§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)I wish to explain that it is proposed in the Bill to give certain market rights to the Great Eastern Railway Company. The Company already possess certain markets in crowded localities in the East End of London, but they have held them without any market rights, and it is proposed in this Bill to give them certain market rights and legal authority for holding these markets. When the Bill was before the House on a former occasion, I considered it my duty to ask the House to refer it back to the Committee to consider whether or not some provision should not be inserted which would deprive the Company of any vested interests. A clause was inserted which it was thought would carry out that intention; but I do not think the clause is quite clear on the subject, and 676 I now have to propose that the clause be omitted, with a view to inserting another clause providing that on any market authority starting a market in the neighbourhood, they may be able to call upon the Great Eastern Railway Company to close their market without compensation. By that means the market rights of the Company cannot by any possibility come into conflict with any power which may be exercised by a Local Authority. That is the short history of the clause which I now ask the House to read a second time. I beg to move, after Clause 61, to insert the following clause:—
In the event of any public authority exercising the powers of a market authority for any district or borough in which the Bishopsgate Market or the Stratford Market is situated, and providing adequate market accommodation for such district or borough, such authority may give notice in writing to the Company that such accommodation has been provided; and, at the expiration of three months from the date of such notice, or from the date of the order hereinafter referred to of the Local Government Board certifying that adequate market accommodation within the meaning of this section has been provided by the public authority, the market rights and powers by this Act vested in the Company shall cease and determine as regards the Bishopsgate Market or the Stratford Market, as the case may be, and no compensation shall be payable to the Company in respect of the determination of such rights and powers.Provided, That, if the Company or if any person interested shall, within one month from the giving to the Company of such notice as aforesaid, represent in writing to the Local Government Board that adequate market accommodation within the meaning of this section has not been provided by the public authority, the question of the adequacy or inadequacy of such accommodation shall be determined by the Local Government Board, who shall by order certify whether or not adequate market accommodation within the meaning of this section has been provided by the public authority, and any such order shall be conclusive as to the fact.Provided also, That, when the market rights and powers by this Act vested in the Company have ceased and determined as regards either the Bishopsgate Market or the Stratford Market, the Company may retain the site of such market as part of their Railway undertaking.The Local Government Board may direct any inquiries to be held by their inspectors which they may deem necessary for the purposes of this section, and the inspectors of the Local Government Board shall, for the purposes of any such inquiry, have all such powers as they have for the purposes of inquiries directed by that Board under 'The Public Health Act, 1875.'Any expenses incurred by the Local Government Board in relation to any inquiries under this section, including the expenses of any wit- 677 nesses summoned by the inspector holding the inquiry, and a sum to be fixed by that Board, not exceeding three guineas a day, for the services of such inspector shall be paid to that Board by the market authority or the Company, as the Local Government Board may by order determine.
§
New Clause—
(In the emit of adequate market accommodation being provided by public authorities, Company's market rights under this Act to cease without entitling them to compensation, &c.,)—(Mr. Ritchie,)—
—brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)I do not object to the insertion of this clause. The points to which I desire to draw the attention of the House will, I think, be more fittingly raised upon the Amendments which stand on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Essex (Major Rasch). With that reservation, I offer no opposition to the clause.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)I believe that this clause will be useless, because there are several clauses of the Bill which the House will be asked to reject on account of the variety of interests involved in them. Therefore, if we accept the clause for the moment, I hope it will be thoroughly understood that we are not to be precluded from offering opposition to other clauses.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause added.
§ MR. BURDETT - COUTTS (Westminster)I beg to move the omission from the Preamble of paragraphs 1 and 2. I have to apologize to the House, especially at this late hour, and to ask them to give me a patient hearing upon this subject. It is a one to which I have given some four or five years of very close study and even of practical work, and although this Bill appears before the House as a Private Bill it is a measure which introduces questions which relate to public policy, and which are altogether unprecedented in our legislation. This House, Sir, is asked to commit itself to a provision which will give into the hands of a Railway Company an enormous extension of a monopoly which they at present enjoy. It is asked to give them a monopoly over 678 something, which I submit is the last thing in the world in regard to which a monopoly should be exercised, and that is, the food of this Metropolis. That is the real question at issue. In a Paper which has been distributed by the Great Eastern Railway Company to the Members of this House, this morning, I see it stated that the opponents of the Bill are monopolists, who wish to retain monopolies in their own hands. As far as I am personally concerned, everything that I have done in regard to this market question in London has been directed towards breaking down the monopoly which now exists in regard to the food supply, and in getting rid of the ring in connection with which every question of the food supply has been tied up. I am well aware of the difficulties I shall have to encounter in opposing a powerful Railway Company—a Railway Company which has four of its Directors Members of this House, all of them sitting on this side of the House. That is one of the difficulties I have to contend with, and I am also aware of the difficulty of attempting to upset the decision of the Select Committee of this House. At the same time, I maintain that this is a new departure in the spirit and policy of our legislation in regard to railways; and, therefore, I wish to take the question out of the hands of the Committee of four Members and out of the hands of the Directors of the Great Eastern Railway Company, and to submit it to the general judgment of the House, and of those who are unwilling to consent that any act of public policy should be passed in this House within the covers of a Private Bill without having first received the full sanction of the House. