said, he was very much astonished at the course which had been taken with regard to this Bill. It was a Bill of considerable bulk and importance; but the House was left to gather its character from a perusal of the Bill itself, and hon. Members were well aware that as Private Bills were not circulated, hardly anybody was ever in a position to say for himself what was the nature of a Private Bill brought before the House. As a general rule, when they had a debate on a Bill of this sort they had a speech to explain its objects, or someone made a statement as to the nature of its provisions on moving the second reading. On this occasion they had had nothing of the kind, and the House was left to derive its notions as to what the Bill was from a perusal of the Bill itself, which, in regard to Private Bills, was a very difficult matter indeed. Now, it appeared that the City of London had lately appointed a new Remembrancer, and he believed that one of the duties of the Remembrancer was to jog the memory of hon. Members of that House in regard to Bills in which the City was interested, and to inform them of the character of each measure. He had received a statement that morning signed by the Remembrancer, but it was a statement of the baldest possible character. It merely stated that the Bill was coming before the House, and went on to say—

"The object of the Bill is the establishment of a new market, in lieu of the ancient Leadenhall Market, and the improvement of the neighbourhood by the formation of new streets."

"The object of the Bill was the establishment of a new market, in lieu of the ancient Leadenhall Market, and the improvement of the neighbourhood by the formation of new streets."

said, this was a very small Bill on which to found an attack upon the City of London. The Bill dealt with a very ancient market—a market established in the reign of Edward IV., and re-built nearly 150 years ago—in the year 1730. The Corporation of the City of London, having observed that Leadenhall Market was rapidly falling into a state of delapidation, thought that the time had arrived when the old market should be replaced by a new one better adapted to satisfy the wants of the people, and more accessible to the public. The Corporation proposed that this should be done at their own expense, and they asked in the Bill for the usual compulsory powers of purchase. That simply was the object of this Bill; but there was another matter included in it—the opening out of new streets. That question had been touched upon by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and if the hon. Member would look at the plans, which had been published by authority, he thought that the hon. Member would say that the new street, which it was proposed to run from Leadenhall Street to Fenchurch Street, would be a very great improvement, and would afford a very considerable relief to the traffic in that part of the City. If this had been a Bill brought forward by any other municipality than that of the City of London, he did not think that any hon. Member would have risen in his place to move the rejection of the Bill—the ordinary courtesy would have been extended to the promoters of the Bill of allowing them to go before a Private Bill Committee up-stairs, that they might have an opportunity of stating their case. But because the Bill was introduced by the Corporation of the City of London, the hon. Member for Chelsea, who entertained a great dislike to the City—as he did, indeed, to most of the useful institutions of his country—got up in his place and moved the rejection of the Bill. The hon. Baronet had referred to the monopoly of the City with regard to its being the market authority within a radius of seven miles round St. Paul's. No doubt it was so; but did the hon. Member want to erect a market in Chelsea? If he did not, he (Mr. Charley) did not see why the hon. Member should come down to the House to oppose the present Bill. It was simply a dog-in-the-manger policy. The hon. Member did not want a market for himself or for his constituents, and yet he objected to the citizens of London enjoying the benefits which this Bill would confer upon them. This was not a new market at all, but one which had existed from time immemorial. He trusted the House would reject the proposition of the hon. Baronet, and consent to read the Bill a second time.

remarked that, at all events, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) could not say that he (Sir Andrew Lusk) had no interest in the City of London. If he thought that the City had done what was right and proper in the case, he should not have risen to oppose the Bill. He need not remind those Mem- bers of the House who were interested in the matter that some 18 or 20 years ago, after the Cattle Market was moved up to Copenhagen Fields, several gentlemen, and among them Mr. Charles Pearson, conceived the idea of having the Metropolitan Railway made, and of moving Newgate Market and Leadenhall Market, and of constructing a new market on the site of the old Smithfield Cattle Market. That project, in the end, was carried out, and the City went to the expense of building a splendid new dead-meat market there, and in that market, by the authority of the House, Leadenhall Market and Newgate Market were included. The new market at Smithfield had been of great benefit to everyone who was engaged in the City. At the present moment, they were able to get along Leadenhall Street without having 50 or 100 butchers' carts standing in the street. It appeared to him somewhat singular that the same men who carried out this great improvement, so far as the City was concerned, should now desire to revive the old market in Leadenhall Street. It was of no use talking about the City doing this at their own expense. No doubt, they were going to spend £100,000 in reviving the old market; but it would be necessary to levy tolls in the market, and it would require a good many tolls to make up interest on that sum. These were really the facts of the case. Leadenhall Market at present was not a market, but a place where a great many stolen dogs were sold, and stolen cats, stolen partridges' eggs, stolen pheasants' eggs, and foxes, and things of that kind. Perhaps hon. Members would appreciate the advantages of that class of trade. He was not one of "our old Nobility." He did not count his acres by tens of thousands; but he could say this, and he believed he would be confirmed in what he stated, for it was a very important fact—that it was a great trouble and a great expense to produce food in this country—beef, mutton, and corn—for the people. And many hon. Members must be astonished when they looked at the enormous disparity between the amount they received for what they sold, and the sum they paid when they bought in London. He attributed part of this result to the concentration of markets in one place, which had the effect of raising up third and fourth and fifth men between the seller and the buyer. He did not think it was desirable for the benefit of those who bought and sold to concentrate the number of markets they now possessed. All the meat went to Smith-field, and all the fish to Billingsgate. In the case of the latter market, there was a great difficulty in getting there. Three-fourths of the people who wanted to go there could not get into the market. The streets leading to the market were constantly blocked up, and it was impossible to get access to Billingsgate. The consequence was that, in some way or other, more than 400 tons of fish every year were destroyed, because it could not get out of the market in time to be of use to the public. It was very questionable, therefore, whether it was desirable to revive the market in Leadenhall Street. He should like to know where the advantages were to be found? He spoke as a merchant in London. He and other merchants having business in the City wanted to get to their offices, and did not want to have the streets blocked up again, as was the case in times past. They had been endeavouring to set the traffic in the City free by the aid of the Metropolitan Railway, and other means. He objected, therefore, to the concentration of the markets of the Metropolis in the City where they were not wanted. There was nobody there to buy, and they had already a splendid market elsewhere. Therefore, in the name of the merchants of London, and of those who had business to carry on in the City, and wanted to get out and in, he asked the House not to concede to the Corporation permission to start another great market in the centre of the City. It certainly could not be recommended from a sanitary point of view; because, wherever they had a market of that kind, they got a great deal more dirt than was desirable. For these reasons, he appealed to the House to throw the Bill out, or, at any rate, to send it to a Select Committee to ascertain whether it would be for the benefit of the Metropolis generally to establish another market as proposed.

