that the present state of the Market accommodation at Billingsgate has the effect of preventing and stopping off the further supply if there was better Market accommodation. 1298. The Irish Fisheries are about to be developed, and there is an inexhaustible supply of fish there, and when they start I do not know where they are going to take the fish. 1292. There would be such an immense quantity of fish come from Ireland when the fisheries are developed that one cannot explain the extent they will be developed to. 1300. The difficulties and dangers of getting to Billingsgate choke off even the present supply of fish. The expenses are enormous. 1302. The whole of the work of the fish trade would be relieved from the load that has crushed them for the last 20 years, which has crushed and ruined many honest and hard working men. They cannot stand the expense of doing business at that Market. In regard to the difficulties of getting fish away Mr. Charles said— 1363. I have to get it away as if I stole it. And the result of this state of things is shown in the answer to Question 1,410— Owing to the expense of getting it to Market, an immense quantity of fish that is caught and killed does not come. It is used for manuring the land. That was the result, from the testimony he had cited, of the present condition of things at Billingsgate Market. An argument had been used in the papers distributed to hon. Members of the House on behalf of the City that this Bill was a mere speculative enterprise brought forward by Messrs. Hewitt and Co., in order to make profit out of it. That assertion was contradictory of the whole case of the Corporation. What they said was that the Market was not wanted, and that it would undoubtedly prove a monstrous failure. Having taken that ground before the Committee they then said the proposed Market was undertaken by Messrs. Hewitt and Co., because of the profit they hoped to make out of it. The fact that Messrs. Hewitt and Co. were promoting the Bill was a powerful argument in favour of it. They were about the oldest firm who sent fish to Billingsgate Market, and they declared that they were unable to find accommodation for the fish they could supply. They added, that their business was much hampered, and the interests of the public much damaged, by the existing state of things; and, therefore, they bad been compelled to come forward and take steps by which the public would ultimately be greatly benefited. He certainly thought the fact that the Bill was promoted by Messrs. Hewitt and Co. was one of the strongest arguments which could be used in favour of this Fish Market. But it so happened that the proposal for the new Market did not originate with Messrs. Hewitt and Co. It originated with a public body at the East End of London—the Limehouse Board of Works. The site was proposed by the Limehouse Board of Works to the Corporation of London in 1868, and again in 1881, and it was only after the refusal of the Corporation to do anything at all that Messrs. Hewitt and Co. came forward and introduced the present Bill. That dis- posed of the "speculator" argument. The interests of the public were protected by the provisions of the Bill, which secured that the tolls should be only one-half of those levied at Billingsgate, and that out of the eight acres proposed to be taken four acres should remain a Fish Market for ever. The measure was supported by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and by Vestries and District Boards representing 1,500,000 of the population of London. It was also supported, and evidence had been given in its favour, by Mr. Walpole, the Inspector of Fisheries, who said— I think the proposed Market would fulfil all the conditions I had in view. I have no doubt the price of fish would be cheapened. Under these circumstances, he should like to know what would become of the "speculator" argument which had been raised? The Bill was opposed by only one body in the Metropolis—the Corporation of London, and they had fought it both in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords for many days. The ground upon which they fought it was that they were in the possession of a Charter of Edward III. By which they were appointed the Market authority over the whole of the Metropolis. But, notwithstanding their opposition, the Committee of the House of Commons passed the Bill, and it went to the House of Lords. The Corporation had then to consider whether they should take any further steps in the matter. Surely they ought to have been content with vindicating their ancient Charter in the House of Commons. They met to consider what course they should adopt in the House of Lords. They had not, however, an open meeting to discuss the question, but they considered it necessary to meet with closed doors. He desired to call the attention of the House to that fact, because in a moment or two he should have to comment upon it. [Cries of "Agreed!"] Hon. Members who called out "Agreed" did not understand the enormous importance of the question to the people of London, and he felt bound to put the case fully before the House of Commons. This meeting, which was called for the purpose of considering whether the Bill should be opposed in the House of Lords, came to a decision to oppose it by a majority of one. And he might say here that it was the custom for Members of the Upper House of the Corporation—the Aldermen—to sit and vote at such meetings with the Lower House, representing the Common Council. On that occasion two or three Aldermen sat with the Common Councilmen, and they all voted for opposition to the Bill in the House of Lords, so that the proposal in favour of opposition was carried by the votes of those Members who belonged to the Upper House. If the Common Councilmen had been left to themselves their vote would have been not to proceed with the opposition in the House of Lords. The Bill was accordingly opposed in the House of Lords; but the Committee arrived at the conclusion that the Market was necessary, and declared the Preamble