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain that the opposition which is raised to this part of the Bill will not inconvenience the Great Eastern Railway Company with regard to the Bill generally. The Bill itself is an Omnibus Bill, and my opposition is confined to the market clauses which are contained within it. I wish, also, to impress upon the attention of the House, that our opposition to these clauses of the measure will not endanger or effect the continuation of Stratford Market. I am prepared to admit that Stratford Market at the present moment is doing a useful work; but the Great Eastern Railway Company have carried 679 on Stratford Market for eight years without attempting to apply for Parliamentary sanction; they are carrying it on now with the utmost perseverance, and the only person who opposes them is the lessee of Spitalfields Market. The agreement with him under which they carry on the market holds good until the year 1888, and by that time the whole question of the markets, which has been referred to a Royal Commission, may be expected to be settled, and if it should so happen that it is not settled there would be no difficulty in obtaining a temporary renewal of the agreement. Therefore, the opposition to these clauses can have nothing to do with endangering the existence of the existing market at Stratford. That is a mere bogey raised up in order to secure the passing of the Bill. My two main points, Sir, are that these Market Clauses are contrary to the spirit and practice of our railway legislation, and that they are injurious and threatening to the public interest. Sir, I contend that there is no precedent for granting a market authority to a Railway Company. It would have the effect of converting them into traders, because although they do not themselves sell the goods, they have full control over the traders who do sell the goods, and in that way they have the practical, if indirect, management of the trading. Parliament, I am aware, has granted the ownership of steamboats and of hotels to Railway Companies, but there is no parallel between those cases and this, seeing that the former are merely a physical continuation of the proper business of a Railway Company as carriers, and the latter are necessary for the accommodation of the passengers carried by rail; and, at the same time, it must be borne in mind that Railway Companies have no control over the passengers they carry or over the conveyance of the goods. The Great Northern Railway Company at the present moment have a depÔt at King's Cross for the sale of potatoes; but they have no market authority, and have never applied for one. Indeed, a few years ago they attempted to open a market there, but were stopped by injunction. In 1883 the Great Eastern Railway Company obtained the right of opening shops in the Bishops-gate DepÔt; but that is a totally different thing from a market franchise, because in a market the general public 680 have a right, whereas in a shop they have no right at all. It is in this aspect of the case I submit to the House the necessity of opposing the granting to a Railway Company of the complete control over a market where the public should have rights, but where a Railway Company has an interest altogether opposed to that of the public—namely, the private interest of its traffic rate. This has been recognised in the case of Bradford, where there is a railway market, i.e., a market with the rails running into it; but the market, itself is in the hands of the Corporation, which is right and proper, for it is thereby secured that it is worked in the interests of the market, i.e., in the interests of the public, and not in the interests of the Railway. I wish to lay stress on the point that a railway market is a very different thing from a market in the hands of a Rail-way. I ask the House to listen for a moment to the methods by which a Railway Company can exercise these powers if Parliament choose to confer market powers upon them. One principle ought to underlie the granting of every market franchise, and that is that it is to be for the public interest. Now, Sir, let us go a step further. In order that the public interest should be preserved, it is of the essence of a market that it should be free. By free, I do not mean free from tolls and charges, although on this point I think nothing more than the mere cost of maintaining the market should be taxed upon the food in the shape of tolls. By free, I mean that there should be perfect equality, and that there should be no differential tolls and charges, but that there should he perfect freedom of access to the market, and that the consignees, who are tenants within the market, should be free to bring their goods from whatever source they please, and by whatever means of communication they please, so that there should be within the market a perfect competition of produce from all sources, and a perfect competition of the charges or cost of bringing the produce by road or by rail, and if by rail, by different lines of rail, into the market. How will these conditions, which are the necessary basis of a public market, be affected by a market in the hands of a Railway Company? The first interest of a Railway Company is its traffic rate. In the first 681 place, the market authority, if the Rail-way Company is the market authority, will prefer rail-borne produce to road- borne produce. They will get nothing out of the road-borne produce, and will direct their whole attention to the rail-borne produce. In support of this argument, I may mention the fact that hitherto, in Stratford Market, the delicate and perishable garden produce which is brought there has been invariably left out in the open space, while the whole of the covered spaces have been monopolized for rail-borne traffic. This treatment is destructive of the industry of the market gardeners around London who bring fresh vegetables into London. Compare with this the treatment which the same produce receives in Covent Garden Market, where there is no railway interest to serve. In the case of Covent Garden, the market-garden produce is placed under cover, and the heavy rail-borne produce is put in the open spaces. There is a second thing that a Railway Company, if it becomes a market authority, must do—it must secure that all goods conveyed to the market are conveyed upon its own line. Now the Great Eastern Railway Company are great carriers of vegetable produce from the Eastern Counties; but, in those counties, many of the most important districts with which the Great Eastern Railway have a connection are common also to the Great Northern Railway. Then is it to be supposed for a moment that the Great Eastern Railway, having the power they possess over their tenants, will not say to their tenants—"You must send all your produce over the Great Eastern Railway;" and the result will be that the competition of rates, which is the only safeguard the public have, will be completely destroyed. There is a third thing a Railway Company must do. It will invariably give the preference to big consignors over small consignors, and it is easy to see why. It gets more out of them; they are saved trouble; and there can be no doubt that the small landholder whom we wish to encourage will, under such an arrangement, certainly go to the wall. Then, fourthly, it is only natural to conclude that the Railway Company will incessantly work for the 'long lead,' i.e., they will prefer to obtain the produce for the markets they are serving from the greatest 682 possible distance, and the result of that will be that growers within 30 or 40 miles of London will be placed at a disadvantage. The Railway Company will take very little trouble in regard to consignors in the immediate neighbourhood of the market itself, their principal object being to obtain the extra remuneration they will get for the carriage of goods over long stretches of their own railway. Now, Sir, I have by no means exhausted the subject, but I have shown four definite ways by which a Railway Company, if converted into a market authority, will interfere with the freedom of access, and the fair and full competition which must form the basis of a real public market. I am afraid that I have entered at too great length upon this part of the subject, and have left myself little time to point out the unreasonableness of this question being raised at a moment when the whole matter is under the consideration of a Royal Commission, which the House has granted at the instance of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), and which if it means anything at all, means this—that all markets are to be in the hands of popularly elected representative local authorities. The President of the Local Government Board has inserted a clause which absolutely nullifies this principle, for this Railway is to be allowed to keep these markets open, and in its own hands, until the Local Authorities shall have provided ample market accommodation. But so far as the Bishopsgate district is concerned, they never can do this. It would cost the ratepayers an enormous sum. Therefore if they wait till that day, as the clause compels them to do, Bishops-gate Market will remain for ever in the hands of the railway. Why this tender interest, this marked exception for a Railway Company? Let me remind the House that a Railway Company necessarily has enormous power over their tenants—tenants, whose rents they can raise any day from the £15 actually paid, to the £50 they take care to put in the agreement—monthly tenants whom they are able to turn out at almost a moment's notice if they do not get their goods by rail instead of road, by the Great Eastern rail instead of any other, from big consignors instead of