MarTcet Bights mid Tolls. 
183 
treatment of hawkers. Mr. Ashton says, on p. 61, that in the 
West of England the general markets are unable to compete with 
hawkers, and he is of opinion that for purposes of protection it is 
desirable that hawkers should pay toll or take out a licence, which 
he justities on other and more general grounds. The question of 
hawkers will be dealt with hereafter, but I may say here that in my 
experience I found no instance of the price of food being enhanced 
by tolls upon hawkers, whereas I did find several cases of markets 
injured by an unrestricted system of hawking. Further, in my 
opinion, there is nothing so effective as a successful and Nourishing 
market for the cheapening of food. 
I have not yet said anything as to the last words of the conclu- 
sion — " due regard being had to the interests of the present pos- 
sessors of the monopoly rights " — but they are very important. With 
regard to them there is even greater diversity of opinion among the 
Commissioners, and upon them is founded another suggestion, 
namely, the appointment of a Market Commission to determine the 
amount of compensation. Five of the Commissioners, who belong to 
the original majority, are of opinion that the sums adjudged to be 
due for the abolition of such rights should be paid to the holders out 
of the Public Funds. Lord Balfour of Burleigh thinks that such 
matters, being of purely local concern, should be paid for out of the 
local rates, without any grant from the Imperial Funds. Mr. 
Childers prefers no compensation at all by pecuniary payment, but 
he would allow to the owners, in certain cases, extension of the 
monopoly for a limited number of years. Sir James Corry and Sir 
Thomas Martineau agree with Lord Balfour of Burleigh as to 
Imperial Funds, but they think it would be most objectionable that 
Local Authorities should be compelled to burden themselves, "not 
for the purchase of a valuable privilege, but for an unproductive 
payment in respect of rights that have disappeared." I think the 
use of the word " compelled " is a mistake ; but Mr. Little says, " It 
would be hopeless to expect that the ratepayers with whom the 
decision must rest would ever sanction the expenditure of money in 
purchasing, establishing, or enlarging'markets, if the Market Mono- 
poly be abolished." With this opinion I entirely agree, and the con- 
clusions of Mr. Picton and Mr. Mahony are practically the same. 
This shows that under any circumstances there must be great diffi- 
culty in getting rid of the Market Monopoly ; and some idea of the 
magnitude of such an undertaking may be gathered from the fact 
that at Sheffield the Duke of Norfolk possesses markets upon which 
he has spent 200,000/., and his agent thinks it would be unfair to 
buy him out at 40 years' purchase. At Bradford, again, the Cor- 
poration pays to a Miss Rawson a rent of 5,000/. a year for 
the privilege of working the markets. 
I need not enlarge upon this point, for the mere difficulty of an 
undertaking is no argument against its principle ; but it may be 
useful to consider whether the suggested appointment of a Market 
Commission depends solely upon the abolition of Monopoly Rights. 
I think not. Resolution 24 reads as follows ; — 