pointed out that the request of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) was all that the promoters of the Bill asked— namely, that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee to ascertain whether it was a suitable Bill to pass or not. It was quite true, as the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) said, that no particular reasons had been circulated for the passing of the Bill; but it was by no means the rule that such reasons should be circulated. It was not uncommon to do so; but in the case of the majority of Private Bills he believed it was not the practice. The Bill was brought into the House, not on the authority of individuals or of private speculators, but upon the authority and credit of the Corporation of London. And as to the Corporation not having been unanimous in its favour, it was hardly necessary to remind the House that the Corporation was unanimous on very few subjects. But what Corporation was? He could not help telling the House that his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk), who had just spoken, knew very well that the maintenance of Leadenhall Market was a concession on the part of the Corporation of London to the feeling of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. Indeed, there was a Petition, signed by upwards of 10,000 persons, praying that this very ancient market should be maintained in their midst. But the Corporation of London could not keep Leadenhall Market in its present condition. It had fallen into decay, in a certain sense, in its trade and in its buildings, and in all the accessories of a market it was absolutely deficient. There was, as had already been pointed out, no proper access to it. No doubt, his hon. Friend (Sir Andrew Lusk) would be disturbed in coming to and going from business if there was no better access to the market than existed now; but the object of the Bill was to do that which, however, was complained of by his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke)—namely, to carry out street improvements at the same time that the market was made. The hon. Member for Chelsea made it a matter of complaint against the Corporation that whenever they made a market they made street improvements in order to give a better access to it. The hon. Member for Chelsea also complained of the market monopoly enjoyed by the City of London. Now, if there was one duty which more than another imposed a primary obligation upon a united municipality, it was that of making provision for markets for the use of such united municipality. It was a duty of every municipality to take charge of that matter so far as it could, and in London, with a population of 4,000,000 of persons at stake, it was the imperative duty of the Corporation to take the lead. At the same time, it was a matter of great difficulty to provide markets to which the people would resort. Lady Burdett Coutts spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in establishing the Columbia Market. The great object which Lady Burdett Coutts had was to provide accommodation for the buyer. She did everything that could be done to make that market a success; but she did it all in vain. Then, again, did not the City take away one of the greatest scandals that existed in London before most hon. Members were born—the Fleet Lane Market—which was situated opposite a ditch, and build a beautiful market in the same neighbourhood—the Farringdon Market? But it had been a dead failure, and the new market had never taken root at all. Again, in close contiguity with the Great Northern, the North-Western, and the Midland Railways, in an admirable situation, amidst an immense population, a market was established which was intended to supply food cheaply to the public. Upon this new market great efforts were expended and large sums of money spent. An admirable market was built; but no customers would come. He could multiply instances of the same kind. It was by no means easy to plant a market. Let anyone try to plant one at Chelsea. A market in London was the most delicate thing in its constitution that could be imagined. And some which had been in existence for 30 or 40 years were comparatively empty and without profit. The Corporation of London had spent £2,500,000 in markets; and as far as the income of the Corporation was concerned, they were none the better for the markets they had built. They had built them because they considered, and he supposed the House would also consider, that it was one of their primary obligations to do what they could towards performing the daily miracle of feeding 4,000,000 of people with food—meat, fish, and fruit, and all other things necessary. No doubt, the obligation which thus fell upon them was well discharged. Whether it might be done better was another question, but that it was done well at the present moment nobody could doubt. Four hundred tons of fish might be condemned every year, not through the fault of the market, but through a fault which, in many cases, happened before the fish arrived in London at all. All the Corporation asked was that the Bill should be allowed to go to a Select Committee. No doubt, the Corporation were divided about it. It was a competition with their own market; but that was rather in its favour than against it. It showed that they wore willing to allow competition with their own market, if a demand was made for it by a sufficient number of their constituents, who felt that a local market would be of advantage to them. His hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea and Finsbury said it was a great mistake to bring all the markets to one point and to pass a Bill with that object. But the arguments of his hon. Friends would not hold water at all. If the Bill went before a Select Committee, and if it then turned out that there was no reason why it should be passed into law, the House might depend upon it that it would not be passed into law. But, at any rate, it ought to be read a second time; and if the Select Committee thought it was a proper measure to become law, they would be bound to pass it.