small, from distant sources instead of 683 nearer ones. I am quite aware that there has been introduced into this Bill what is called a Protective Clause; but I maintain that that Protective Clause is purely illusory. After the word "equality" come the words "so far as circumstances will allow." I say that those are very suspicious words, especially when they are left in the hands of a Railway Company. They leave a very wide margin indeed for the Railway Company to experiment upon, and it cannot be supposed that in their treatment of their tenants they will sacrifice their own interests for those of the public. Now, I say that, on all these points, and especially in regard to the question of road-borne and rail-borne produce, there is absolutely no protection whatever in this Bill for the public, and no protection for the market tenants. I maintain that it is unwise and unsafe to alter the policy which Parliament has for so many years adopted in regard to Railway Companies, and to place the powers of a market authority in their hands. I maintain, further, that if you grant the powers now asked for, you will create a monopoly, you will destroy the present road-borne produce, and you will leave the market at the mercy of a Railway Company, whose previous record, with regard to all questions of traffic and their treatment of the public, is certainly most unsatisfactory, and is certainly not such as to justify the House of Commons in extending a monopoly. I thank the House for having granted its indulgence to me, and for having listened to my remarks so patiently. In conclusion, I have only to add one word, which is of a personal nature. It may be said that I have a personal interest in the question, as opposed to the Great Eastern Railway. "Well, Sir, it is quite true that it has devolved upon mo to be the owner of a market at the East End of London, which, for some years, I have been endeavouring, under great difficulties, to maintain, in pursuance of the noble objects with which it was built, to afford some relief to the congested state of the food supply of London, especially in the poorest districts. I am ready to admit that that enterprise has not been so successful as its promoters desired; but I claim for it that it has done this—that it 684 has been a standing menace to rings and monopolists, and has very much mitigated their evil action; because those who exercise the power of these rings and monopolies know that if they oppress their victims too much, in the end they will resort to another market where they have no power. With regard to the question of my own personal interest, which may be flung in my face, I may say that the market which is now in my possession was opened without the slightest hope of a return for the capital expended upon it, and while I ask the pardon of the House for entering into a personal matter, I do not hesitate to claim that what I have spoken on this occasion has been dictated by the same motives that have dictated my previous action in the matter of the food supply of London—viz., the public interest. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and which I may explain refers solely to Bishopsgate Market, a new market which the Great Eastern Railway Company seek to establish within 200 or 300 yards of two other markets, which are ample for the purposes of the locality.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, to leave out lines 1 to 14, inclusive.—(Mr. Burdett-Coutts.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)I will detain the House as shortly as I possibly can in putting before it the points which have induced me to decide in favour of the Amendment, although I frankly say that my objection applies both to Bishopsgate and Stratford Markets, and the whole of the clauses which affect them. I think that the Railway Company are ill-advised, considering the beneficial Amendments which were made in the Bill when it was first brought before the House, in insisting upon the Toll Schedules at all; because if they did not claim the right of levying tolls on produce, the opposition which is being offered to the Bill would have been to a great extent disarmed. It is unfortunate that while the House has just decided to appoint a Royal Commission for the purpose of investigating the whole question, and the opinion has been ex- 685 pressed with unanimity by the House that all tolls shall be in the hands of market authorities; that even for a limited time new market toll rights should be granted by Statute by this House. I would suggest that the Great Eastern Railway Company should make their profits in a proper way—namely, as common carriers, and not as market keepers. There are many disadvantages connected with the course taken by the Great Eastern Railway Company, and a special disadvantage arises in this case—namely, that the tolls have in the past been of an exorbitant character—that they have been imposed under a Charter which dates back for some centuries. The railway have now very properly thrown over the Charter owners—at least, as far as this Bill is concerned—but I do not know whether the Company have any private agreement. If they have, they have been keeping it to themselves; and I trust that the House will not permit them to derive a toll profit at all. Unless there is a distinct statement from the promoters of the Bill as to these tolls, I trust that the division may be made a test question on the whole of these Market Clauses, and that the House will reject them. There is another difficulty, how to meet which is not clear in my mind. It is a difficulty which I have raised in the House before. In a statement circulated among Members to-day, the Great Eastern Railway Company express a desire to encourage the enterprise of the occupiers of small farms and the small growers of garden produce. If that is their intention, they give no evidence of it in this Bill. This Bill gives them powers which Railway Companies generally exercise in order to obtain the tonnage which pays them best on conditions which suit them most, and it will suit them most to maintain a large and a regular through traffic with through rates, and if possible, preferential rates to foreign growers at the expense of the home growers, which is acting directly in the teeth of the decision of the House the other day. I understand that the object of the House in that decision was to restrict, as far as possible, the action of the middleman between the grower and the market. It is impossible to suppose that a Railway Company will afford facilities to small growers unless there is something to impose that obligation 686 upon them. Their disposition is to take from the middleman large quantities of produce, which are easily received, and convey them for long distances, and in that way to handicap the smaller growers, whom it is the object of the House to encourage. There is a difficulty which I do not understand, unless it arises from some desire to consult the interest of the Charter owners. By Clause 63 of the Bill it is provided that road and rail traffic shall, as far as Stratford Market is concerned, be treated on an equality; but there is no provision for the admission of road produce to Bishopsgate at all, so that if the House passes this Bill, it will drive the unfortunate growers who are near London entirely into the hands of the Charter owner, whose rights are about to be inquired into, and against all these Charter rights the House expressed a strong opinion upon the Motion which I moved. I do not think it would be decent on my part to occupy the time of the House any further on a Private Bill; but I do ask the House not to consent to give to this Railway Company a statutory right to levy tolls which cannot be necessary for them. Their profits ought to be made out of the ordinary work which Railway Companies undertake to perform as common carriers. Although it is perfectly true, and I thank the Government for it, that we have a clause by which, when Local Authority takes over this market, there is to be no claim for compensation. I regret very much that these Market Clauses should appear in the Bill at all. I think we ought also to feel indebted to the Committee and the Chairman of the Committee for the efforts they have made to look after the interests of the home growers, seeing that it is so much to the interest of the Railway Company to carry large quantities for the middlemen rather than small quantities for the producer who consigns them straight to the consumer. I entreat the House not to give to this Railway Com-2)any the large powers which they now seek.