of the Bill proved. At the instance of the Counsel for the Corporation, however, the Committee was induced to insert two clauses in the Bill, which, if adhered to, would prove absolutely fatal to the measure. It would be necessary for him to read these two clauses to the House, as they had not been read at the Table. The first was clause— 54a. The Company shall make full compensation to the Mayor and commonalty and citizens of the City of London for all loss and injury they may sustain by the diminution by reason of the establishment and continuance of the Market by this Act authorized of the tolls and dues on fish conveyed by water to their Market called Billingsgate Market, and for the purposes of such compensation the tolls and dues actually taken and received by the said Mayor and commonalty and citizens for and in respect of such fish at the last-mentioned Market during the year ending the 31st day of December, 1881, shall be deemed to be the amount of the tolls and dues in respect of the diminution of which such compensation is to be paid, and the amount of such compensation, unless agreed between the Company and the said Mayor and commonalty and citizens, shall be determined by arbitration in manner provided by 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,' with respect to the purchase and taking of lands otherwise than by agreement. The next clause was as follows:— 54b. If the Mayor and commonalty and citizens of the City of London shall within six months after the passing of this Act elect to exercise the powers of this Act and of such election shall give notice to the Company under the hand of the Town Clerk all the powers of this Act shall be, and they are hereby transferred to and vested in the said Mayor and commonalty and citizens, and this Act shall be read as though the said Mayor and commonalty and citizens had been therein named instead of the Company: Provided that such transfer and vesting shall not take effect until the said Mayor and commonalty and citizens shall have paid to the Company all the costs, charges, and expenses incurred by them in obtaining this Act to be taxed by the proper officer in case the parties differ about the same. Those were the two extraordinary clauses which had been inserted at the instigation of the Corporation of London. With reference to the Purchase Clause, he was authorized to say, on behalf of the promoters, that they were quite prepared to agree to the insertion of a proper Purchase Clause in the Bill, if the House should see fit to accept it. But the present clause was not a clause for the purchase of the Market, but a clause for the purchase of the Bill. Let him direct attention to its terms. The Bill was to be taken over on the payment of taxed costs. A more gross injustice could not be conceived. Everybody knew that there was a vast difference between taxed costs and actual costs, and the proposal was virtually that gentlemen who came forward to meet a public want were to be heavily fined because they had proposed to do that which the Corporation ought to have done but had not. For doing that, these gentlemen, who were really public benefactors, were to be fined the enormous difference which existed between taxed costs and actual costs. Nothing could be more monstrous. It might be said that, however unfair to the promoters, this was not a matter that affected the public; but the clause contained other conditions which could not be assented to from a public standpoint. If the clause was assented to, there was no compulsion placed upon the Corporation of London to make the Market. They were merely to purchase the Bill by paying taxed costs, and they might then put the Bill in their pocket; Having steadily opposed the Bill in every step of its progress, and having said throughout that the proposed Market would be of no use; that it was not wanted, and that it was totally unnecessary; if they were to be the body in trusted with the carrying out of the Act, what chance would there be of the Market being made or used? He confessed there was no doubt in his own mind that if this Purchase Clause were put in force the people of London would find themselves as badly off for a riverside Fish Market as they were now. He now asked the House to consider for a mo- ment what the Compensation Clause was. The clause provided that, taking the revenue of Billingsgate Market for 1881, for every 1s. the revenue might hereafter fall off after the New Market was opened, the promoters of the Bill should compensate the City of London. He would like to know, in the first place, what the compensation was to be paid for? It had been clearly proved that the Corporation had not performed their duty as the Market authority for the Metropolis, because the state of the Fish Market at Billingsgate had long been a crying evil in the Metropolis, and nothing adequate had been done. He certainly could not see what the Corporation had to be compensated for. The House, however, would see the remarkable position which would follow from the acceptance of the clause. The revenue of Billingsgate might fall off year by year until it amounted to nothing at all. The Corporation of London would then be at liberty to dispose of the site, and would still be able to obtain the revenue they had lost from the promoters of the present Bill. He would ask the House to consider who it was who was likely to pay that compensation. In the end, it would not be the promoters of the Bill, but those who bought the fish. The poor of the East End of London would have to pay compensation or tribute to the rich Corporation of London for the privilege of supplying themselves with cheap food. One thing was certain—that if this compensation was to be paid, the result would be that the maximum tolls would be enforced which the Bill authorized the promoters to levy, and the poor of London would have to pay them. This was on the supposition that the Market would be made even were this Compensation Clause to remain; but he contended that this clause would render it impossible