thought the Corporation of London would have done wisely, and have shown a little more worldly wisdom, if they had taken the advice once given by a distinguished statesman, who said—"Why cannot you let it alone." It would be within the recollection of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley) that the whole of this subject of markets was raised last year in the discussion of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill. At that time it was said that it was rather an awkward and undesirable thing that the question should be raised at that particular moment. He thought this movement ought to have been a little longer deferred, and then the Corporation could have come forward boldly and have asked Parliament to support their Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Salford said that it was a very small Bill. Primâ facie he was ready to admit that it was, and that there was a tolerably good case for improving Leadenhall Market if it was ever again to be used as a market. In its present condition, the market was a very dirty and disagreeable place. But if it was a small Bill, it was one that affected a very large question; and he must contend that the present provision for the supply of markets over the whole of the Metropolis was absolutely indefensible. There was not on the Surrey side of London a single market. Walworth and Camberwell were destitute of markets. Then, again, on the North side of London, there were no markets either at Stoke Newington or Hoxton, and nothing was proposed to be done there for providing anything in the shape of market accommodation. No doubt, the present Bill would have slipped through the House unnoticed if it had not been for the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). Hon. Members had only had to-day to gather information. He (Mr. James) had inquired in the Library if there was any information to be gathered upon the question of markets. There were very few subjects which some time or other had not been inquired into by that House; but the only information to be obtained on the question of markets was to be found in some little evidence given before a Royal Commission which inquired, in 1854, into the finances and general state of the Corporation. And the evidence taken at that time all tended to show that even then the want of markets in London was greatly felt, and was, indeed, something absolutely deplorable. No Committee of the House of Commons had ever at any time inquired into the subject; and he asked the hon. and learned Member the Recorder of London (Sir Thomas Chambers), whether he was prepared to contend for a single moment that the City of London, the population of which was dwindling away every day, and was not more than 75,000 at this moment, was the proper authority to possess the entire market monopoly of this great Metropolis, with a population of 4,000,000 of people? He had no wish to attack the Corporation of London; but he thought he had the right to defend the wants of the Metropolitan ratepayers, who had no good opportunity for expressing their opinion on this or any other question. In the absence of favourable markets, costermongers' carts filled the streets, and distributing their garbage in every direction, were instrumental in placing the thoroughfares in a bad sanitary condition. Sometimes, when unable to sell their wares, they took them home and deposited them in their backyards; and the consequence was that many of the homes of the poor were placed in a very unsatisfactory sanitary condition. He had placed an Amendment on the Paper in regard to the present Bill, the effect of which was that after it had been read a second time it should be sent to a Select Committee nominated by the Whole House. At the time the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill of 1869 was brought in by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take away the monopoly now enjoyed by the Corporation of the City of London, unless they complied with and fulfilled certain conditions which were considered necessary in the interests of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. As the Corporation had not complied with and fulfilled those conditions, it was only a reasonable request that the House should now be asked to refrain from passing this Bill, which dealt with a small part of the larger question, until the whole matter had been inquired into by a Select Committee. If this proposition were not accepted, he should feel it his duty to offer an uncompromising opposition to the second reading of the Bill. He must confess that from time to time these ancient and antiquated privileges possessed by the Corporation required revision. The whole thing ought to be gone into entirely, and made the subject of a full and complete investigation. If the Corporation objected to inquiry, the House could only come to one conclusion—namely, that they were afraid of giving a full explanation, because they knew perfectly well what the nature of the exposé would be, and that, when weighed in the balance, they would be found wanting.

, in supporting the second reading of the Bill, said, he could assure the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) that the Corporation of the City at all times courted inquiry, and nothing would please them more than to answer any queries addressed to them by a Select Committee or any inquiry which the House might be pleased to make. With regard to the Bill now before the House, it was pretty well known that the market at Leaden- hall was one of the most ancient markets in the City. The land on which it was built was the property of the City of London, and the Corporation, in their present Bill, simply asked the House to allow them to improve that market and the approaches thereto. The City had been moved to take this action by one of the largest, most influential, and most honestly signed Petitions ever presented to the Corporation of the City of London. It contained upwards of 7,000 signatures, all duly certified with name and address. It was one of the most useful markets in London, and, situated as it was on the borders of Gracechurch Street, it was easily approached both from East and West, and North and South. Then, again, the market was required by City men themselves, who lived mostly in the suburbs, and required to take their provisions home with them. In the market every necessity could be obtained, and he failed to see what advantage would be derived from destroying this very useful market. He certainly hoped that the House would not listen to the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and let it go forth to the City that the markets, which had always been well conducted, and had always given satisfaction to those who frequented them, were no longer required. He trusted that the House would reject the Amendment and read the Bill a second time.

