The Express.
London, England, 1851-04-10 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, THURSDAY. EVENING, APRIL 10, 1851.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. !!
HOUSE OF CONINIONS.—WZDNEADAT, APRIL 9.
The St axes toot the chair at 12 o'clock.
PUBLIC BUSINESS,
PETITIONS PRESENTED.
Satrur tr.i.o M snare.—By Lord BURGHLEY, from ;
fiSei of the principal tanners and graziers in the county of
Lincoln; Mr. DUPRE, from .100 farmers and graziers in "
Bockin4liamdeire ; Hon. O. NOEL, from farmers and
I
rrs aide id the county of Rutland ; Mr. EVELYN,
front farmer. and graziers of Surrey ; Mr. J.
the 1
LI AMS, from the firmer. and graziers of
county of Kent; the End of ARUNDEL and SURREY,
from Arundel; Mr sTAEFORD, from 493 of the farmers
and grasiers of Northampton ; Sir J. DUKE, from up-
wards of MOM inhabitants of London, also one from St.
Dotolph ; against the removal of Smithfield-market. By
Mr. FARNHAM, from Lutterwurth; Colonel TINTS,
from the horonth of Briditenorth and the neighbourhood ;
Mr. STANFORD, from Readinc ; Lord A. HERVEY, 1
from Itrorhtort; Mr. BONHAM CARTER, from the
Societe for the Pri.rintiont of Cruelty to Animals,' Lord
}t. (iIIOSVENoIt, from Paddington • Mr. FITZROY,
from a plan. in Sunors ; Sir E. BUXTON, from a place
not heard ; Mr. 11. DItt7MMON D. from the fanners and
Frsier. of Wnt Surrey ; Mr. HENLEY, from Osford-
skiam ; Sir 0. e
011F.Y (us the nfinenee of the First Lord
of the Tie ivory), from 3.),000 hankers, merchant., and
other., of the City of Loudon • Mr. CHRISTOPHER,
from farm, ri and grask-ri of the county of Lincoln, from
litansford and from Huston; Mr. DIV ETT, from
Ender: Mr. HENRY, from Liverpool ; Mr. GREN-
VILLE BERK ELEY, from the Forest of Dean ; fur the
removal of ' •

s.r. ALDAN": ELECTION COMMITTEE.
Prrt mon Or Ilasut EDWARO4.—Sir. MAIO:CRY
*Mil with the permission of the house he would postpone the
order of the day for thu consideration of the petition of
Henry Edwards. and he would move "that so much of the
evidence taken lo fore the St. Albans election committee, as
constitutes the charge reported by the committee upon
which Henry E.l.Jirth ha. been committ.-d to the custody
of the Siirgiartbat-Arms, be laid before this house."
Sir G. CLERK hoped the hon. member would en far
amend his motion an to stat that te short-hand writer
attending the Rt. Albans election shohuld attend at the bar
of the house with an much of the evidence a. refers to the
special report on which Mr. !henry Edwards was taken into
custody.
The motion, as altered according to Sir G. Clerk's
suggestion that the shorthand-writer attend at the bar of
the house with his notes, was then agreed to.
METICOPOLITAN BILL.
Mr. E. It. DENISON, in moving that the order for tho
atn 1 reading of this bill be discharged, said eircoilsrs had
)wan distributed alleging that this bill WAS promoted by the
(Jr. t Northern Railway Company. That was not the fart ;
the lireiit Nortliersi Railway Company had nothing to do
with it nor had he. lle wins inked to join in the promotion
of a scheme to procure a fresh vile fur a new market to which
be ntisl, on the understanding that twit of the directors of
the forth Western would join in it, but neither on the part
of the Great Northern or individually had he anything to

do with this bill.
Thi• urdrr fur the second reading of this bill wmi then

SNIIT11111:1.1) ENLAILGEMENT BILL.
Sir J. 1)1' K E moved that this bill he read • ra-cond
time.
Mr. CIIIIISTOP II ER said there were two measures now
before them her their consideration. One was a measure
prejened by gon eminent, in arcortl.tner with a reettninien-
detion not only from a 'alert committer, but of art-num...mu
appoint...l by governine tit, to whim, the evidence taken bele ere
the coonnittee was referred, and by whom additional • %i-
-diot. ass bairn, and they tame tat the conclusion, with the
exception ter only two members of the corporation of the I.•ity
of Loudon, that the market ought to he removed. Ile un-
derstood. also, that the corporation eel the City of London
hail had the option, if they chow, of taking the new market
entirely into their own hands ; they might Buse had the power
01 regulating it, and of taking such tolls as they thought
prom r. Rut this unrefentied corporation of the City of
London, whine proceedaties were so immaculate as tee
exempt it from the reform a huh all tether corporations had
snub 'gone, lad refused romplianee with the re-con 00000 oda-
times tor the committee and of the commission, and had
determined to adhere to the present site, ow rather to re-- I
move it a few hundred yards, which would lee grently tee
the detriment of the fanners and graziers who sent their
stock le that market. The measure which hail hewn pro:
powsl by her M.ojenty'e goverment, he thought upon
the whole was a fair me:aelan.. That measure wan for the
entire removal nt the market to some multurlsite district, and
powers were given in the hill for the appoint lit of a tom-
Moat,. which ',bomb' determine where the market should
b.. Ile. Wen. friend the Secretary for the Male IN-part-
went load states' that he should refer that hill to a select
nantuittte, to he' (1111.11 by the committee of selection.