to proceed with the Market. It was perfectly certain that no man would subscribe 1d. to an undertaking burdened with such a clause, and the consequence would be that if either of those two clauses were allowed to remain in the Bill the Market would not be made, and the poor of London would be deprived of the cheap food which it was the object of the measure to provide them with. But what matter? The Corporation would have vindicated their ancient Charter. Let them look at the circumstances of the times in which it was granted. It was a Charter of Edward III., granted 500 years ago. At that time the population of England did not amount to one-half of the population of London now. At that time the Corporation was the only public body which represented London; but the case was altogether different now, the circumstances had entirely changed. Could it be contended that the Corporation should continue to have the exclusive control over the supply of food for 4,000,000 people; that no market should be established outside the City without the consent of, and the payment of compensation to, the Corporation? Was such a claim to be tolerated? No House of Commons would sanction the claim that no Market should be established in any part of London except by the Corporation of the City, whose jurisdiction extended over something like a square mile. It would be intolerable, even if the Corporation had done their duty; and it was notorious that they had not. This very question had been a crying evil for years, and the Corporation did little or nothing until the Home Secretary moved in the matter. He hoped he had shown to the House that the effect of either of these clauses would be to entirely defeat the object of the Bill, and that they were unjust and contrary to public policy. He should like now to say a word as to the tactics of the Representatives of the Corporation in the House of Lords. He said "Representatives," because the Common Council had never sanctioned the application for clauses at all, and that was a matter of very great importance in the consideration of the question. When it was proposed in the Court of Common Council to ask for the insertion of Compensation Clauses the proposal was rejected by a majority of 7. The Court, with the votes of the Aldermen, decided only by a majority of 1 to oppose the Bill at all in the House of Lords; and a majority of 7 not to ask for compensation. But this vital point was held back from the Committee, for when it was proposed to bring it out, the Counsel for the Corporation got up and pleaded privilege, owing to the fact that the meeting of the Common Council at which that conclusion was arrived at was held with closed doors. In that way the fact that the Court of Common Council had decided by a majority of 7 not to ask for compensa- tion was not placed before the Lords. The circumstance was deliberately withheld from the Committee, and he was curious to know who was responsible for that action? He was also curious to know who instructed the Counsel to ask for these clauses? It certainly was not the Court of Common Council. They had decided against asking for them. Was it the Billingsgate ring? Was it the people who were concerned in carrying on the business of the Market at Billingsgate who obtained the insertion of these clauses? Perhaps someone would tell the House. In asking the House to reject these clauses, he only asked them to give effect to the resolution came to by the Court of Common Council. On the one side, they had the opinion of the minority of the Court of Common Council. On the other side, there was the opinion of the majority of the Common Council, of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and of the Vestries and District Boards of London, representing 1,500,000 of the inhabitants, all of whom desired the excision of these clauses. Could there, then, be a doubt as to what the decision of the House ought to be? He had laid the case as clearly and as fairly as he could before the House, and he thought he had shown that the Market at Billingsgate was utterly inadequate to supply the wants of the Metropolis; that it raised the price of fish, and that it diminished the supply. He had shown that the Corporation had done nothing adequate to meet the necessities of the case, and that it never would do anything. While they had given a great many reasons against the Shadwell Scheme, they had not said one word from beginning to end to show what the Corporation proposed to do. Nothing had been said about the intention of the Corporation to enlarge the approaches to Billingsgate, or to improve the supply of fish. The present Bill provided adequate accommodation. The House of Commons had approved of it, and a Committee of the House of Lords said that it was necessary. The public opinion was unanimous in the desire that the House should pass the Bill, and should cut out those clauses which, if left in, must lead to the withdrawal of the measure. The attempt which had been made to defeat the Bill was an unworthy attempt, an attempt made by a side-wind which he was sure the House of Commons would never endorse. The question for the House to decide was—would they prevent cheap fish from reaching the toiling millions of the Metropolis? Would Parliament stop the inhabitants of London from having the supply of fish which could be, and would be, brought to them, but which, as the Bill then stood, would continue to be denied to them? With these clauses no Market could be made, and fish would continue as dear and as scarce as at present. Without these clauses a splendid Market would be erected, and fish would be supplied to the poor plentifully and cheaply. That was the issue before the House; and he was perfectly certain that the decision they would arrive at would be the decision he was then asking them to come to—namely, to cut out these two clauses, and to make the Bill a measure that would confer inestimable benefits upon the whole population of the Metropolis.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Ritchie.)