§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)Although the Amendment of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) only refers to one market—namely, that at Bishopsgate, practically this discussion will deal with them as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) has suggested. I admit at once that 687 the question which the hon. Member has raised, as to tolls, is a very important one indeed. The principle on which the Committee went was that the tolls levied at these markets should be lower than any other tolls at any other market in London. I think that that was safeguarding the rights of the public to a very considerable extent.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHDid the Committee have any evidence that the tolls are lower?
§ MR. HANBURYYes; there was a good deal of evidence to that effect, and I believe that the Great Eastern Railway Company are willing that the tolls levied in these markets should be lower than those levied in any other market in London. As to foreign produce, I sympathize thoroughly with the remarks of the hon. Member with respect to preferential rates for foreign produce; but, unfortunately, it was a question of rates with which the Committee have no power to deal in a Bill of this sort. The same remark applies to the encouragement of the small producers. Unfortunately their case also was not one for the Committee to deal with; but I should have thought that there were sufficient powers in the hands of the Railway Commissioners to see that the small producers are put on the same footing as the large. Then, as to the road-borne traffic, there again the hon. Member has raised what at first sight may seem to be a grievance; but Bishopsgate Market is in a peculiar position. In the first place, there are two road-borne markets within 400 yards of it on each side, and therefore there is not the same necessity for a road-borne market as there is for a rail-borne market. On the other hand, the Committee were most anxious, if it could be established, to see a fair road-borne market; but in regard to Bishopsgate Market we found, that although a large market itself, the purchasers are small purchasers, and that it is impossible to constitute it both a rail-borne and a road-borne market at the same time. There were some other reasons why it was not constituted a road - borne market. I would ask the hon. Member for Northampton to recollect that while we had to consider the interests of the public, we had also to fight the monopolists of the markets at the present moment. The hon. Member for West- 688 minster, in the beginning of his speech, said he was afraid that the Bill was practically introducing the new principle of allowing a Railway Company to hold a market. The hon. Gentleman got a Bill passed through this House making him the owner of a railroad also.
§ MR. BURDETT-COUTTSI am sure the hon. Member would not wish to misrepresent me. I got no Bill to make myself the owner of a railway anywhere. The Bill I got was one to make myself the owner of tram lines, and put myself in communication with the railway; but the whole point of my enterprise was that it was to put me in communication with all the railroads of England, and therefore secure perfect competition of rates and charges to the market—a very different thing from one big railway line controlling a market.
§ MR. HANBURYIt was something more than a tramway, for it was in actual connection with the line, and the trains of the North-Western Railway ran over it. We have been told over and over again that there is not a single line which runs into his market which, cannot also run into this market at Bishopsgate. We talk as if it were a new proposal to open a market at Bishopsgate at all; but, as a matter of fact, in 1883 Parliament allowed a market for fish and meat to be established at Bishopsgate, but it was not allowed to be a market for vegetables, and for this reason—it was because there was a very great monopoly at Spitalfields Market, where the owner of the market was enabled, under an old Charter of King James II., when the population of London was a hundred fold less then it is now, to prevent anybody, within six miles, from selling any vegetables at all. That was a monstrous monopoly; but it existed. You have the fact that the Committee having broken down that monopoly there is no disposition that Stratford Market should be discontinued. Not a man came be-fore the Committee to say he wanted the market discontinued. But what was the whole argument of those who opposed the continuance of the market at Bishopsgate? Why that Stratford Market had been going on for the last seven years, and was under no Parliamentary powers, and therefore was illegal, and the salesmen at Stratford, and the West Ham Corporation, if the 689 Great Eastern authorities did not do their bidding exactly, and carry on the market as they wanted, could come against them with an injunction and say—"We will shut up your market altogether." Here, then, you have the fact that they wish this market to be continued, and the only opposition to our powers is on the part of those men who wish to have entirely the whip hands of the Great Eastern Railway Company. I do not believe Parliament would wish that the Railway Company should be put any longer in this position of having a market which anybody could close at once by an injunction. It is much more straightforward and honest to come before this House, and frankly ask to have market powers given to them. Then, I say, if they are entitled to have a market at Bishopsgate for fish and meat, how much more necessary is it to have a market for vegetables, for what is the condition of things at pre-sent?
§ MR. BURDETT-COUTTSThe Great Eastern have no market rights at all, and never had. They simply have a power to open shops.