remarked that if this Bill came up from any Corporation in the Provinces, he did not suppose that the House would waste any time in its discussion. It seemed to him to be a very reasonable Bill, so far as it took power to improve a very ancient market. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down described the market of Leadenhall as one of the oldest in London; but the whole difficulty in the case arose from the fact that the market authority of the Metropolis was not the municipality of the whole of the Metropolis, but the municipality of only a small part of it. His hon. Friend behind him the learned Recorder of London (Sir Thomas Chambers), in his eloquent pleading for the City, told them there was no greater duty a municipality could perform than to look after the markets. That was perfectly true, and he did not for a moment deny it. But, in this case, what were the condi- tions? It was proposed that the Corporation, which represented some 200,000, or even a much less number of the inhabitants of the City, should provide markets for the 4,000,000 which formed the whole population of the Metropolis. They could not now go into the question whether they ought or ought not to intrust this special power of providing markets to the City of London. The power did exist at the present moment, and it was proposed now, to some extent, practically to extend it. One great argument which had been used by the City when fresh markets had been projected was that they had already spent a great deal of money upon markets, and that there ought to be no competition. At the present moment, however, some little difference of opinion seemed to exist among the Corporation as to the propriety of having a competition among themselves. And by the Bill now before the House, he understood it was so proposed to alter Leadenhall Market as to make it a market of competition with the existing markets. He thought if they did that they afforded a very fair ground for the rest of the inhabitants of the Metropolis to say that their interests ought to be thoroughly considered when the Bill got into Committee, and that they ought to have a full opportunity of opening the whole of the Market Question. His hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes) would correct him if he was wrong; but his impression was that if this Bill went upstairs without any special direction, but simply as an ordinary Private Bill, the consumers in the Metropolis would not have a locus standi before the Committee. He imagined that the Metropolitan Board of Works would have a locus standi on account of their Building Acts which gave them power over the erection of buildings in all parts of the Metropolis, even including the City of London. But he did think that when they were proposing to establish a fresh dead-meat market, which was to be not merely for the sale of meat to consumers in the City, but for the sale of meat to consumers outside the City, that the consumers in all parts of London should have a locus standi. At the same time, he did not believe they could have that locus standi unless the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, nominated by the Whole House in the manner proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. James). He did not suppose that there would be any real objection to that proposal. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Alderman Cotton), who was well acquainted with the feeling of the Corporation of London, said there was nothing the authorities of the City would court more than an inquiry into the matter. If they really desired to have the whole question fairly sifted in the interests of the consumers, he could not help thinking there would be no real objection to the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. James). Under these circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would not persist in his opposition to the second reading of the Bill, but would allow the Bill to be read a second time with the view of having it referred to a Select Committee nominated by the Whole House.

thought that if this was an attempt to construct an absolutely fresh market outside the jurisdiction of the Corporation of London who were the promoters of the Bill, it was possible the objections which had been raised to it by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster), might have considerable force and weight with the House. In such a ease—he did not say that he agreed with the proposal—it might fairly be argued that if such an attempt were made by the City to extend the number of their markets, the time had come when they should consider generally the question whether the old Charter granted to the City of London constituting them the sole market authority of the Metropolis, was one which ought not in some way to be altered. But he would remind the House that in this instance they were not dealing at all with any such creation of a fresh market All he understood from this Bill was that the City asked within their own limits and under their own Charter to provide, instead of a market which at present was inadequate for the wants of the locality, a better market on the same site—carrying on the history of the market from the past, only under improved conditions. Such being the simple object of the Bill, it rendered it difficult, he thought, for the House to refuse its assent to the second reading. They knew perfectly well that the Bill would be submitted to the consideration of a Committee upstairs, where, as his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had said, the Metropolitan Board of Works would have a locus standi, and where the owners of property in the neighbourhood who objected to it would also have a right to be heard. But the question, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to, of the consumer's interest, would arise simply on the creation of a fresh market outside the limits of the existing one, and not in the continuing of a market which existed at the present moment, and which would be found of great convenience to the locality in which it existed. Although he was not in a position to speak with the same authority as hon. Members for the City upon this matter, he believed that, in connection with another market in the City—Billingsgate Market—there were people who had business in Leaden-hall Market, and therefore any idea of satisfying the wants of the traders, or customers who had for so long a period been accustomed to the market in Leadenhall Street, would not be met by sending them to the market in Smithfield, which the City held as another outlet. He confessed that he was considerably surprised at the arguments adduced by his hon. Friend the Alderman who represented the borough of Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk). The hon. Baronet had endeavoured to prove to the House the disadvantages of centralizing all the traders in one market, and had then asked the House to refuse the continuance of the second market in Leaden-hall Street. The two things did not seem to him (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) to be consistent, so far as the interests of the consumers in the Metropolis were concerned. He thought the whole of the arguments they had heard upon the Bill had simply been addressed to the general question which ought to be raised at some other time, and which certainly did not apply to the continuance of Leadenhall Market, which had been, and would be, under the proposed arrangement, a useful addition to the market purposes of the Metropolis itself.

said, the district affected by the Bill occupied a very large portion of the ward which he represented in the Corporation of the City of London. He trusted that the House would consent to read the Bill a second time on account principally of the very great improvements which it would effect in the City itself. It would, among other things, enable the old Hide Market in Leadenhall Street to be properly utilized, and a new street would be carried from Leadenhall Street to Fenchurch Street, which would greatly facilitate the traffic in that part of the City. There was a very strong feeling in the district in which the market was situated that the market itself ought not to be abolished, and an important Petition signed by a very large number of persons had been presented to the House, praying that the market should be continued. The Bill now before the House was in reality a compromise. The City had consented, at the request of a very large number of persons, to continue the market. But what was the market? There was in reality nothing that could be called a market. There were two wholesale dealers, a few small shops, and a variety of dealers in foxes, dogs, cats, rabbits, and all sorts of animals; but to call it a market from which was distributed any considerable portion of the food of the Metropolis was a folly and absurdity. It never could be made a large market in its present condition, for this reason. It was right in the centre of a block of houses, and at the present time it could not be got at except through a few narrow courts. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) asked why they should not leave things alone? Now, that was the very thing they ought not to do. At the present moment, it was an abomination and not a market at all, and it was so situated that it could not be carried on as a market. He hoped that the House would consent to the second reading of the Bill, and leave it to a Committee upstairs to determine whether it would be an improvement to make the new street and re-constitute the market, or whether it would be an improvement to be without any market at all.