MR. MARRIOTT

said, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) belonged to the Party who had recently formed an association with a most laudable object—namely, the object of defending liberty and property. But this Bill, if passed without these Amendments, would be a most direct attack upon both the property of a Corporation and of individuals. ["Oh, oh!"] An hon. Member said "Oh, oh!" but up to the present time Market rights had been as much property as land, or as any other description of property. Market rights had been granted by Charter, or given by Act of Parliament, and he was not aware of a single instance where these rights had been taken away without compensation having been given. It was not many years since the town of Manchester purchased the Market rights of Sir Edward Moseley for something like £200,000, and, having purchased the rights for that sum, they spent many hundred thousand pounds in building Markets. Suppose that House were to pass an Act by which a Market could be built close to an existing Market, every single individual who had advanced money for the purchase of those rights would lose the security on which the money had been advanced. That was exactly the case with the Corporation of London. The question was not now a question of cheap fish. He thought if it had been a question of cheap food, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets would have been the last person to propose this Amendment. They would rather have believed in the hon. Member's sincerity if he had proposed protection or bounties on fish. Coming as this Amendment did from as hon. Member who was so fond of bounties and protection, he thought the House would look with suspicion upon his plea of cheap fish. The question did not affect the Corporation of London alone, but every Corporation in England. With regard to the Corporation of London, it was an undoubted fact that the Charter, with respect to Markets, did go back to the time of Edward III.; but he did not know that that was an objection against the Charter. If the Charter was not granted for proper purposes—if the rights of the Corporation had been abused, if the Charter was a wrong one, and if it could be amended, let the matter be brought before the House and discussed openly. It was not proper that the Market rights of the Corporation of London should be abolished by a side-wind; and they certainly would be destroyed if these clauses of the Lords were rejected. With regard to the Markets of London, no less than £2,750,000 had been advanced to erect them. All those who had advanced money had done so on the idea that the Charter was good. ["No!"] An hon. Member said "No;" he would have an opportunity of proving that presently. He made the assertion that the money had been advanced upon the security of the Market rights of the City of London, and if this Bill were passed without giving to the City the right of pre-emption and the right to compensation, that security was lessened. He found that in dealing with Gas, or Water, or Railway Companies, the House was always very jealous of doing anything which would limit the security upon which money had been advanced. But the case for the City of London was far stronger. Gas, and Water, and Railway Companies were Companies trading for the purpose of making money; but, by the Market rights of the City of London, not one farthing was made for the coffers of the City. The whole of the money obtained by those rights went to pay the interest on the money advanced. Up to the present time these rights of the City of London had never been interfered with except in one case—the case of Covent Garden. This Charter was granted in the time of Edward III., and the only Market rights ever given in opposition to the City of London were those given to the Duke of Bedford by Charles II. At that time Charles II. was by no means very favourable to the Corporation, and, by an action in the Court of King's Bench, an attempt was made to upset the Corporation rights. The City, however retaining all their own rights, determined not to interfere with the Duke of Bedford in respect to Covent Garden. To the construction of the Columbia, Hungerford, and South London Markets the City could have objected; but they did not—in fact, the City had never objected to retail Markets. The Cattle Market Act was passed in 1835, and in that Act a Compensation Clause, exactly similar to the one proposed in this Bill, was inserted. That clause now stood in that Act, and if a similar one were put in this Bill, the Corporation would have no objection to the Bill passing. But to come to the main question—the fish supply of London. Anything that could be done to make fish cheaper, by all means let it be done. The Corporation had had the question before it, they had examined the matter carefully, and they had come to the conclusion that there was great difference of opinion amongst fish salesmen as to whether there should be one or more wholesale Fish Market—opinion was generally in favour of one Market. The Corporation had found that with regard to Billingsgate the great difficulty was that it was easy to get the fish there, but it was difficult to get it away, so blocked up were the approaches by land. But it was found that three-fourths of the vans and carts going to the Market were those coming from the railway terminus with the fish brought to London by rail. The City of London, therefore, proposed to utilize the Market which was now at Farringdon, for all land or railway-borne fish. By doing this they would at once relieve the approaches to Billingsgate of three-fourths of the traffic which now went there, and there would then exist in London two distinct Mar- kets, one for water-borne fish, and another for land-borne fish. Before the House interfered with the rights of a Corporation like that of the City of London—and by interfering with their rights interfering with the rights of all the Corporations in England—this experiment might be allowed a trial. It was an experiment which the Corporation hoped would answer, and if it did not answer they would not object to the clause proposed in the other House—namely, that they should have the right of purchasing the rights of the Shadwell Company, which was a private Company. