182 
MarJcet Bights atid Tolls. 
Xo pro^-ident local authority would invest the ratepayers' money 
upon a concern which might at any moment prove to be an abso- 
lute loss, owing to the competition of private enterprise. I will 
illustrate what I mean from my experience in some of the towns 
which I visited in my capacity of Assistant Commissioner. In 
Leeds the capital expenditure upon markets is variously estimated 
at 162,268^. and 288,-549/., with the result that the Market Com- 
mittee is unanimously against allowing private competition. It 
will be seen on p. 449 of Yol. IV. presented with the Report, that 
the Committee prevents auctioneers from selling cattle outside 
the market, although the auctioneers are willing to pay the market 
toll, which they consider a perfectly reasonable demand. At Bed- 
ford there is an excellent cattle market belonging to the town on 
a space of three and a half acres, but only three-quarters of the space 
is used, because the principal trade in sheep and pigs is carried on 
at a private auction mart close by. At Ripon no attempt is made to 
create a satisfactory public cattle market, because private iudi\'iduals 
have been allowed to obtain prescriptive rights of market. At 
Sunderland the general markets are carried on at a loss of 300/. a 
year, partly because a private market has been allowed to establish 
itself in a more central position. At Spennymoor a rival market has 
arisen within a quarter of a mile of that belonging to the Local 
Board, but outside the district of the latter, and the result has been 
disastrous to the prosperity of the market (Yol. lY. p. 369). 
Mr. Ashton, one of my colleagues as Assistant Commissioner, 
reports as to Basingstoke that "the cattle market has been crushed 
by the establishment of an auction mart within the town " (Yol. III. 
p. 385). It is evident from these examples — and many others might 
be cited — that free competition may iniin public markets, and that 
the ratepayers are not very likely to risk their money if such com- 
petition is to be allowed. Thus one of the principal objects which 
the Commissioners have in ^•iew, namely, that of placing markets 
generally under the control of local authorities, will not be attained. 
Before leaving this part of the subject, I ought perhaps to pc(int 
out in greater detail the objections which are made to the monopoly. 
These are illustrated on p. 83 of the final report by a resume of 
a successful action brought by the owner of the Spitalfields Market 
against the Great Eastern Railway Company. The defendants in 
that case were prevented from establishing what might have proved 
a very useful market for the sale of roots and vegetables in London, 
because it happened to be within 3?, miles of a chartered market. 
I would say of this case that it does no doubt show the objection to 
any hard-and-fast lines by way of restriction, but it does not prove 
that the absence of all restriction is Ukely to be beneficial. 
Further evidence as to the objection to the monopoly is given on 
pp. 60 to 63, where restrictions on tlie sale of goods outside the 
market a re dealt with. It is clear that some of these cannot be 
justified, as, e.g. the regulation at Penrhyn that butchers shall 
not be .'dlowcd to sell in their own shops on market days. The 
chief question raised by these restrictions, however, is as to the 