said, his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had asked him a question in regard to the locus standi of the citizens of the Metropolis if the Bill went before a Committee upstairs in the ordinary way. He was not aware that the consumers in this case would have any more locus standi than they would have in any other case. Their opposition was precisely the same as that of the consumers in Liverpool or Manchester, supposing the Bill had been introduced by the Corporation of Liverpool or Manchester in regard to the markets already existing in those towns. He hoped that the discussion, which had no doubt been a useful one, would not end in a division; because, although the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had shown that there was a great deal of interest felt out-of-doors with regard to the monopoly possessed by the Corporation of London in regulating the markets of the Metropolis, it appeared to him (Mr. Raikes) that this was hardly an occasion, nor did the present Bill afford the most fitting opportunity, for conducting an inquiry into that subject. The Corporation of London, by this Bill, asked for no power to make any new market, or to make or regulate any market beyond the limits of the City itself. If, therefore, in any case the promoters of a Bill ought to be allowed to proceed and to bring forward their Bill in the ordinary course of procedure, adopting the usual mode of dealing with questions which formed the subject of Private Bills, this was a case of that nature. If it were intended by this Bill to establish a new market in the borough of Chelsea, or if it were a proposition which involved in any way the opening of new markets on the Southern side of the river, where he had every reason to believe market accommodation was greatly required, such a proposal would certainly have afforded a fair opportunity for instituting such an inquiry as that suggested by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James), and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). But on this occasion the Corporation of London, as the promoters of the Bill, were merely asking to be allowed to improve an already existing market, which was altogether unfit for the purposes for which it was intended. It was notorious that the present market at Leadenhall was inconvenient and difficult of access. The Corporation of the City proposed as part of the present Bill to construct a new street, and he believed that such a street would be a very great convenience to that part of London. Under all the circumstances, it did appear to him that it would be hard upon the Corporation of London that they should be placed in the trying position of attempting to carry out improvements that were essentially required, and, at the same time, that their action should be hampered by requiring them to enter into a long and troublesome inquiry as to the nature and advantages of the general powers which they possessed by Statute. He trusted that under these circumstances the House would allow the Bill to follow the ordinary course, and be sent, not to a special Committee, but to an ordinary Committee, who would have full power to go into all the details of the matter in the ordinary way. He might, perhaps, be allowed to add in regard to the question which had been raised with respect to the costs being defrayed by heavy tolls, which would ultimately come out of the pockets of the consumers, that that was a matter which an ordinary Private Bill Committee had full power to investigate, and it would be their duty to see that no injustice was done by the imposition of any undue charge. He hoped that, under all these circumstances, the House would now consent to read the Bill a second time.

said, he proposed to accept the advice of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) and allow the division to be taken on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) to refer the Bill to a Committee nominated by the Whole House, after it should have been read a second time. He, therefore, begged to withdraw the Amendment which he had submitted to the House.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he had only one remark to make, and he wished to make it in reply to an observation which had fallen from the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes). The Chairman of Committees spoke of the consumers in London being in the same position as those in other towns. That was hardly the case. In other towns they were represented by the Corporation, but in London they were not.

remarked that the Bill was promoted under the authority of the Corporation of London, and the nature of the measure had already been fully stated. It was not to establish a new market, but simply to improve an old and existing one, and a more unfair occasion for raising any general question of the kind which had been suggested, and of which it must be remembered the Corporation had had no notice, could not be conceived. The whole object of the Bill was merely to re-construct a tumble-down market, and give a better access to it.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the Bill which has been promised by the Government on the subject of employers liability to compensate their workmen for injuries in certain cases, will be introduced into the House?

Sir, I am not able, in the present state of Public Business, to name a day; but I hope we shall be prepared to introduce the Bill before Easter.

, in rising to move—

"That an humble Address "be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the supply of water to the manufacturing districts of Lancashire and the west of Yorkshire, and any deficiencies likely to arise therein; and, whether it is necessary or expedient to resort to the Westmoreland and Cumberland Lakes to make good any deficiencies in such supply; and, if so, to what extent, and under what conditions, such resort should be sanctioned,"

"Inquire into and report upon the present sufficiency of the water supply of Manchester and its neighbourhood, and of any other sources available for such supply: To consider whether permission should be given to make use of any of the Westmoreland and Cumberland Lakes for the purpose; and, if so, how far, and under what conditions: To consider the prospective requirements of the populations situated between the Lake District and Manchester: To inquire and report whether any, and, if so, what, provisions should be made in limitation of proposals for the exclusive use of the water of any of the said Lakes."