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets said, "Oh, they may purchase the rights, but they will never exercise them." He could only say that if the City of London were to act in that way they would commit suicide. The Corporation of London knew that the eyes of England were upon them; they knew there were many sincere friends, like the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth), who were watching every one of their acts; and if they were to come to that House, and offer to make a purchase of the Bill, and did not make the Market, he was bound to say that when Parliament met again, be it in the autumn or next year, a Bill would very soon be brought in to compel them to build the Market at Shadwell. This was an attempt, by a side-wind, to attack the rights of Corporations, and by it an example would be set to attack the rights of individuals. He quite admitted that they could be overturned by an Act of Parliament, and this would be an Act of Parliament when passed; but it would be a Private and not a Public Act. He insisted upon this, that if the exercise of the authority of the City of London was called into question, it should be done so openly in that House, and when there could be a proper debate on the subject. The House was very desirous to reach the Public Business, and, therefore, he would not trespass further upon its time. He trusted, however, that the Members of that House would join together in rejecting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets. He had as great a desire as the hon. Member had for the cheapening of fish for the poor; but at the same time he desired, as the hon. Member should desire, that they should respect the rights of property.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, as time was very precious, and as this was a very simple question, he hoped the House would be able to decide it without further delay. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Marriott) had expressed great surprise that this Motion had been made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. He was not at all surprised at it, because the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) represented a population 10 or 20 or 50 times as numerous as that represented by the Corporation of London. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Marriott) had expressed surprise that this Motion should have been made from the opposite side of the House. He thought it more surprising that the opposition to the Motion should have proceeded from this side of the House. The case was a very plain one. No one denied that Billingsgate was a thoroughly bad Market, totally incapable of supplying the population of the Metropolis with fish. A private Company had come forward with a plan—which both Houses of Parliament said was a good one—for supplying 5,000,000 of people with fish. That being so, it being admitted that there was now a bad Market, and that this Company was willing to construct a good one—and all this was admitted in the Preamble of the Bill—what was done? Why, it was proposed that this new Market, one of whose merits was that it was to charge cheap tolls, was to be saddled with compensation to the proprietors of the bad Market. A proposition more extraordinary, more exorbitant, more indefensible, it was impossible to conceive. He would not admit that on this side of the House they were less careful of the rights of property than Gentlemen on the other side. He should be very much surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) disagreeing with him in the view he took on this subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Marriott) said this was an attempt by a side-wind to attack the rights of property. It was not a side-wind at all, it was the most plain and direct issue which it was possible to raise. The question was whether the House would maintain a monopoly which was proved to be enormously injurious to a population of 5,000,000 people, or whether it would not. He was extremely glad that this matter had been brought to an issue, and he had very little doubt what judgment would be pronounced by the House of Commons on the question.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, he did not wish to take up the time of the House; but he felt bound to say he had been requested by his Colleagues on the Metropolitan Board of Works, a Board representing 4,000,000 people, to say the whole of them were extremely anxious that this House should reject these clauses. He held in his hand a list of 17 Petitions against these clauses, Petitions which, he thought, came in on Saturday. Personally, he trusted that the House would reject these clauses and pass the Bill in a shape which would be most beneficial to the people of the Metropolis.

