Miwlet Bvjlds and Tolls. 
181 
Much the same reasoning is used by Mr. Allanson Picton and 
Mr. Pierce Mahony. On p. 125 they say : — 
The advantapres of a market to the community very much depend on the 
concentration of business in one place ; and this is largely contingent on the 
existence of those ancient rights. They may be objectionable when in 
private hands, but when held by representatives of the whole community, 
they may be so used as to facilitate local trade. 
Sir James Corry and Sir Thomas Martineau say on p. 123 : — 
In the nature of the case it is impossible in practice to avoid market 
monopolies altogether. It must be remembered that a market essentially 
ditfers from a shop, the former depending on a concourse of both sellers and 
buyers. It is therefore impossible to maie an indefinite increase of markets 
in any particular place, and any attempt to do so, while it might inflict 
serious injury on established markets, would confer no corresponding benefit 
on the community. 
These arguments of the minority are supported by the experience 
obtained from the United States, and appear to me to be convincing. 
A choice must be made between private enterprise practically 
uncontrolled, on the one hand, and, on the other, public markets 
with monopoly rights, regulated as to charges, bye-laws, production 
of accounts, and restraint as to leasing, ttc. There can be no doubt 
that the evidence which has been collected in regard to general 
markets is overwhelmingly against the systein of private enterprise, 
because it leads to excessive charges, and constant disputes between 
the market owners and the general public. It is for this reason that 
the Commissioners unanimously recommend in their third conclusion : 
That the Local Authorities, whether in count}' or borough, ought to be 
empowered to piu-chase markets now in private hands, either by agreement 
or by compulsion. 
It is not difficult to appreciate the reason for this. If the town 
does not provide or regulate the market, it will have no interest in 
supporting it. The owner must make all that he can out of it ; and 
the less accommodation he provides within reason, the greater may 
be the competition for places ; because, when all is said and done, 
the farmers and vegetable growers will certainly try to sell within 
a walking or driving distance of their homes if possible. The idea 
of bad accommodation and high tolls is abhorrent to all the Com- 
missioners, and tliey, therefore, resolve, not only that all market 
owners should make bye-laws subject to the Local GoA-ernment 
Board, but that the stall-holders should have a right of appeal 
against excessive charges to the County Council. If the market 
monopoly is abolished, the market owner enjoys no privilege, and the 
public can no longer claim the right to control the manaaement or 
the charges for the use of the market. If the terms of one market 
owner do not suit the stall-holders they must seek another, and 
there is nothing for them to complain of. 
But, it is argued, if there is a desire for a local commercial 
centre, the ratepayers will not be slow to provide it, I doubt this, 