§ MR. HANBURYTake the poor of the East End; they are dependent almost entirely for vegetables on those which are brought by road. Well, we know how the area of London is extending; how great districts, like South Kensington for instance, are now completely transformed by buildings. It is all the more necessary that London should be supplied with vegetables from a great distance. A great deal of the opposition springs from those who bring road-borne produce to market; but it is for the interests of the public that they should have good, sound, healthy vegetables brought for them by rail. But that cannot be done at present, because there are no markets at the railway stations, and the vegetables are much damaged by being transferred from the railway trucks to the ordinary markets. Therefore, I believe the Railway Company are doing good to the public and to the poor by this proposal, which would enable them to get their vegetables without all this friction and transference. Then, I ask, is this a time, when the agricultural districts are suffering so severely, when the farmers do not know which way to turn in order to make both 690 ends meet, to refuse what is asked? Surely it would be well for the farmers, and those who depend upon them, that markets should be open to them in London, so that they might send their produce there. Mr. Clare Sewell Read, who is a great authority on such a subject, said, when he was examined before the Committee, that it was a matter of life or death to the farmers of Norfolk and Suffolk that they should have a market to send to. As to the Local Authorities, and their right to establish markets, the Bill was opposed by the Local Authorities, who thought that if they had powers for markets of their own, it would be better. But the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) has settled that matter by providing that there shall be no interference with the powers of the Local Authorities—that if the Bill is passed, the Local Authorities shall not have to fight the battle over again with the monopolists, and that it will be easier for them, and a positive advantage to them, that the Bill should have been passed. Now, there is one other point to which I wish specially to direct attention, and it arises out of the remarks of the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts). If he is the owner of a rival market, I do not say that he has not a right to attend to his own private interests in this House; but I do say this—that we must look at Columbia Market and the position it occupies. It was originally carried on on purely philanthropic principles; and, I am sorry to say, that it was about as dead a failure as ever there was in this world. But since the hon. Member for Westminster has come into connection with that market, he has conducted it very wisely indeed on purely commercial principles.
§ MR. BURDETT-COUTTSHOW?
§ MR. HANBURYWell, in the first place, he has power to raise very heavy tolls indeed—tolls very much in excess of anything to be levied under this Bill.
§ MR. BURDETT-COUTTSI beg to say that no tolls of any kind have ever been charged in Columbia Market. The hon. Member began to describe how I am conducting the market at present. What have these old latent powers to do with that?
§ MR. HANBURYNo, I dare say not; but we have no guarantee that they will 691 not be. The tolls which the hon. Member has power to raise are greater than at any other market in London. Now, I do not wish, to trust to anybody's philanthropy. I look at the fact, and the fact is that the tolls which may be levied there are much greater than anything we ask for. Then, again, Columbia Market, magnificent as it is—and I am bound to say that the people and the poor of London owe a vast debt of gratitude to the lady who established it; but, fine as it is, it is small and limited in area, and is not fit for a wholesale market in any sense of the word.
§ MR. BURDETT-COUTTSIt has large powers of extension.
§ MR. HANBURYI am talking of it as it exists at the present moment. I say it is not fit for a wholesale market as it stands. The hon. Member for Westminster says he is the owner of railway communication. Well, if that is the case, I do not see how he is entitled to oppose another railway which would let into another market as many railroads as are admitted into Columbia Market.
§ MR. BURDETT-COUTTSThe Great Eastern won't let any other line into their market.
§ MR. HANBURYBut how far have we met him? We recognize that it would be grossly unfair, after all he has done for Columbia Market, and after he has got powers to establish railway communication, to let the Great Eastern Railway Company come in at once as a rival railway market. It was represented to us very fairly, that if the Great Eastern Railway Company were to establish their market at once it would get a monopoly, and the hon. Member would start under great difficulties. But what did we do? We inserted a clause which provided, that if the hon. Member did use the powers he obtained in 1885, to establish a railway market within a reasonable period, the Great Eastern Railway Company should not start their market until such period, and the two parties should then start on absolutely fair terms. We could not have done more. I do not think there are any other points which it is necessary for me to enter into; but I do maintain that this is a Bill in the interests of the public, and we certainly want to see the system at work—there can be no doubt 692 whatever about that. I think the objections of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) are very fair and just, and should be provided for in the Bill, and on the third reading, I will give him my support upon them—that is, so far as tolls are concerned, and making them lower than those of any other market in London. Then. I think, this Bill and these markets will be distinctly in the interests of the public. They are in the interests of the Local Authorities who wish to become owners of markets. They are in the interests of the farmers who are served by the Great Eastern Railway. Finally, they are essentially in the interests of the poor of London, who are entitled to have their fresh vegetables where they can get them best and cheapest.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)I have listened with great attention to the argument of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), who has constituted himself the defender of the Railway Company in this House, and I undertake, if necessary, to prove in a very few words the truth of what I say in opposition to his view. Now, I have a right to be heard for a few moments upon this question.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)I rise to a point of Procedure, Sir. I claim to move that the Question be now put.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member having made that Motion, I decline to put it.
§ SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDI think the House ought to know what the Railway Company have tried to do for years, and what it is that they propose to do now. Their station at Bishopsgate is within 300 yards of the Spitalfields Market. It is a market which receives a large amount of produce carried by road, and also a large amount carried by the Great Eastern Railway Company; and when the Great Eastern Railway Company tried, on a previous occasion, to start this Bishopsgate Market, we opposed it for the reason that they would have taken away all the railway-borne business which we had formed. The Railway Company fought the question through all the Courts right up to the House of Lords, and the House of Lords decided that they had no right. The Railway Company during the progress of this great suit came to the House of Commons, 693 and asked for the powers at Bishopsgate which the hon. Member the defender of the Railway Company (Mr. Hanbury) has just given. The Railway Company did not get them, and the Committee of that day marked their opinion very strongly by giving coats against the Railway Company. That is a very rare thing to do, and shows the opinion of the then Committee. What has happened since? At Stratford they have carried on their business without having a market of their own, and the owners of Spitalfields have in no way objected; but they have objected when the Company has tried to transfer the business of Spitalfields Market to Bishopsgate. The Railway Company have prevented most of the growers on their line from sending their goods to London, because they have charged such exorbitant rates. They admit that, for they themselves say that they propose to reduce their rates, and undertake to prove that it is owing to the high rates that the produce has not come. All that has come has been sent to Spitalfields Market, and has been sold in fair competition with road-borne produce. What does the Chairman of the Committee want them to do? When this Bill was brought in there were no Tolls Clauses in it at all. The Tolls Clauses were a subsequent idea, invented by the very acute solicitor of the Great Eastern Railway Company. It clearly caused the scheduled agreement to be rejected, and gave the Great Eastern Railway somebody else's property without fair compensation. I will put it to the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) whether it is an honest thing on the part of the Railway Company to transfer most of the business of the Spitalfields Market to the Great Eastern Railway Company without any payment of compensation in face of the fact that the House of Lords, and every other tribunal, have decided that they have no right to do so? I ask that question, and I should like to have an answer to it. When you remember that the Committee have decided to postpone the opening of the market for 18 months there is no hurry, and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) will probably have his Report before that time. I shall support the Motion of the hon. Member; but I put it to the Mem- 694 bers of Her Majesty's Government to say whether in fact it is at all likely that the public will have any greater convenience from the transfer of the business done at Columbia and Spitalfields Markets to the Railway Company. That is the state of the case, and I hope the House will not approve of such a proceeding. I therefore trust the House will not agree to the Bill as it stands.