11e wish, .1 to impress on the house that there were
other leerwnn COIWPTIWA in thin matter than the
salt smell who attended the market and a certain
num!. rof the butchers in the metropolis. lie main-
tit' I that the interests of the farmer. and graziers
dyer eught to be considered. The tint reeolutitm agrees" to
by the committee wes, "'That it is the opinion of this cone.
=db : that the continuance of the wile of live stork in
Smithfield is proved by esperionece to be attended with M.-
T 191.1, inconvenience, and that it ought tee be remedied."
They also nuolnel that these ince tie veniences anal objections
hare locen in some measure 14.1110V111, by the ewe of the
canen of the ('ity tef Lentlon, but no long us the
market continuo' in if. present situation the incon-
veniences refereed let will not he capable of prevention."
11.- thought that in ileferenee tee the opinion of the tom-
s,Yttee .and in deferents. alv, tee the recommendation of the
comeossiteuers, it would have letsii more becoming in the
antrefortnegt eorporttiott or the City of London tee have acted
La ar1...F41411et• with them, but moete.a of that, they prnisirtetl
to remedy noose of the ineonveuienees hey enlarging the mar-
ket a tent of nearly a million of intuit y. With regard to the
inconveniences of the present market, the cattle arrived on
Saturday evening anal on Sunday night. all night through,
they were driven through the narrow street es into
Smithfield market, and there at five ear six in the morning
the> were uffenel for tsile. Now when they considered,
that at the last l'hriettnatt market at Smithfield there were
7,1iel heed of rattle and 30,000 sheep in an an-a of nix urea,
and that there was scarcely • market in which there were not
upwanle of 4,000 head of cattle and 21,000 sheep, could
any one say, whose rye's were nut blinded by Ins connexion
weals the corptwation, say that that was sufficient. It was
a notoriow fart, that as many as 2,1100 head of cattle
frequently 116.11 from the market, because they
could not find a single' pen to put them in. The towns
queme of the present /date of things was, that the graziers
were entirely at the mere/ of the salesmen of the clay. Ile
had the evidence of • greater, that on one oteueion fie am,
in consequence of the want of room, obliged to submit to a
1.1.1.1 of :V. a had on hi. cattle. 'l' he hon. gentleman then
quoted from the evidence given before the committee, show-
ing the deterioration of the rattle from being he-ruined in
in no confined • many. lie every other large- town endea-
vour. were being made to remove cattle markets
and slaughtering from the town. In the city eel
Et:lmbue:Si they had met been in the habit
of permitting the slaughtering of animals in the city.
The opponents of the proposed remise,' were eYirty
the eileainess, who would only obtain • larger Misr
poly if the y could prtaule an extension of the prowl
mullet. No sensible, intlevol, were they of thin, that they bad
even not ageete down to lloreecaelle, Stamford, awl MINT
tolerator Lincolnshire, blery up the advantagt Sof the amperes
thin ',lan. Ile fiche however, that the farmers and minim
et Norfolk and Lincolnshire- We're. Annealy opposeel to the
measure. tllear, hear.) Ile hoped the homer would
alsohdi the alsiminahle Mika/WV of Smithfield altogether;
and me the most effectual week of g that he Mama.'
support the hill which her Majeety's go, eminent had pro-
W. (near begved, thenfone. to move that this
(Mr. lltristophcr turning to the hon. plait ITI3II next
him bite asked, •• What bill is it ?"--aa question which set
the benne in • roar.) Ile would mote that the bill be
mod • sesmul time the day six months. (Cheeerc.)
Mr. EITZliOli considered that the fact of the teuieaneo
of the present market was sufficiently proved by
the fact that the corporation had found it neces-
sary to proposo a plain fur it. ittiprneemsitt.
Their scheme, however, did not meet with hie
approval. The corporation claimed the whole management
and monopoly f tle• market, but how good the facto?
Wino Smithheld was established the whole population of
London was C.,Mpf1.41 within the walls, and the market
was then outside. (near, hear.) Now, hole vier. the popu-
lation within the wallet numbered only 120.0ft11 ; and the
corporation, who were chosen by only 4,0.10 of theme
120,1100, assumed to themselves the right to keep up a
market within the me tropolis. (Hear, hear.) There• were
only two claw, who oppeseel its removal, namely, the nets
poraton and the makflal n and euttawy-takeis. Now,
with eneresu to the hew of these clans, he thought
it would he &dais dole, before they received the petition
presented by the enrporation a. one emanating from so large
and important • body as the citizens of London, they nutlet
to lye satisfied that the signatures were genuine—that Was,
in the tint place, that the signatures themselves were not
forged; and, weondly, that they had not been mermen' ,
under false pretence's. lie had a lint of names of persons
whine signatures had been affixed to that petition, all of
whom were ready tae make affitillit that such Oen etures
were either forgeries ear obtained under the idea that it wan
ha the removal of the market from the metropolis alto.