MR. ALDERMAN COTTON

said, he hoped the House would not reject these clauses. The Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works obtained, in the small hours of the morning, a clause authorizing him to make a Fish Market, and if the Metropolitan Board of Works was to be more trusted than the Corporation of London, the House would no doubt reject these clauses. If they would only remember how much work the Corporation of the City of London had done, not only in the matter of Markets, but in the matter of all good and wise work, they would hesitate before they rejected these clauses. They were going to give a private firm the monopoly which they refused to the Corporation. Surely the Corporation could manage the business better than a private firm. ["Question!"] The question was, whether they would have a good Market, efficiently and well managed—whether they would have it managed by the Corporation of London, which hitherto had always done its work well, or whether they would have it managed by He witt and Company. ["Oh!"] They might say "Oh;" but when they came to think the matter over quietly they would not contend for a moment that a private firm could manage a Market properly in the interest of the public. Mr. Hewitt was a large smack-owner; he imported his own fish; therefore they could not imagine he could manage the Market as well as the Corporation could. He had nothing more to say; but he hoped, and with great confidence, that the House would allow these clauses to stand.

MR. W. H. GLADSTONE

said, he thought it right that, as he was the Chairman of the Committee to whom this Bill was referred, he should say a word or two. He hoped the House would agree to the Motion which had been moved by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie). To his mind, compensation in this case was neither required on the ground of policy nor on the ground of justice. It was quite certain that if this Compensation Clause remained in the Bill, the Bill could not proceed further; and that he should consider as nothing less than a public misfortune. The case brought before the Committee was one of the strongest that could well be. The scheme was proved a thoroughly good one, and he thought the opponents failed to shake it in any material point. He did not think it was too much to say that the Bill was, in fact, a necessity, not merely for the extension of the traffic in fish, and for the cheapening of the food—for which there was ample room in the Metropolis—but even for the proper and convenient transaction of the existing business. The evils of Billingsgate were notorious probably every Member knew something more or less about them. If any hon. Member only paid a visit to Billingsgate in the early hours of the morning, he would find that the real state of things exceeded whatever he had previously imagined. The City alleged that they had expended £272,000 upon the Market at Billingsgate. That might be true, but it in no way removed the great scandal that existed. Mr. Spencer Walpole, in his Report, said the present Market did not provide proper standing room, and its approaches were deficient. These requisites of a good Market would be fulfilled completely by the new Market at Shadwell; it would be four times the size of Billingsgate, and it would result in great good to everybody. The vote of the Common Council had been referred to, and he only mentioned it again because he thought its significance could not be overrated, remembering how strongly the different interests were represented in that body. With regard to the justice of the case, he noticed that in paragraph 10 of the Papers circulated the Common Council said that the Corporation ought to be compensated for the loss of revenue from which they paid the interest on the money advanced. It seemed to him that if such a position were allowed every Railway Company, against whom a competing line was authorized, might come to this House and obtain compensation for the loss it had sustained. The excuse for compensation in this case might be the infringement of the ancient Charter that the City possessed; but that Charter had been already infringed on various occasions, when, for instance, the Columbia, the Hungerford, and the South London Markets were authorized. The case of the Islington Market had been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott). The Act authorizing the establishment of that Market was passed in the year 1835. He was not acquainted with the pros and cons of the case; but he certainly should be very much surprised if, in that case, there were the same imperative grounds of public advantage as in the present ease. During the last 20 years the City had expended a large sum of money, but they had really done nothing to mitigate the evils of Billingsgate Market, the state of which was a simple disgrace to the Metropolis. It appeared to him that the City were either unable or unwilling to do their duty in the matter of the fish supply of the Metropolis. And he did not hesitate to say that where there were immense difficulties in the way he thought the trust which the City held by virtue of the Charter of Edward III. must be regarded as having been defeated by the course of circumstances, and that it was time the Charter ought to be disregarded. It was supposed that by the establishment of a Fish Market at Farringdon the press at Billingsgate would be relieved. His own impression was that a Market at Farringdon would do nothing whatever towards the solution of this question. The evidence given before the Committee went to show that there must be one Market, and that a riverside Market. He could not believe that any legitimate loss would result to the Corporation. No doubt there would be diminution in tolls from fish, because the new Market would undoubtedly be a formidable competitor to Billingsgate. But it was absurd to suppose that there were not many other uses to which Billingsgate could be put, uses which would yield quite as much profit as was now derived from the Market. In conclusion, he must state his own conviction that this Bill was bond fide promoted in the public interest, and not to put money into the pockets of the proprietors. He thought the proprietors were entitled to carry out the work they had undertaken. The tolls of the new Market would be only half those of Billingsgate; and he trusted that the House would not hamper this Bill, which was of such immense importance, by attaching to it such conditions for compensation, for which there were no grounds either in policy or justice.