, in seconding the Resolution, said, that he was strongly of opinion that it would not only be in the interests of the people of the West Riding of Yorkshire, but also in the interests of the ratepayers of Manchester, to have this question of water supply from Thirlmere fully inquired into. He might say that no one would be more willing than himself to facilitate any measure for supplying the inhabitants of Manchester with an abundant supply of water; but he denied, in the first place, that there was any danger of a water famine in that town; and, in the second place, he believed the Thirlmere scheme was the most expensive that could have been devised by the Corporation of Manchester or any other body of persons. The people of Manchester had quite close to them, in Derbyshire, one of the most admirable gathering grounds that could be imagined—a gathering ground which could give a supply of water for any length of time and in any circumstances, at a rate infinitely less than it would cost to get water from the Cumberland Lakes. There were, of course, those who would tell them that the people of Manchester knew their own concerns best, and that they could undoubtedly carry on their business better than anybody else. Now, while giving the people of Manchester every credit for the proper comprehension of their own affairs, he would accept any such statement on this particular question with more or less reserve, and for this reason—that he believed the idea of gathering water for the legitimate supply of Manchester on the spot where it could be most usefully utilized had never been dreamt or thought of practically until the Thirlmere Water Scheme had taken possession of certain minds in the Corporation of Manchester. And, again, the Corporation of Manchester itself was not unanimous by any means in favour of the Bill, for after the scheme was introduced into Parliament there was ample evidence of this. It was well known that, in the first instance, it was the intention of the Corporation of Manchester to become practically a huge association of dealers in water; and that if they had been successful in passing this Bill in its original form, they would have proceeded to make their own terms for the supply of water to other towns. They also knew, as a matter of fact, that if the Corporation of Manchester succeeded in getting their Bill, even in its amended form, and were allowed to appropriate the Lake, a precedent would be established for other towns to follow. Other Corporations would assuredly come to Parliament and say—"We want this Lake, or that Lake," with the inevitable result that at last there would remain no available source of supply for West Yorkshire. Leeds itself, and the other large towns, it was true, could not be said to have a bad supply of water; but when they came to the small manufacturing towns in the district running from Todmorden to the east of Leeds—a very wide district, indeed—they found that immense pressure had existed on account of the general want of an adequate supply of water. The water supply had been certainly deficient throughout this network of small towns and villages; and to allow any one Corporation to say to the inhabitants of West Yorkshire—"We will appropriate by Parliamentary powers, if we can get them, the whole of a large Lake, and you may get your supply as best you can," would be a matter calculated, not only to irritate, but to work public injury. It was with great cordiality, therefore, that he asked, on behalf of those who surrounded him in the neighbourhood of Leeds, that, before any legislation took place on the question, they in that district should have what they asked for—namely, a full and searching inquiry, not only for Manchester itself, but for the whole district to which he had referred. In the event of such an inquiry taking place, he sincerely hoped that it would not be confined to Thirlmere, or to any other Lake of East Cumberland. The whole question of the permanent water supply throughout the entire North of England should be entered into; and it should be ascertained whether Manchester might not have confined itself for a water supply to the immense gathering ground afforded by the rivers and other head waters in its vicinity. If it were possible to obtain water so close at hand, such sources would be far better utilized for the purposes of Manchester than that contemplated by the Thirlmere Scheme. In conclusion, he would again cordially press upon the House the advisability of adopting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Cumberland.

I listened with great regret and no less surprise to the speech of the hon. Member for East Cumberland, who introduced the Motion. I was prepared for an attack on the Manchester Corporation and upon those who have promoted the Manchester Corporation Water Bill; but I was not prepared for an attack to be made on the Select Committee by whom the Bill was last year considered. That Committee was chosen with great care, and was, I am sure, as competent to deal with this important question as any Committee that could have been chosen by this House—I would also venture to say as competent, probably, as any Royal Commission Her Majesty's Ministers could choose for this purpose. The question of the Thirltnere Scheme was laid before the Select Committee, and their Report upon it was, I believe, adopted with singular unanimity. That unanimity was no less felt in the district which it is proposed to benefit by the scheme. A public meeting was held, according to the Statute bearing upon the question, in Manchester, to approve or disapprove of the scheme. A poll was demanded, and a poll was taken, and the result was a majority of 40,000, as against less than 3,000, in favour of a scheme which we are told is so heavily to tax the people of Manchester. Then we are told in the same breath that it is to relieve Manchester from the burden imposed on it by the failure of the present water scheme. I am free to admit that that water scheme has cost a great deal more than was originally contemplated; but I should say, from the observations of the hon. Member for East Cumberland, that he has a superficial knowledge of the subject himself. He tells us that from the present sources there is an abundant supply of water, only that the Corporation are obliged to sell it in order to raise the money to recoup the expenses. Now, the fact is, all the water that is sold is sold under statutory obligations. The Corporation of Manchester is bound to supply the neighbourhood and district. The water is readily taken, and when a dry season occurs considerable distress is felt. I submit that the question of providing an abundant supply of water to a great population is one that ought to be treated with the greatest favour by this House, owing to the necessity for it in our manufacturing districts, both for the personal wants of the population and for manufacturing purposes. This scheme, as the hon. Member has truly stated, has been enlarged by the direction of the Committee, so that it is not merely a scheme for supplying water to Manchester, but for providing the manufacturing districts of South-East Lancashire. He approves of that alteration, so does the Corporation of Manchester; therefore I would suggest to him that if he does wish the House to accept his Resolution, that he should eliminate from it everything which relates to the county of Lancaster, and content himself—probably with the approbation of the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheel-house)—with confining it to West Yorkshire—if, indeed, it should be found to be desired by that part of the country. I very much question, however, whether the West Riding does desire a Royal Commission of this kind. The Report of the Duke of Richmond's Commission is substantially carried out by the Thirlmere Scheme as it now stands. I might bring forward many other arguments to show why this Motion ought not to be passed, and I do not think that any practical purpose would be served by passing it. Of course, the wants of West Yorkshire deserve the utmost consideration. Yorkshire ought to have every opportunity of making known its requirements; but it is not the case that this Motion is really supported by West Yorkshire, and it is perfectly clear that the object is to hinder and obstruct the Manchester Scheme, at whatever cost and whatever inconvenience to a population approaching 1,000,000, in order that the æsthetic views of the hon. Member and his Friends may be respected. The views of the hon. Member are not the views of his constituents, for the people of Cumberland generally are in favour of the scheme; but there are a few persons who take views similar to the fullest extent. I believe those views are imaginary. I believe the Corporation of Manchester will be able to satisfy them that the picturesque beauty of the Lakes will not be interfered with, and that every care will be taken to preserve the natural features of the country. The principal holders of property in the district are already satisfied, and there is, in short, no real substantial objection to the Bill. I therefore think that this Motion, which is one merely hostile to the Manchester Bill, ought not to be accepted by this House.