'tgether. (hear, hear.) The lint name was that of William
West, of Nu. ;3. Oran:church-street, which had been
forged; and the recent' Wl* that of William Park, of '23
Philpot-lane, which had h 'en of-twined in the fraudulent
manner he had deseerihed. In another case, a child
or six years old had been indeed to forge it. father's
same, and he had in all el names, but he would not
trouble the house ley going through them all. (blear,
heat.) In entrust with this petition the hon. gentleman
then read a list of pentons of eminence in the City, com-
mencing with Mr. Jame. Lnyd, who were in tumor of the
'market's removal. The hon. baronet (Sir J. Duke) ir.ls
prolnehly not aware that no fewer than 2,121 signetureshad
been procured to a petition against the market in hi. own
ward, and that every resident inhabitant in Fleet-street
had signed it. (Cheers.) Now, with respect to the mit.
muu and money-takers, it was quite true that their indi-
vidual interests might be injured ; but the grounds which
'owed against the removal were nut founded in truth.
' would destroy the trade ; but his opinion, on
r, was that it would improve it. (Cheers.) The
steed to be afforded by the projected ea-
war clearly ineutticient. Mr. Taylor, in
ace bctine the commiesienters, had stated
maximum number of Iteutn required to
ap .x,1100; Inherean, un Iberniber 9th is last
publielical returns showed that there were 5.71i1".
ibtk G,SOO. On a subsequent occasion there
We than TAO. (Clams.) He salted the house,

-----------
these whether space fur 5,1)00 was sulkiest, in the face of 1
much numhers, and of a rapidly increasing supply
It had been estimated that an annual loos of '200,00D1.
accrued in consequence of ape crowded state of the cattle.
It was estimated that eight millions a year was spent in the
market • but taking it at seven millions, and allowing the
very moderate deduction of 2 per cent. fur the deterioration
in the value of the stock owing to the treatment it under-
went, that would make 140,0001. which the graziers must
annually lose. (Cheers.) But there was also a loss to the
butcher, which was of course thrown upon the COlolllllo'.
(Hear.) There would also be another loss consequent upon
the extension of the market, and that woo the loss arising
from the enormously increased tolls.
Sir C. K NIGHT LEY could not for the life of him under-
stand what bed induced his hon. friend, who had just sat
down, to meddle with either of these bill.. for he did not
think the hon. gentleman had ever fattened an ox or a sheep
in his life. (Laughter.) lie (Sir C. Knightley), however,
had been in the habit, fur the lest 40 years, of sending cattle
to London to the amount of a hundred in the course of a
season, and he positively declared that he never had a loos
or an ac? ident of any sort or kind during the whole of that
period. (Loud cheers.) Independent of that he must STOW,
with respect to the money-takers, that he had never kuown
a department more admirably managed, and that he had
never lost a farthing by them, or had a dispute with
them in his life. (Loud cheers.) Honourable gentlemen
had talked of the serious misfortunes which had
happened owing to these horned monsters being driven
through the streets ; and they had been peculiarly pathetic
with respect to fine ladies, and to nursery maids and chil-
dren. Now on that point he must olewrve that most of the
able were sold, driven to the butchers, and half of them
Mad before your fine ladies were out of bed—(laughter)—
end as for nursery muds with children. they had no busi-
ness in the streets leading to Smithfield. (Renewed
brighter.) Had they ever reflected on the number
et carts that would be required to carry the meat
~tuned in London five or six miles i Why the streets
would be as much crowded as at present, and much more dans
emotes. (Hear.) Besides the price of meat would be raised and
in summer it would he almost impossible to get it fresh.
(Cheers.) As, then, he was averse to innovation, he should I
give his most unqualified opposition—(loud laughter)—he
mused support to the bill. (Cheers.)
Sir H. VEItNEY believed that it was quite true that
there were no finer beasts brought to market then those sent
by the hon. baronet the member fur Northamptonshire,
who had just addressed the house. (Hear, hear.) As a
member of the commission, lie must take this opportunity
of expressing their obligations to the corperetion for the
courtesy with which they bad been treated ; but he metal
um that he hail taken a different view of the case from that
which bud been expressed by the hon. baronet (Sir Charles
Kniehtley). Ile should certainly emanort the amendment.
Mr. M . WILLIAMS observed that the inhabitants of
the metropolis had just grounds for congratulation in the
• ereal opinion that a change in the existing state a
things ought to be made. Ile thought that both hills ought
to be referred to a select committee. (Cheers.) lie should
certainly never yield his cuusent to the government bill.
Mr. KEIL SEYellilL also thought that the two bills
went competing measures and ought to be referred
to the some committee ; and this he thought was
proved by the fact that out of the four honourable
gentlemen who had addressed the house two were unable to
tell on which bill they were speaking. (Hear, hear.)
'lie re were two pundit involved in the matter; first, the
eanitery question; and, secondly, the driving of cattle
through the street. Now, with respect to the latter, he
could not we that the government bill would in the least
degree prevent it, for it did not propose to put down
elettehter-houses in London, and therefore cattle must be
driven through the eleven to there. (Cheers.) With re-
gard to the other point, it was his opinion the open spree
of Smithfield fully counteracted the evil effect: of holding a
teeth. market there twice a week. (Hear, hear.)
