Telegram-herald., 1891-06-05
covENr GARDEN.
TIE Great Pratt and yesetsDis GAFdsa q
Loa10A.

xGC cxesh EN~At A1@ '~se>e~~~ t~st~" -
LoadSa.
John. duke Jf Bedford, had \ chance
to live Ia the memory Of his country-
men as a public benefaetor as great as
the earl Of Salisbury, and neglected it
Tor what9 Fox the mistaken idea that
his market tolls were too valuable ~ he
given up. | have seen il stated since
his death, says London letter 20 the
Philadelphia Times. that he woeld have
been willing - sell Covent Garden mar
ket il ne could have found = local su-
thority 20 undertake its responsibilities
and expense. But he knew very well
that his monopoly of market tolls would
some day or other be taken from his
family. and by abolishing them himself.
by destroying Covent Garden market
and Improving its site. he could have
added more than eompensatiye amount
To the value of his other property. The
report OF the royal commission on mar
ket right and tolls has just been puo-
lished. and in reading il one learns
afresh how England is still ribbed
through and through with customs that
ought TO be obsolete, and how weighty
with her is the example of a precedent
that ought never to have been set. Be
cause il was once held that grant To
hold market was franchise carrying
an exclusive right, two Of London's
chief markets, Covent Garden and
Spitalfields, remain Today in private
hands-those Of the duke of Bedford
and Sir Julian Goldsmid respectively.
a. o. i = 81.
great fruit, flower and vegetable mar
ket, and its owner can by law prevent
any other market from being estab-
lished within seven miles of him. 1t is
worth to the Bedfords about fifteen
thousand pounds year. and for Spital-
fields Sir Julian Goldsrnid gets five thou
sand pounds year rent from the pres
ent lessee.
The eight markets established or con-
trolled by the city of Billings
gate, Smithficld hay, the Central meat
enhall, the Islington cattle and the
Deptford foreign cattle markets-insure
yearly net profit of about twenty-five
thousand pounds sterling 10 their his
toric owner, all OF which, of course,
goes into the pockets of the corpora
tion and is no benefit whatever to the
rest of the metropolis Through these
markets passes practically all the meat
ar.l poultry supply of London and near
" all the fish. Thus, it will be seen,
through the Capitalization of markets
not only does the LonAoner's dinner
pay what is almost equivalent to an
octroi. but before it gets to him it must
make long journeys across the city to
the central depots and back again. This
Capitalization is thought to be greater
evil than the imposition of tolls, and
probably it is so. The commissions re-
port on the tolls is found to be q rather
unsatisfactory document. It's historical
treatment of the subject of markets is
all that could be desired, but it submits
no definite plan for correcting the pres
ent system. A majority of the commits
sion does indeed favor compensation
upon the abolishing of the private fran
chises- But man need not be social
ist to feel that it is absurd to talk Of
compensating the owner of a nuisance.
Covent Garden market, in the light of
the needs of modarn London, is not
only constructivcly but actually
nuisance, and, considering that the only
vegetables you get in England after all
are boiled potatoes and brussels
sprouts, a nuisance wholly without
justification in common sense.