said, he was of opinion that the House should not appoint a Royal Commission as proposed. The whole question of water supply was one which deserved the attention of the House. At this moment there were before Parliament 23 Bills and 10 Provisional Orders dealing with water supply; and when he informed the House that these schemes involved an expenditure of nearly £6,000,000, the importance of the subject would be perceived. The practice of the House had been when such Bills had been read a second time to refer them to Select Committees, who dealt with them according to the evidence that came before them. One great objection to that system was that there was no uniformity in the action of those Committees. The General Acts which governed the question of water supply, though sufficient in former years, were not sufficient at the present time; and if reference were made to the Acts of 1835 and 1847, it would be found that they might now be greatly improved upon. As regards the purity of the water, for instance, it was not of such a high standard as it ought to be. Then, again, it very often happened that the Water Companies or Corporations taking powers to supply areas failed to supply portions of those areas, and thus practically created a water famine in the parts which they were bound to supply. This was a question which ought to be scrupulously investigated and guarded against in every private Water Bill. In the case of the Manchester Bill, the Committee were empowered to consider questions outside the area which the Manchester Corporation was supposed to supply; but in all the ordinary Water Bills it was impossible for the Committee to consider the water wants of any village or town which might be outside the particular area proposed to be supplied. These were matters which ought to be remedied; and he would suggest that the Chairmen of the various Committees which would be formed should have some means of laying down a uniform line of action. He desired to see some kind of uniformity with reference to these Water Bills; and if they would compare one Bill with the other, they would see that these points should receive attention, and that uniformity was required. He believed it was necessary that further provisions should be made in these Water Bills for the protection of the public. His suggestion would be that a number of experienced Members of the House should be chosen as Chairmen of the Private Bill Committees who would consider all the water schemes submitted, and that they should be formed into a panel, similar to the General Committee on Railway Bills, and by that means the House would insure that not only uniformity would be preserved, but that justice would be done. He cared very little what the remedy was to be; but he did object to the present system, which was really chaos, and anything they could do to improve it would be acceptable. He hoped in making these remarks he was not out of Order; and he made the suggestion simply that more experienced Gentlemen in the House should take the matter up and do something in the direction he had indicated. He must, however, conclude by saying that he should oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for East Cumberland.

The House will hardly expect that the Government will be prepared to assent to the appointment of a Royal Commission on the statement which we have heard from the hon. Member who proposed the Motion. The statement he made was of a very limited character, and resolved itself into the details of what is known as the Thirlmere Water Scheme—which will, I believe, be before the House to-morrow—and the view the Committee took of that matter last year. I should have thought, in bringing such a subject forward, the hon. Member would have done so on broader grounds; that he would have attempted to show that the Lake Districts were being injured, and that the water supply of certain localities was in danger in consequence of a preference being given to certain large towns over some of their smaller neighbours, or that there was fear of a water famine in Lancashire or South Yorkshire. Indeed, I should have supposed that the hon. Member would have brought forward a case which unmistakably called for the intervention of Parliament; but in that respect he has, I consider, entirely failed. The question of a Royal Com- mission on the subject of water supply is a large one, and it was brought before me by an important and influential deputation in 1874, and by the Society of Arts in the early part of last year. Had the hon. Gentleman proceeded on broader grounds, and applied for a Royal Commission as a reformer in respect of water supply, and as one anxious to promote the general interests of the public, I should have been able to give information from Blue Books, as there are not only the Report of the Duke of Richmond's Committee, but in the sixth Report of the Commission on the Pollution of Rivers in 1874 there is a mass of evidence of an exhaustive character and great precision, and a number of suggestions as to a quantity of districts, all more or less bearing on this subject. There are also other Reports, and other Blue Books and Notices, having reference to water supply generally, which are open to the inspection of anyone, and are of a most valuable description. I may mention that there is a compendium, which was arranged last year at the request of the Society of Arts, which gives information as to the whereabouts of any of these Reports; and for that, among other reasons, I do not see the necessity of further special inquiries. If I had been challenged as to the grounds upon which I objected to the Motion, I should have said simply that I did not see what useful end could be gained by appointing such a Commission. The Public Health Act of 1875 greatly increased the powers of local authorities with reference to water supply, and protected them against Water Companies, and under that Act large sums of money are being borrowed for the purpose of water supply. Again, we are indebted to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. H. Brown) for the Committee which sat last year, and which greatly facilitated the powers of local authorities to obtain water. That Committee, I consider, obtained ample information, and the Bill which was before them came out a good and improved measure. Having thus dealt with the general subject in the way I have mentioned, the present Motion does not commend itself to my mind, because it is not only an attack upon the Committee of last year, but it is also an attack upon the Thirlmere Water Scheme, which is to come before us on another day. The House was not last year prejudiced in favour of that scheme. It was read a second time after ample discussion; it was referred to a Hybrid Committee; and when that Committee was appointed the whole subject was left to them. The Committee amended the Bill and reported in its favour, and it was lost in the Lords because the promoters accepted the suggestions of the Committee and embodied them in the Bill. It has now been revived, and the Manchester ratepayers have strongly supported the policy of the Corporation in bringing the subject again before the House; and the Bill, I believe, is set down for second reading to-morrow. I cannot, therefore, see what the House would gain by accepting the Motion, and thus delaying the second reading of a measure which comes to us so strongly supported. The hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) went so far as to admit that there was an ample supply of water for Yorkshire itself already existing; but that is not the case at Manchester. Manchester, however, does not seek to monopolise the Lakes; but, on the contrary, a large population will be supplied by the aqueducts which carry the water. In these circumstances, I do not see that any case has been made out for a Royal Commission. Whether the Committee did all the hon. Member thinks they ought to have done or not I am not prepared to say; but if he desires to challenge the conduct of the Committee, I think he should have done so by a more specific Motion, so that the Members of the Committee might have been prepared to meet it, and might have been made aware that their conduct was under examination. It is a little unusual to make such attacks as the hon. Member has levelled at the Committee without giving the Members of it notice; and we shall be led into endless controversy if the action of every Committee is to be brought in review before the House, as has been the case here. If the Committee obeyed the instructions given to them by the House, as I must assume they did, those instructions were not very wide from what the hon. Member would give to a Royal Commission, and the House will see that the Committee did obey their instructions, because they improved the Bill in a manner acceptable to the House, and put the whole subject in a form which was still further developed in the Bill of this year. On the part of the Government, therefore, I may say that we do not feel called upon, simply upon the ground stated, to issue a Royal Commission on the subject.