It' the noxious trades could be removed, and the open epees
still maintained, lie would admit that the government pro-
posal would lie a great improvement, but he understood
that Smithfield wa• to he built over. (Hear, hear.) He
hoped, therefore, that the corporation plan would be ear-
reed, because it would lead to the abolition of t le most dis-
gusting and most abonnuahle collection of nuisances that
existed together in any part of the world. (Cheers.) l
Sir J. DUKE wished to correct it statement which had
'wen made by the hon. member for Lewes (Mr. Fitzroy),
namely, that the whole of the inhabitants of Fleet-street
hall signed the petition in favour of the removal of Smith.
field market. No.*, it hail .1 happened, that he sat mil
Monday in St. I)unstan's church for two hours, being an-
fortunately engaged in hearing the caws of defaulters Le
their rates; the whole of the parochial authorities were pee
scut, and every one of them expressed a hope that the !OF
reetion would succeed in carrying their bill. (Hear, hear.)
rherefore, he tl lit, he wits JU•ditied in thinking that the
hun. gentleman must have been misinformed. Ile could anent I
the house that if there was not a serious determination on
the part of the civil authorities to remedy existing evils, be 1
eltionla not support the bill of the corporation. Reference
had been made to the driving of cattle through the streets
in the daytime, hut that unpardunahle nuisance arose from
un act of parliament, which forhade the elapsing of the mar-
ket, or any part thereof, until three o'clock in the after-
noon. (Chien.) The hon. gentleman (Mr. Chris-
topher) had stated that only a small portion
of the stuck brought to the market came from
the email, but he had forgotten also to say that one-
third went over Blackfriars-bridge. (Cheers.) lie, for one,
was quite willing that the bill should be referred with the
government measure to a seine committee, but he should
protest against the government hieing allowed to na:ne that
ce 1111 l niltee. (Hear, hear.) Let it lee named by the eons-
mittve of selection, and they would be perketly le:dished.
(Cheers.) lie did hope, then, that the house would
kindly consent to the second reading, upon the pro-
mise that it be referred, with the government bill, to a
select committee; and if it did not appear to that commit-
tee to remade an ample remedy for all the evils complained
of, ho would cease to give it his support. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. C. LEWIS said he would briefly state the grounds
un which he should support the amendment, and which had
induced the government to propose their 'pill. In 1819,a select
committee had sat on the subject, and come to the conclu-
sion that the market should be removed, recommending the
subject to the consideration of the government. The
government appointed a commission of perfectly indepen-
dent members, to whoin they referred the report of the
select committee. The ulticere of the corporation then ad-
mitted the inadequacy of Smithfield market to the wants of
the metrepolie•, and this was, in fate, the foundation of the
hill before the house. The City lead before the commission
a very elaborate plea, proposing to abandon the whole of
the present market except ono acre, and add other 111
acres to the site. This ground was in the very heart of
the City, necessarily covered with building*, some of
much value. The estimate for this enlargement was
nearly half a million. They thus proposed to create a
new market newly double the sire of the present ; and if
the question was coulined to the precincts of the City, the I
plen prowled would doubtle,. be a great improvement.
But the question wee, whether the market should be per-
petuated in the City or removed to a convenient distance.
After the report et the commission, recommending that the
plan of the City should be rejected and a market established
in the suburbs, a letter was addressed to the corporation of
London by the Right lion. Secretary for the Hume lb:pan-
ment offering them the management of the proposed mar- I
kit, with the right to receive the tolls. The Common
Council, after fully defeating the matter, rejected the offer,
and decided to stand on their own plan, Atter this refusal,
the government could only carry out their measure, in the
alrelice of any body representing the entire metropolis, by
appending a Apnea CORlMialhion. The question fur the
house now to decide was, whether they would perpetuate
in the heart of the City, clew to St. foul's and the Dank,
.111,i in the most frequented pert, so great an inconvenience
—he would not say nuisance—as a market for live
cattle. (1 dear, hear.) This question ought to be
decided by the house, and not by a committee appointed by
the committee of selection. The government bill lett
the question of site at large, to be decided by an inde-
pendent commission; they had no preference for any site,
and had not expressed an upiuion in favour of one over an-
other. There were clauses regulating the driving of cattle,
and plaeiueg slaughter-hoe., under the irtepee• ion of the
invaded,* Ile admitted that the plan of the City was a
good one, it' the premises were granted, which he denied,
that it w es desirable to retain the market within the pre.
times of the City.
Mr. Aldenneu SIDNEY said that no one would ask for
the perpetuatiou of Sinitldield•market as it exieted. for it
was is great nuisance. The are, was too MU ill ; much
cruelty was practised towards the cattle; and the driving
through the streets was a great inconvenience. But the
corporation bill would obviate all (hear objections. It had
been stated that the corporation had refused the manage-
ment of the einerunisiit inerket. They hail dour so in the
belief thin they were trustees for Smithfield-merket, not
fur the increase of their own funds, but fir the benefit of
the public at large. The government ought not to become
men:leers of a public market; such a position was un•
worthy of them, and would give rise to great inconvenience.