MAJOR, RASCH (Essex, S. E.)I should like, Mr. Speaker, to make a few remarks on this subject entirely in the interests of my constituents, many of whom are farmers and market gardeners in the Division of South Essex which I have the honour to represent. The House has heard the observation of the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) to the effect that the people of West Ham will be disposed to construct a market of their own, and that will have the effect of extinguishing the market of the Great Eastern Railway Company; but I venture to think it would not do us the least good. We have no influence whatever with the Corporation of West Ham; we cannot oblige them to start a market; and we are entirely in the hands of the Great Eastern Railway Company, as we have been for seven and a-half years. Let me give the House some reasons why we do not wish to be left without a market. As things are at present, we complain of the undue preference of rates and tolls, particularly in the case of what are known as road-borne goods; and I would like to ask hon. Members to look at Clause 63 of the Great Eastern Bill, which states that no undue preference shall be shown to produce borne by rail. I venture to submit that that sentence entirely invalidates the whole clause and makes it a bogus clause. At the end of the clause it is suggested that the decision of a magistrate—if the parties go to law—shall be final. But the magistrate would have no power over the Great Eastern Railway Company, and it is absurd to suppose that the gardeners and small farmers whom I represent would be able to fight a powerful Corporation like the Great Eastern. The reason, Sir, why the Great Eastern Railway Company give preferential rates and charges, and favour railway-borne over road-borne produce is that it pays them better. My constituents are men who have horses 695 and carts, barrows and small trucks, and they would bring their produce if they could. But they are debarred from that, and are almost crushed out of existence. Another reason why the Great Eastern Company should not have a market is that they would be the landlords of the Stratford Market, and the salesmen there would be their three months tenants, and they would use their influence with these salesmen to induce them to bring their produce from districts further away than the suburban districts. The produce from the suburban districts would be kept back. At present the suburban produce which comes at 12 o'clock at night is retained until 6 in the morning till that coming from the Northern Counties of England can also be brought into the market. They charge 10s. a-ton on potatoes going from a distance short of Southend to the Stratford Market, while at the same time they charge only 9s. 2d,. per ton on potatoes from Lincolnshire, which is four times as far, and only 5s. a-ton from Southend, which is 10 miles further than the district they charge 10s. from. I do not wish to trouble the House or take up any more time; but I would suggest to hon. Members that the Railway Companies are the worst possible masters of markets, for they use their influence in the interests of their shareholders first, and only secondly in the interests of producers and consumers. I would just allude to the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) the other day, in which he said that the effect would be to increase the price of food and to put land out of cultivation. That is what is being done in my Division. Land is going out of cultivation because these men cannot get a market. If this Bill passes as it stands this House will have increased the price of food, and it will be against the interests of the people of the East End and of the small farmers and labourers. The matter is extremely important to the men whom I am sent here to represent.
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTON (Liverpool, West Derby)Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I may say a few words in the hope of bringing this discussion to a speedy close. In the first place, I would say a word in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down (Major Rasch). He says the people of his district are having their 696 land going out of cultivation, and are unable to obtain the means of livelihood owing, in some indirect manner, to the influence of the Stratford Market. The House would gather that that market was a failure, and had not been appreciated by the public, but what are the facts? That market was established in 1879, and opened in 1880, and in the first year 5,100 tons of agricultural produce was brought into the market. The amount of produce had increased last year from 5,100 tons to 25,724 tons, making a total tonnage in six years of 102,493. These facts speak for themselves. It is idle to contend that the market has been a failure in any sense, or that it has not been appreciated by the consumers of the district when I quote these figures to the House. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) that we are monopolists. Now, he was very careful to avoid bringing any evidence in support of that allegation. From the very first moment we endeavoured to open these markets we have been fighting tooth and nail against the monopolists of the district. We got powers under the Act of 1883, which in fact established a market at Bishops-gate, and that market would have succeeded if it had not been for the opposition of one of the monopolists in the person of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid). He obtained under his rights an injunction against us as regarded the continuance of that market. We fought our case on behalf of the public in every Court of Law up to the House of Lords, and in every instance the decision was against us, and in favour of the monopolists. They succeeded, and we have had to shut up the market which we had opened in competition with that of which the hon. Member for Westminster is part owner. Now, it has been said that the hon. Baronet the Member for St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid) is in some respect entitled to compensation. We made an agreement with the hon. Baronet and his co-owner, which agreement we were most anxious to see inserted in the Bill. The Committee declined to insert any such provision; but, at the same time, the Great Eastern Railway Company are perfectly willing that the decision of the Courts of Law should be embodied in the Bill should the House 697 think fit—they are quite willing to insert a clause which would give the hon. Baronet and his co-owner the same tonnage rights they would have possessed according to the original agreement between us as the owners of Bishopsgate Market and themselves as owners of Spitalfields Market, so long as the former situation continues to be used as a market. [Sir JULIAN GOLDSMID: It would not give them to me.] Give them to the lessee of the hon. Baronet. Now, as regards Stratford Market we are in a perfectly different condition. The market rights which it is contended should be exercised at Stratford have never been recognized by any Court of Law, and, therefore, looking to the fact that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) obtained a Royal Commission to inquire into Market Eights, we maintain that any agreement we were willing to have entered into falls to the ground. Now that that agreement has been rejected by the Committee of this House we have nothing further to do with it. The hon. Member for Northampton has very fairly dealt with the various objections he holds with regard to this measure. One is the alleged differential charge between rail and road borne traffic. Now the Bill provides most carefully against any such differential charge in future, should any have been made in the past, and it also appoints a Stipendiary Magistrate, as has been alluded to, as the arbiter in cases of difference, and the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Forrest Fulton) proposes, with our consent, to insert in the Bill a clause imposing a penalty upon the Company when the Stipendiary Magistrate should find us guilty of making a differential charge. Further, I will myself give a pledge on behalf of the Company that we will not in any way encourage in the Stratford Market rail as against road-borne traffic, and I hope that assurance will be regarded as sufficient by the hon. Member.