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Howard) had stated his case to the House, and, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) felt bound to say that on public grounds he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth). He (Mr. W. E. Forster) said this as one who had taken considerable interest in the water supply from Thirlmere Lake, and the question of the Lake scenery generally. He hoped his hon. Friend would not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon the question. He would not now enter into the question of whether the water could be obtained elsewhere or not; that was a point decided by the Committee; but it appeared to him that the Corporation of Manchester had consented to obligations which, if Manchester was to get water from the Lake at all, would, as far as possible, protect the Lake scenery. Looking at the matter from the point of view in which he was most interested, he did not think that any advantage could accrue from the appointment of a Royal Commission. On the other hand, he was not at all sure that even greater interference with the Lakes than had already been proposed would not be the result of such a step. It was said that care would be taken to prevent the water being taken from the Lakes, unless it were clearly shown that it could not be obtained elsewhere. But he would not like to guarantee that this Commission, or the Committees, to whom future Bills might be referred, would endorse this view of the matter. With regard to the Bill of last year, he confessed that he thought the promoters had a good case. The Hybrid Committee appointed last year gave great consideration to the subject. That Committee had come to a conclusion he regretted; but he could not deny that it was a Committee which included many able men, who fully entered into the subject, and they made certain recommendations which the promoters accepted, and it was in consequence of that that they lost their Bill in the House of Lords. He repeated he was sorry the Corporation of Mau- Chester had set their minds upon getting water from Thirlmere; but he believed they were doing what they could to secure that as little harm as possible was done to the scenery; and, looking at all the circumstances, he was unable to vote for the Motion.

said, that the hon. Member for East Cumberland was not open to censure for bringing this subject forward. His hon. Friend asked him whether it would be regular for him to move an abstract Resolution on the second reading of the Bill; and he (Mr. Raikes) pointed out the difficulty that would naturally arise if he did so. The consequence was that the Bill was read a second time after a very full and important discussion. He (Mr. Raikes) had taken an active part in the proceedings of the Hybrid Committee of last year, and he considered that no Committee was over better constituted. His greatest difficulty, which was one of policy, was removed by the action of the Committee in depriving the Bill of the speculative character it originally possessed, and in insuring that a reasonable price was paid for the water. But he thought that the hon. Member had a perfect right to be dissatisfied with the result arrived at, and to come before the House to ask, if he deemed such a course necessary, for a Royal Commission, thus challenging the opinion of the House on the subject before the Bill that had been brought in could be read a second time. At any rate, this was a much more convenient course than if the whole question had to be raised on the Motion for the second reading. He had not the advantage, apparently possessed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, of being familiar with the large amount of information upon this subject to which he referred; and he regretted that so much confusion should exist on this question throughout England in those districts where the different communities were fighting for the water which was to be had from the several watersheds—a rivalry that was, in reality, a great scandal. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had, however, stated that the Government would supply Members with the Rules under which, in their opinion, water supply should be regulated. It would be very convenient to Members to be supplied with those Rules.

, in conclusion, advised the hon. Gentleman not to press his Motion to a division.

said, he had had the honour of being Chairman of the Hybrid Committee that had sat for many weary days, and had devoted much time to the examination of this question last year. The Committee was, indeed, more like a Royal Commission than an ordinary Committee of that House. Its Members had examined the whole question in an impartial sense. They had to deal with a general meteorological fact, for the great south-western winds swept over the Atlantic and evaporated a large quantity of water on the way, while the high mountains of Westmoreland and Cumberland acted as condensers, so that the water was poured over the district in which those mountains were situated. The Committee had to consider whether the Lake regions thus formed were to be regarded as the property of one district, or whether they belonged to the whole of England, from the position in which they were placed, and the peculiar function they discharged; and, consequently, they had examined the question in its fullest and largest sense. It so happened that in the House of Lords the Bill, as it passed from that Committee, was thrown out because a Local Bill had been made into an Imperial Bill. The Duke of Richmond's Commission had examined the Bill in the same catholic spirit, and the House of Commons' Committee were, in reality, only able to ratify the decisions of that Commission. Not only had they to consider the question of the supply of other towns in Lancashire besides Manchester, but they had also to consider how all the intervening towns might benefit from the common depository of water in the Lake district. The Committee, therefore, did not restrict its labours, but examined the question most fully. Under these circumstances, he thought, considering the fact of so much time having been devoted to this question, and so much labour having been expended upon the Bill, which was not a Local Bill, but one generally affecting the great manufacturing districts of the country, that to form another Royal Commission would cast some doubt on the fulness of the labours of that Committee; and therefore he trusted the hon. Member for East Cumberland (Mr. Howard) would not press the matter to a division, but would be contented with having called attention to the subject.

wished to be allowed to state, before withdrawing his Motion, that he was very much obliged to the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) for coming to his assistance, and saying that he had done nothing irregular; because he thought, from what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Selater-Booth) said, he had done something which was not only irregular, but atrocious. He begged leave to withdraw the Motion.