It was said this was not a government measure; but the
right hon. gent.emen who heel just spoken had, in effect,
admitted that it was ; and he had no doubt the influence of
government had been exerted on the question. 'Thus the '
first city of the empire, when seeking to defend the privi-
leges it hail eajoyed for ccuturies, was met by the
government itself. The corporation bill would provide
accommodation for tying-up twice the number of cattle
that had ever been sent to market; it also provided
that no cattle should issue from the market except between
seven and ten in the morning, the remedying the toren-
veuiencee now eompleined of. By the government bill the
make: would be removed to a remote suburb, and them
would be much less inconvenience in driving tattle to and
front a central market than to and from me in a northern
suburb. One-third the cattle came over lilackfriarrebridge,
and these would have to be driven through its mike ot
streets before reaching the market. Bat what right had
the government to invade the prescriptive rights and prisi-
, lege. of the City, which had never been abused from the
earliest period ? Wes it likely that the government would
menage a matter ot this kind so well as it had been ma-
naged by the corporation ? They might be extremely well
versed in diplomatic relations, and with questions etfetting
the nation at large; they would be mistaken if they at-
tempted to regulate the affairs of the City of London.
They might as well attempt to create a human
bentu as create a market in 'his way. The re-
venue of Smithfield-market was nine-and.e.half millions
sterling, 4111 such a sera ought not to he dealt with in this way.
The City would submit to it with a bad grace. The noble lord
at the heed of the government was trying to scree two
masters, and must expert to incur the displeasure of his
conwitut nta by this measure. (" Hear, hear," and " Oh,
oh.") tientletnen might cry e 06," but what were they
there for hut to de feud the interests of their emestituente
The petition pr. seated against the City bill bad hen tot up
by the exertions of paid agents. As to the holding of,
a market is the centre of the City being prejudicial to

beak there was abundance of evidence to show that the
Isllnteiet around Smithflehl was the most healthy in the fie-
, ; this had been proved at the time of the cholera
in 1849 and 1832. Closely abutting on the market were
several large establishments, two gnsoas a workhouse, the
I
Charter-house, and Christ's Hospital. n a populatiun of
950 boys in the latter, the averageluch had mortality
been had only bee
to
4i per annum. (Hear, hear.) Nas n
the necessity of providing abattoirs ; but it should be
remembered that the slaughter-houses around Smith-
Geld market were not brought there by that
market, hut by Newgate-market. The government might
I therefore as well shut up that and Leadenhall-market, By
removing Smithfield-market they would not necessarily
' shut up a single slaughter-house. On this question they
would have to deal with 1,500 butchers of the metropolis
—(laughter)—who had vested interests in the property.
He threw himself on the justice of the house, and contended
that the government measure ought to be rejected.
Mr. HUME said the only question was whether the City
of London was able and willing to remove the nuisance
which uni3uestionably esisted. It was no question of vested
rights. Iwo plans were before the house. That of the
government was entirely vague as to aite and everything
else. The corporation plan promised to remedy the evils ;
and was it not fit they should have the oppartuuity of
showing what they could do? There ought to be a fair
inquiry up stairs. He would not refer the matter to the
committee of selection; fur the question was not one
affecting the City merely, but the supply of food fur two
millions of people. lie should support the second reading
of the bill.
Mr. WAKLEY thought that the speech of the right
hon. gentleman (Mr. C. Lewis), meant to be against the
bill, was absolutely conclusive in its favour. He admitted
the government had no plan. They asked for a roving
commission, to establish a market somewhere. Last year
the government were undertakers, and he thought they
had buried themselves ; now it was to be " Russell and Co.,
butchers." (Great laughter.) He called on the government
to withdraw their opposition, and thus give a fair chance to
both parties.
Sir G. GREY said there were two important distinctions
between these bills. In this ewe there was a preliminary
question, which the house had undertaken to decide, and
with this view referred it to a committee, and next to a
commission. Evidence had been taken by the committee
and the commission on the subject, of which the house was in
possession ; and was, therefore, enabled to decide the prin-
ciple to be adopted. (Hear, hear.) 'these bills were nut
merely competing but actual) conflicting to a great extent,
the measure introduced by the government being fatal to
the continuance of Smithfield market, whilst on the other
side the hon. member for Northamptonshire was up as an
advocate to show that fur forty years cattle had been
driven to that market without any accident ,
whatever occurring. Now, after the recommenda-
tions of the committee, as also those of the
commission, both of which bodies arrived at the
conclusion that no iinprivenient in the internal disposition
of the market could obviate it', evils as regarded situation
in the centre of this great metropolis, it was evident that
removal was necessary. (Hear, hear.) Ile would only call
attention to one more fact, to which, by the way, attention
had not been called there for the first time—namely, that
in 1509 the l'rivy Council refused to extend the posers of
the London corporation to enlarge this market.
Mr STAFFORD obseeved that he had taken the trouble
to go through that part of the City props set to be affected
by the bills before the house, and, with the exception of •
sausage manufactory in rather ominous proximity with •1
knacker's yard—(laughter) —he had witnessed every calling
and avocation practised in that populous and ihilustriutis
heralds,. Ile asked the house to concede the proposition of
the hon. baronet—(Sir James Duke, as we understood)—not
merely on the score of humanity, but ou the still stronger
ground of self-preservation. lion. gentlemen might depend
on it that, whilst these haunts of disease. of typhus and
cholera, were lett uncared fur, as they would be by the
government measure--(uh, oh !)—there could be no im-
provement whatever. How many hon. members prepared
to support the government were aware of the fact ou
which lie challenged denial—namely, that if ousted in the
present instance, the corporation had the power, under
their acts, to enable them to establish markets, to build over
the at present enclosed area of Sittithfield ? Let the govern-
ment answer that it' they could. The petition which he
presented that day from the farmers and graziery of North-
amptonshire, who should kuuw something of the matter,
exactly coinciding in his views, consequently increased
his
determination to oppose the measure of her Majesty's
government.