§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)Can that assurance be embodied in the Bill? I quite accept the noble Lord's assurance; but some future Board of Directors might not think themselves bound by it.
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONI quite agree with the hon. Member that we are all mortal; and, therefore, it would be advisable that that assurance should be 698 embodied in the Bill, and I am perfectly willing to consent to its embodiment in the Bill. Well, then, there is the objection as regards the small occupiers. I can assure the hon. Member that, so far as we are concerned, we do not, and never have, favoured large producers as against small producers. Nothing of the kind. We are willing, as common carriers, to bring to market all that conies within our net; it is not our interest, as a Corporation, to do anything which will prejudice the small producers as against large producers. Now, the matter of tolls is a very important one. We cannot consent altogether to give up the tolls which we ask for in this Bill, and for this reason—we have been put to very large capital expense in establishing this market, and we are going to incur still further expense, and there is every day the out-goings consequent upon keeping the market in repair. But I will give this undertaking—that, under all circumstances, the tolls charged by us shall be less than, the tolls charged by any other market in London. The tolls charged in Columbia Market are the highest in London, though I quite admit they have not always been exercised.
§ MR. BURDETT - COUTTS (Westminster)I pointed out that they had never been exercised. I cannot help their being in the Act. I cannot take them out. But everything I have done with respect to Columbia Market has been based upon the assumption that no tolls would be charged.
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONI quite admit the intentions of the hon. Member are very good; but, as I observed before, we are all mortal, and that what we may wish to do at the present time, we may be compelled not to do at another time.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHDo I understand the noble Lord to say he will also take care that that undertaking is in some formal way recorded in the Bill?
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONIf it can be done. ["Oh, oh!"]
§ MR. BRADLAUGHI am afraid that if I am to withdraw my opposition, it must be on the undertaking that some means be found for doing it. Lawyers are very clever, and, I think, will have no difficulty in framing words to cover the undertaking.
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONI put it in this way—if it can be done, it 699 shall be done. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot speak definitely on the point; but I imagine it can be done.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHI think I can help your legal advisers in the matter.
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONIf the hon. Member will give us the benefit of his assistance, I am sure we shall readily accept it. Now, I think I have answered the main objections to this Bill. The House, I am sure, will understand that we possess no monopoly whatever. The Bill provides that any other market authority may be established next door to us, or opposite to us. We have no right whatever given by this Bill, which prevents another market being set up. We are not monopolists; but we are fighting against monopoly, and I trust that, under these circumstances, the House will assent to the adoption of this Bill.
§ MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)I will not occupy the House very long. I think that we on this side of the House occupy on this occasion the position of a jury so to speak. We have no prejudice one way or the other; and, therefore, are in a position to give an unbiased opinion. As far as I have been able to make out, a good deal of extraneous matter has been introduced by hon. Members—by the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton), for instance, when he said the exertions of Railway Companies are made on behalf of the public; and also by some of those who preceded him, when they said that they acted on behalf of the consumers. I think neither of these positions can be fairly taken up by Companies in the present day. We must admit that most hon. Members who address the House are, in their remarks, actuated a good deal by their own self-interests, and that we are, as a House, to look upon matters from the point of view of the public interest, or from the point of view of the greatest good. I wish also to say distinctly that, so far as vested rights, upon which the hon. Baronet (Sir Julian Goldsmid) has particularly based his speech, are concerned, vested interests are capable of indefinite extension. Considering that vested rights in this case have not been very clearly put forward, we can scarcely hold that the hon. Baronet has made out a case. The great question involved in this matter is whether or not market rights can safely be entrusted, under the conditions 700 laid down in this Bill, to a Railway Company. With regard to the locality in question, I am distinctly of opinion that the consumers will get no benefit whatever from the establishment of the proposed market. The consumers will have to pay the same, whether they buy in this market, or in the market of the hon. Member (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) who moved the Amendment. The producers will, however, obtain some benefit; and, therefore, I think that upon that ground there is something to be said in favour of the Railway Company. Then, lot me regard the matter from another point of view entirely. We have, unfortunately, very large tracts of land in Ireland unsupplied with market accommodation. In the absence of Local Authorities capable of establishing markets, there is no one but Railway Companies to establish markets. There are many railway schemes projected, extending into the far West. It is impossible to carry a line through every village around the coast; but it is quite possible to carry a line to a district central to a large number of villages in the West, which at present are mere places of barter. I shall certainly vote in favour of a Railway Company having the right to establish a market. So far as the debate has gone, the question involved seems to be whether Railway Companies can be trusted with market rights. One Member who opposed this Bill in a very able speech, did so upon the ground that this particular Railway Company was not to be trusted. Now, I understand that this Bill has been considered by and approved by a Committee of this House; and I think that unless a most overwhelming case can be made out, it would be a monstrous thing for us to overturn the decision of our Committee.