MR. RAIKES

said, he wished to add one or two words to what bad been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. W. H. Gladstone). It appeared to him that the House should draw a broad and clear line between compensation which was due to private interests in cases of this sort and claims for compensation made on behalf of a public body. In legislation of this description the object was to promote the public good, and it would be hard if any private individual were to suffer. When they came to the case of a Corporation, or any other public body, it was important to remember that such, institutions existed for the public good; and if they failed in the performance of their duties they could not, and ought not, on that account to be able to establish any claim to be repaid out of the pockets of those private adventurers who performed the duty that they had failed to discharge. It would be a very ill day for this country if the doctrine of compensation to private individuals should be pushed to such an extreme as was embodied in this clause. He trusted the House of Commons would take this opportunity of proclaiming in most unmistakable terms that they would not grant compensation to a public body for an act which, if it might diminish the revenue of the public body, was rendered necessary by the public interest, and by a want of recognition by the Corporation of the duties which fell upon it.

MR. BRYCE

said, he had only one word to say. As a Representative of East London, which was most concerned in this matter, he was anxious, on behalf of his constituents, that it should be understood that they did not regard this as a private matter in which the firm promoting the Bill was only interested. The matter had been taken up by nearly all the local authorities in East London—by the different Vestries and Local Boards and other bodies—large meetings had been held, and the question was felt to be one in which the interests of the whole population of London, and particularly the poorer population, was engaged as against the interests of an oppressive monopoly.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, as a Member of the Select Committee who inquired into this Bill, he wished to make one or two observations. In the first place, he did not agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Gladstone) that it would be an excellent thing to put in the hands of a firm the monopoly of the fish supply of London. Messrs. Hewitt and Co., who were promoting this Bill, caught their own fish, landed it themselves, and sold it in the Market by their own auctioneers. If this Market at Shadwell were made the only Fish Market in London, Messrs. Hewitt and Co. would have complete control over the fish supply of the Metropolis. Before the Committee it was proved that the average price of fish sold in Billingsgate Market throughout the year was 2⅛d. per 1b., and that the price to the consumer was 7d. and 8d. per 1b. He very much feared that the public would be in the same position if the Market were at Shadwell as if it remained at Billingsgate. He believed that an inland Market at Farringdon would be one very useful to the public, and ought to be encouraged.

Question put, and agreed to.

The next Amendment, New Clause 54b (Providing for transfer of undertaking to Corporation of London), disagreed to.

Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to two of the Amendments made by The Lords to the London River-side Fish Market Bill: "—Mr. RITCHIE, Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG, Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY GLADSTONE, Mr. RAIKES, Mr. BRYCE, and Mr. FIRTH:—To withdraw immediately; Three to be the quorum.

Forward to