Mr. W. MILES said that Smithfield had been con-
demned by public opinion, and he hoped the nuisance
would be aholiseaal. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. B. OSBORNE thought that honourable gentlemen
were going to vote without knowing what the govern.
ment bill contained. It was a bill containing no sche-
dule—no prices as charged were stated. They might
be any sum; and, therefore, he warned honourable gentle-
men that they might by any precipitate course in the
matter only raise the price of meat on the householders and
chases in general. (Hear.) The question was nut a grazier's
question, nor a corporation. nor a butcher's question;
'the question was how two millions and a half of persons
were to he fed. He would vote with the hon. member for
London (Sir J. Duke) in sending the bill to a select com-
mittee. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. WOItTLEI denietithat the alternative presented
to the house was, as Sir G. Grey had stated,whether one of
two localities slimll he preferred ; the government had sug-
gested no locality. 'the real question was whether the cor-
poration, bring in posseceion of a valuable market, which
was inadequate to existing wants, and came forward with a
scheme which the commissioners had described aa a vast im-
provement, were not entitled to an inquiry ?
The corporation bill was opposed by Sir B. Hall and Mr.
Mackinnnun, and supported by Mr. aliaterman.
Lord .1. RUSSELL considered it his duty to follow his
hon. colleague, who had just spoken, especially as he had
been threatened with sonic awful consequences if he ven-
tured to oppose the bill of the corporation. (Laughter.)
Ile did not know what the hon. member for Station! consi-
dered his duty towards his constituents; but he (Lord J.
Russell) considered it his duty towards his constituents to
consider the intertate of the t, noted Kingdom at large ; and
if those interests did not happen to coincide with those of
the corporation of London he should unfortunately be com-
pelled to prefer the former. (Herr, hear.) The hon.
member for Middlesex had said, and said justly, that this
was, a question which idfsatell the :supply of meat to over
two millions of persons. Of course that was the main inte-
rest; but beyond that there were a great many subordinate
interests. (Hear, hear.) Now he (Lord J. Russell) should
say he had out taken a hasty or precipitate view on
this subject. When the coinsuittee appointed in that house
reported against the continuance of smitlitield-market, he
(Lord J. Itueseli) said the question was doubtful and de-
served further inquiry. The right hon. and learned
Recorder had implied, although he did not state, that there
was something unfair in the appointment of the commission
nominated to investigate this matter. Ilia (Lord J. Rua-
nit.) object was to grant as fair a commission as goasible ;
and with that view, and that the interests of the graziers
might nut he injuriously atilicted, he applied to the Duke of
Itichmoud to have him point out some hon. gentleman who
would undertake the duty. lie need not say that the hon.
member for Surnersenhire entered that eommiseion
with an impartial determination. (Hear, hear.) The
majority of that commission—five out of seven—the
two dissentients being connected with the corporation—
came to the conclusion that Smithfield-market ought to be
removed altogether; and that was the question then before
the house. (Ilear, hear.) The question , therefore, was
not as regarded two competing bills; but whether the
market should or should not be removed from its central
to a suburban situation. (Hear, hear.) The commissioners
reported that there were several sites eligible; but abstained
from recommending any one in particular. Much as he
I might regret his oppueition to the corporation of London,
at least, on the present occasion, nu other choice was left
him. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MOWArt, amid loud cries of "divide,' rose to
express his opinion that nothing could justify the continu-
ance
of a great cattle market in the centre of this densely
populated metropolis. The question had not Mona been
decided by public opinion, but also by every committee
entrusted-with its investigation ; and even the advocates
of the market that day were obliged to admit that its
existence was a nuisance.
Sir li. lIALF'ORD would only occupy one moment.
He rose to state that he presented a petition that day from
the graziers and farmers of Leicestershire, who were fa-
vourable to an enlargement of the present market at Smith-
field, but opposed to its removal. (Divide, divide.)
Alter sofae brief explanations between Mr. FITZROY and
Sir J. 'War, which were inaudible in the gallery, owing to
the vociferous calls for a division,
The how divided—
For the second reading 124
Against it '2l6-122
SMITHFIELD-..MARKET REMOVAL BILL.
Sir 0. GREY, on the motion for the second reading of
this bill, proposed that in the event of its being read a
soeunil time that it be referred to a select committee, com-
posed of live members, to be nominated by the committee
of selection.
Mr. HU3IE liked whether it was fair to refer this bill
to a select committee, when the house had just rejected the
other bill. Ile thought it would have been much fairer to
have referred both bills to a committee up stairs.
Mr. C. LEWIS said that the house having decided upon
the question whether there should be a market held in the
City or the suburbs, it would seem superfluous to refer the
other bill to a select committee,
Alderman SIDNEY thought the suggestion of the hon.
member for Montrose a very fair one.
