The Express.
London, England, 1852-08-26 00:00:00

book" is the doing of the Minister whose special I
duty it is to Dee them carried into effect. "Bo long
as we have Opposition newspaper*: " thelournal
in question goes on to say. " and especially • thee!
are Liberal' journals—so long may we expert that
every act done by a Conservative HOME SECRETARY
will be regarded as exactly the opposite of what it
ought to be"—i. e., the reservation of Smithfield is
an " act dono by a Conservative Home SECRETARY."
The candid and garrulous exponent of Ministerial
policy does net make any secret of the strategy by
which Smithfield is to be preserved. " Perhaps we
might also hare foreseen that the corporation would
be blamed for the site which they have chosen, and
that the HOME SECRETARY would be blamed for
not negativing the choice made by the corporation."
It "might have been fureseen"—that is, "it was
preconcerted"—that the corporation should select, and
the Conservative HOME Secure MY sanction, a site
in lieu of Smithfield, which they had reason to ex-
pect would be vigorously and successfully opposed.
The conspirators counted upon being able to make
others appear the obstacles to the transposition of
Smithfield and ostentatiously to wash their hands of
a result which their own trickery has brought about.
Not satisfied with giving the world to know that
Smithfield has been saved, the organ of the DERBY
Government and of "the Smithfield nuisance" goes
on to argue that it ought to be kept up. Its argu-
ments are amusing for their quiet, complacent, and
seemingly unconscious unreasonableness. We are
told that " the market has been kept in Smithfield
rata all the respectable inhabitants have moved
away." And again "In Smithfield the ' nuisance'
had been so long settled, that the neigh-
bourhood had adopted it, so to speak, into its system
and habits; and by no means wished for its re-
moval." This is as much as to say, that Smithfield,
having come to be inhabited by a class physically
and morally so distasteful, that all "respectable
people have fled from the vicinity, these nauseous
squatters have conquered a perpetual right of occu-
pancy in that neighbourhood. This is a practical
parody on the old story of the English Barons, whcs
when called upon by the King to produce their titles
to their lands, drew their swords and declared as
with one voice, " By these we acquired, and wink
these we will maintain them." So the betes prints
of Smithfield—Aldermen and oxen, pigs and pig-
drivers, when they receive notice to quit, put forth
all their most insufferable stenches and declare, " By
these we have stunk all respectable persons out of our
neighbourhood, and with these we will continue to
deter any less filthy than ourselves from
approaching it." The "vested right" of the Smith-
fieldites in their present locality is exactly the same
that a pole-cat or skunk might put forward in bar of
its ejection from any mug corner in which it had
ensconced itself.

The organ of the DERBY Ministry and of the Smit-
hfield nuisance forgets that the inl.abitants of Smith-
, field are not the only parties entitled to • voice in
the question. It is not enough for them to say they
feel quite comfortable and at home where they are;
their neighbours must be asked whether they like to
have them there. If the satisfaction of the Smith-
fieldites with their position gave them an absolute
claim to it. a gang of pickkets might on the same
plea object to being dislodged from a locality that
afforded them facilities for carrying on their pro-
fessional pursuits.
Nor is the impossibility of removing Smithfield
proved by the reluctance naturally expressed by
various localities to receive the unsavoury
guest. " Islington objects most loudly against
the removal of this nuisance into her pre-
cincts. ... Will Hackney be better satisfied if
the nuisance is carried there ? Or Paddington ?
Or Camberwell ? Or Kensington ? Or Battersea?"
Probably not. All the places named are within the
limits of what must now be considered as con-
tinuous, built-up London. The object proposed by
the removing of the "nuisance" from the centre of
the City would be imperfectly attained by transferring
it to any of them. Realty extra-mural slaughter-
houses are as necessary as really extra-mural places
of interment. It may—it must be difficult to find
the most eligible place for setting down the
"nuisance" that can no longer be tolerated within
the City, but what is difficult is not necessarily im-
possible. It cannot be tolerated that the banished
nuisance is to be brought back upon us after one or
two sham applications for admission elsewhere, under
the pretext that no one will receive it.
The Dk IIWY and Smithfield advocate hassaid enough
to show that the market nuisance cannot be allowed
to remain where it is. " Tim market in Smithlie.'d
hos be ea kept until all the respectable inhabitants Aare
»tored away." A garrison, a city of refuge for the
non-respectable classes, cannot be allowed to remain
in the very heart of the City. This is, however, less
than half the case against the Smithfield nuisance.
It is an ever-working laboratory for the production
and diffusion of contagious diseases. And the over-
driven and infuriated cattle which are weekly
driven to and from it, render all the great thorough-
fares and many by-ways of the metropolis periodi-
cally unsafe. And yet we are deliberately told in a
semi-official publication, that though "the House of
Commons has voted that Smithfield market should
be removed," yet " this vote is not the first by. some
hundreds of those which have lain, and will lie, moon-
ious and useless on the journals and statute book."