§ THE FIRST LORD or THE TREA-SURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an appeal to the House. I think this question has now been completely debated, and that we may well come to a decision upon it. I appeal to the House to come to a decision without further delay.
§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)Perhaps, by the indulgence of the House, I may be permitted to say that I have received most satisfactory assurances on every point which has been raised, and an undertaking to embody these assurances in the Bill when it goes to 701 "another place." Therefore I and my hon. Friends will offer no further opposition to the Bill.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)I think it is as well to point out to the First Lord of the Treasury that when nearly three-quarters of an hour ago we moved the closure from these Benches, the right hon. Gentleman made no sign of assenting to it. I, therefore, do not see that he has much cause to complain of the length of the debate.
§ MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S. W.)As both Bishopsgate and Columbia Markets are situated in my constituency, perhaps, by the kind indulgence of the House, I may, even after the expostulation of the First Lord of the Treasury, say a few words on this question. I want, in the first place, to meet the challenge which was thrown out by the noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton). The noble Lord endeavoured to represent the Company with which he is intimately connected as fighting against monopolies, and he challenged us to bring forward a single particle of evidence which would exhibit them in a different character. Sir, I take up the challenge which the noble Lord threw down. As this Bill was originally introduced in the House there was appended to it an agreement between this Company and Mr. Horner, the lessee of Spitalfields Market, and in that agreement there was one clause which particularly struck my attention. It was to this effect—that six of the tenants of Spitalfields Market should always have a prior right of holding in the new market to be established at Bishopsgate. Now, I ask the House whether you could have a provision more admirably adapted to form the nucleus of one of those food-rings from which the population of this Metropolis so grievously suffer? One great objection to the establishment of a market at Bishopsgate consists in this—that land-borne produce is absolutely excluded from the market. I need not enlarge, for other speakers have done so, upon the grievous injury which this provision would inflict upon the small producers whom we are all most anxious to encourage. But I think I may perhaps be permitted to point out what seems to me the greatest inconsistency in the conclusions of the Committee in regard to this matter, So far as the Stratford Market 702 is concerned, they have stipulated, and rightly stipulated, that land-borne produce and rail-borne produce should be treated upon exactly equal terms; but, Sir, what greater inequality can there possibly be than the absolute exclusion of land-borne produce from the Bishopsgate Market. Although I would not say that the Committee have strained at a gnat with regard to Stratford Market, I maintain they have certainly swallowed the camel with regard to Bishopsgate Market. I quite admit that Bishopsgate Market is, by its nature and its surroundings, absolutely disqualified for the admission of land-borne produce, but that seems to me to be a reason, not for disposing of an essential condition, but simply for looking elsewhere for the site for your market. Of all individuals, or Corporations, which might be constituted market authorities, it seems to me that a Railway Company is the worst. Now, it has been said that this is not a favourable and opportune time for coming to this House and asking for new market powers. That is obvious. I do not know that it has been ever impressed upon the House that there is really any occasion for hurry. There is no need why we should come to a decision upon the point at the present time. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) dwelt, and I thought rather irrelevantly, on the argument advanced from this side of the House upon the desirability of extending market accommodation; but the effect of passing this Bill will not be immediately to extend the market accommodation of London. So far as the Stratford Market is concerned, you have had a market open there for eight years, and without Parliamentary powers, and there is no doubt that the market will continue. So far as Bishopsgate Market is concerned, I may point out it is not proposed to give to the Great Eastern Railway Company power to open the market at Bishopsgate at once, but only after the expiration of 18 months from the passing of the Bill. Well, Sir, within 18 months of the passing of the Bill it is probable that we shall have the Report of the Commissioners who have been appointed to consider the whole question of market rights; and I do therefore ask the House to wait until they can decide this question by the light of the information which the 703 Commissioners will give them, and by the aid of the recommendations which the Commissioners will make.
§ MR. P. M'DONALD (Sligo, N.)As I had the honour of serving on the Committee, I am anxious to say a few words with reference to the Motion now before the House. The remark has been made more than once that the proceedings of Committees on Private Bills are always fairly and honourably con-ducted, inasmuch as politics do not enter into the minds of the Members forming the Committee. Now, Sir, I can bear testimony to the manner in which this Committee discharged its duties. I believe that no two Members of the Committee were perfectly in accord as regards politics; but I am forced to say that we were practically unanimous in the decision we came to. I say practically, Sir, because it was only on one small point that we differed. We de-voted something like 21 or 22 days to the consideration of the question; we examined numberless witnesses, and considered the case in all its bearings. We had an opportunity of testing the value of the evidence given us, and we availed ourselves of it more fully, possibly, than is generally done. It has also been said more than once that monopolies should not be allowed to exist. Why, the first consideration of our Committee was to break down monopolies. Two or three monopolies were installed before us, and we at once resolved that anything that lay in our power in the way of breaking down monopolies should be done. We did, Sir, in one case, endeavour to break down a monopoly, and that was the monopoly of Spitalfields Market, the Charter of which was granted, I think, in the reign of James II. I myself put a question to the present lessee of that market. I asked him if a line of carts extended six miles from the market, would he claim to levy toll on all the carts, and his answer was that he certainly should, if the line was unbroken. The House will agree with me that it is monstrous that the lessee of the market should have the right to levy toll over an area of six miles radius. Now, the considerations we took into account were, firstly, the requirements of the poor and increasing population of the East End; secondly, the agricultural interests of the Eastern portion of England—we 704 very anxiously considered the requirements of the local growers around London, particularly in the Eastern Counties, so as to give at least equal and full facilities to the road-borne produce as to the rail-borne produce; thirdly, the facilities of supplying the large and increasing population of the Metropolis; and fourthly, the desirability of reducing the price of food, and the rates of carriage which the Railway Company charge. On all these matters we were thoroughly and fully agreed. I am pleased that the objections raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) have been readily met by the promoters of the Bill. Under the circumstances, I think the House will agree with me that the Committee came to the right conclusion.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Amendments made.
§ Bill to be read the third time.