Sir J. DUKE said, however much he might regret the
decision to which the house heel just come, it was his inten-
tion to pay every respect to such decision, and not to give
the house any further trouble in respect to it. (Hear.)
At the same time, he deplored that the government had not
allowed both bills to go before the committee, in order that
their respective merits might be fairly determined.
Sir G. GREY said that the bill before the house was
one of a mixed character, like a certain class of bills well
known to the house ; it was partly public and partly pri-
vate. They would follow, then, the usual course under
such eircumstanece—namely, to refer the bill to a committee

of standing orders.
Mr. A. STAFFORD wished to ask a question of coml.
derrhlc importuner. Whether they intended to recom- I
mend that a portion of the n itional tends should be dedi-
cated to the purchase of this property from the corporation,
with • view of preserving that unenclosed spare for the
benefice( the public? If it were nut the intention of the
government to take such a step, he should think it his duty
to bring such a proposition forward, and to take the 64:11W of
the house noon it. (11. ar.)
Mr. T. DUNCOM rtE wished to hare it clearly ascer-
tained whether this hill henceforward was to be colisider.il
a private or a public hill. Was this bill to go to the select
committee above stairs so a private bill, and to come back

as a public bill, to be considered by a commit tee of the
whole house ? That was a very important question.
(Hear, hear.) He also wished to know who the commis-
sioners were to be that were to have the conduct of this
market, for they might abuse the patronage which they
would possess as much as the City had done.
Sir G. GREY repeated the answer he hail already given
to the hon. alderman. The bill was of a mixed character—
partly public and partly private. Of course, under the cir-
cumstances, the invariable practice was to refer it to a se-
lect committee ; but that conunittee was not always named
by the committee of selection. Then when it came back to
a committee of the whole house—and not until then—it
would become a public bill.
Ydr. A. STAFFORD reminded the right hon. baronet
that he had asked him a question respecting the purchase
of the space o. ground occupied by Smithfield-market from
the corporation ?
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that the
government did not intend to diseuss that matter.
The SPEAKER said all bills which were partly public
and partly private went through the same forms as private
bills, until after the select committee hail reported on them.
, When they were recommitted to a committee of the whole
house they were then and afterwards treated as public bills.
The house would see at once the object or such a rule be-
cause inasmuch as these bills affected local interests it was
necessary that notice should be given to all parties con-
cerned in order that they might know what they hail to
expect, and, if necessary, he enabled to take steps for having
their several claims heard before the select committee in
defence of their own interests.
Mr. HUME said he understood that; but there was no
schedule of tolls attached to this bill.
The SPEAKER said the schedule must be fixed by the
committee on the bill. When they were filed the parties
concerned might petition.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked whether the owners of
Smithfield-market could he heard against thisbill ?
The SPEAKER—They will of course petition against
the bill when it is referred to a select committee.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE would feel obliged at being informed
whether, under the circumstances in which the hill stood,
the committee would have the power of deciding upon a site
without reference to any notice which, in respect to other
private bills, it was necessary to give.
The SPEAKER said that nothing could be done beyond
what was comprehended in the notice originally given. Ile
could not answer the hon. baronet's question more fully
without knowing the extent to which the notice went.
Whatever clauses might be proposed in committee they
must he such as came within the terms of the notice given.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE now asked whether thc proper notice
had been given? The supply in the market must be for
2,:ag1,000 persons. Were these notices given to meet sill
tin• requisites of a cattle market which was intended not
only to supply the immense population in the metropolis,
but also of innumerable towns within 100 miles of it ?
Sir G. GREY said that notices were required in
order to take laud by compulsion ; hut no such notices
were required to take land when it was to be done by vo-
luntary agreement.
Mr. DEEDES said that he was an advocate for leering
the whop, saliva considered together. Although he rc-
gr•tted exceedingly the course which had been taken, he
did not feel himself at liberty to vote against the second
reading of this bill.
In answer to Mr. lIENLEs,
Sir G. GREY said, until The house hail decided whether
Satithfield-market was to be removed from its present site,
the government were not authorised to enter into any
negotiation for the voluntary purchase of a site for the
market. The hon. member might recollect that in the
report several sites were mistimed as being eligible for the
puroose.
:kir. BAILED: said, if he understood the noble lord right,
he said it was not the intention of the government to give
compensation to the corporation for the great loss they would
sustain by the removal of Smithtiehl-market. Ile trusted
that the government would take the matter into their se-
rious consideration.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the answer which he gave
was in reference to a very different question. lie understood
the hon. member for Northamptonshire (Mr. A. Stailurd)
to say that a great injury would be done to the public if the
open space was taken from them, and he asked whether the
government would not take rare, by this purchase of that
ground, to keep it open ? Ile (Lord J. Itusvell) said that
government had no intention of purchasing it. As to wile.
thee the corporation ought to he compensated for the leas
they would sustain by the removal of Smithfield-market,
that was a totally different question.
Captain IlAitltlS said it was important to consider wile-
, thee it would lie necessary to have two markets. It ap-
I reared to him that by the establishment of only one market
in the suburbs they would be exposed to a great evil ; for
it would be necessary to have a great quantity of cattle
passing through the metropolis. Ile did not see why they
should nut encourage competition by establishing two mar-
kets at least, and thereby escape the unpleasant consequences
that were apprehended.
Mr. D! OSBORNE said that the only question upon
which the witnesses fully agreed was the necessity of having
only one central market.
Mr. S. WORT LEY entcreat his protest against the prin-
ciple of this bill.
Mr. HUDSON apprehended that the house had placed
themselves in this position. They had hound themselves to
pass a bill for the re 'al of Smithfield-market, and they
were dependent upon the will of private individuals for ob-
taining a n.,ar bite. As it was very probable that the evil
they complained of could not be remedied until another
session, it appeLved to him that it would be better to suspend
all further proceedings for the present year.
The house di, idea, when there appeared—

For the second reading -
230
Against it
On the question that the bill bo referred to a select com-
mittee
Mr. ACME said he must again protest against the pro-
posed interterenee with corporate rights. His own opinion
was that the present attempt would prove a failure. The
House of Commons was asked to pass a bill which could
not be carried out without commissioners, and, of course,
the persons appointed to till the office would he favourites
of the government. Why nut abolish the charter of the
City if the corporation were incapable of mauaging its
affairs ?
Lord J. RUSSELL thought the corporatim of the City
of London would not feel much obliged to his hon. friend
for suggesting that their charter should be abolished.
(Laughter.)
Mr. ILUME hoped he would not he misunderstood.
What lie meant was, that rather than deprive the corpora-
tion of the power of maintaining their own markets, they
should take away the charter. (Laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said there were two points which his
hon. friend seemed entirely to have lost sight of. One was.
that since the City of London WAS covered with buildings,
the metropolis had very much increased in size, and that it
now extended far beyond the city walls. The question was,
not whether Smithfield was sufficient for the City of Lon-
don, but whether it was a proper market for this great me-
I tripoli,. The other point which his hon. friend had fur-
gotten was, that as soon as the government CAW to the coo-
-1 elusion that it was desirable to remove Smithfield market
out of the heart of the metropolis, the corporation itself
offered to undertake the removal, and it was not till they
subsequently refused to do so that the matter was taken up
by the government. Some hon. gentlemen seemed to think
that the matter was one iu which the government had great
interest; but he could Ware the house that it was only on
pubic grounds that the goveruinent had determined to deal
with it.
Sir 11. WILLOUGHBY considered the provisions of
the hill a direct confiscation of the property of the cor-
poration.
In reply to a question from Mr. S. WOUTLEY,
The SPEAKER stated that the bill being a private one,
the corporation would have the power of appearing by
counsel.
Sir It. INGLIS observed that steps should be token
to secure the rights of the lord of the manor.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER would he very glad if the corpo-
ration of London would even now undertake to provide a
new market in a suburban district; and in that case he
for one would have no hesitation in guaranteeing to them
their tolls and privileges. The present plan of the corpus
ration added only about 21 acres to the existing area.
Sir J. DUKE could not allow the hon. member's con-
cluding assertion to go uncontradieted. Under the plan of
the corporation, the whole area, without any road or foot-
path, would be upwards of 12 acres. The corporation did
not object to the establishment of an additional market.
What they did object to was the shutting up of the ancient
market.
Mr. A. STAFFORD predicted that the bill would b
thrown out in another place, as a violation of an ancient
charter and of the rights of property, and that the only
result would be the continuance of the present nuisance and
overcrowding fur another year.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY inquired of the Home Secre-
tary whether he would consent that the bill should he a
public one?
Sir G. GREY said the question whether the bill should
he a public or a private one did not depend on the will of
the government, hut on lined regulations of the house; and
the only effect of making the hill public would be to deprive
the corporation of the right of appearing by counsel.
The motion for referring the bill to a select committee
was then agreed to.
ST. ALBANS ELECTION.
_ _

Mr. E. El.Ll6E,;;;.,siiid he had aCCnclirected by the
select committee on this petition to apply to the house fur
leave to adjourn till 12 o clock on M lay next for the pur-
pose of Affording time for the attendance of certain wit-
nesses whose evidence was sworn to be material.
Leave was granted.
RELIGIOUS HOUSES BILL.
- -

Mr. LACY having asked for the postponement of the
order of the day for the second reading of this bill until
Wednesday the 30th of April,
Alter some conversation,
The second reading was fixed for the 14th of May.
The Eapenseu of Prosecutioas Bill, as amended, was con-
sidered, and a clause added.
On the motion of Mr. C. Lew•io, the Annual Indemnity
Bill was brought in and read a first time.
The house adjourned at six o'clock.

1111%11 An MCI:LTV It 11, Di.TIMS4.--00101101 Chattertoll
paired off in favour of Sir W. Barron's motion for in-
quiriiirr into the state of Ireland, with Sir 11. Hall against.
Mr. Calihell paired with Mr. Ilisir against. Lord 11.
Lennox, with Mr. C. W. Greniell against. Mr. Knox,
who Intrinh.,l to vote fur the nsutiun, was aCtidelltany shut
out from the division.

L. I • iieyuelirdan;ii
They said it win
the contrary -1
spore propu.ed
liargement Ira•
his usidence I
that the Mk
be tit d up via
year the publii
and au the 164
won ao fewer t