The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-03 00:00:00

contained in the report regarding the measure now be.
fore Parliament for the instant repeal of the navigation-
laws as fraught with consequences destructive to the
shipping interest, and dangerous both to the welfare and
safety of the country, and calls on shipowners cordially
to unite in the most determined efforts to induce the
Legislature to reject the Bill."
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY seconded the motion. At the
time Sir R. Peel brought forward his -measure for the
repeal of the corn-laws he placed so much confidence in
his practical talent that he acquiesced in it ; but he had
since seen his error, and was now decidedly opposed to
any further extension of the doctrines of free trade.
Mr. R. A. GREY moved the third resolution, which
was " That this meeting desires to record its grateful
estimation of the services rendered by the Committee to
the shipping interest, under the continued difficulties
with which it has had to contend during the past year,
and earnestly recommends the shipowners throughout
the United Kingdom to extend a general and efficient
support to the society, as the best means of protecting
the interest of maritime commerce, and their own in
connexion therewith."

Mr. C. GRAHAM having seconded the motion, it was
carried unanimously.
Mr. YOUNG moved a vote of thanks to the Chairman,
after which the meeting separated.

COURT OF COMMON COUNCIL.
A special court was held on Tuesday and Thursday,
on the subject of Smithfield-market.
On the former day, Mr. J. T. NORRIS moved for a
committee to provide a more suitable market-place. Mr.
Norris first ran over the history of Smithfield, and
showed that it had first been chosen as a market, be-
cause it was in the suburbs of London, away from the
busy haunts of men. There was a statute of Henry the
Seventh forbidding any butcher to kill any beast within
the walls of London under a pecuniary penalty. As a
trading speculation, it was impossible for the corpora-
tion to make a worse use of their money or their land.
Mr. Norris next adverted to •the annoyances and diffi-
culties to trade and passengers which arose from the
present position of the beast market, and the facility it
afforded to the spread of contagion among the animals.
He then referred to the evidence given before the Com-
mittee of the House of Commons, and to the report of
the sanitary officer of the corporation, both decidedly in
favour of a removal. It was impossible to remedy the
evil by further extensive enlargements, for the cost was
too heavy. Everything concurred in confirming the im-
pression that " Smithfield must go." Whilst, then, the
chief cities of Europe had witnessed scenes of confusion
and blood, let it be said that the great corporation of
London was forming and adopting improved regula-
tions for the health, convenience, and advantage of her
citizens.—(Loud applause.)
Mr. Deputy HICKS said it had been proved before
Parliament that one-fourth of the supply of Smithfield
was driven away over Blackfriars-bridge, and therefore,
if the market were remove to Islington, the driving the
cattle through the streets would be doubled. It was
indispensable that the butchers should attend Newgate
Market for dead meat, and so it was said that Islington
Cattle Market could be reached in ten minutes by cabs.
He called upon the Court to fancy 1,800 or 2,000 but-
chers driving from one market to another, at the rate
of twelve miles an hour. As to space, Smithfield
Market now embraced. upwards of 6f acres. The De-
puty then stated how much had been done of late years
for the improvement of Smithfield, and the better regu-
lation of the drovors, and referred to the evidence of
Dr. Burroughs, Mr. Lawrence, and Mr. Lynch, and to
that of many: of the inhabitants themselves, which, he
said, showed that Smithfield was one of the healthiest
spots in the whole metropolis. After some general ob-
servations upon the advantages which, he said, were
most obvious to the public, as derivable from the market,
he emphatically concluded by declaring that, in his
judgment, its removal would intolerably increase all the
evils it was said to engender, and by moving the previous
question.—(Cheers.)
Mr. GoDsoN seconded the amendment.
Mr. ANDERTON was decidedly opposed to Mr. Norris's
motion. Was the question one of philanthropy? No;
it was a question of a very different kind. It involved
the fact that some persons had spent an enormous sum
of money in a certain speculation, and that they would
try to get some of it back. There was a prospectus of
New Smithfield market, in which shares were to be
issued to the amount of 400,0001., and a profit of eighteen
per cent was calculated upon. Talk of California after
that!—(Laughter.) That new project was the cause of
all the outry.
Mr. BENNOCH supported Mr. Norris's motion.
Alderman LAWRENCE said a vast deal of industry had
been exercised, not only to accomplish the fate of Smith-
field, but to induce the public to take shares in the new
project.—(Hear, hear.) Formerly it had been planned
to hare markets all round London. To that he had
no objection ; but it was found that Islington had
failed, and there was good reason for suppos
ing that such would be the case with all other
enterprises of this nature. Now, if they give up Smith-
field, where was the trade to go he would ask ? How
many one-horse carts would the butchers require ?—(A
cry of " let them go by the railroad.") There mus',
then, be a railway to every butcher's door. The same
argument would apply to Nee-gate market and Leaden-
hall market. There had been inquiry. As for the
statement that public opinion was against the market,
he denied the assertion, although he admitted that the
public press was ready to pen any slander, well knowing
that slander would sell better than any other trash. Ile
particularly referred to that part of the press which was
called respectable, and which conveyed ideas that never
entered the minds of those to whom they were attributed.
Alderman Lawrence then strongly expressed his indif-
ference at the conduct of newspaper editors, whose
efforts should never prevent him from doing what he
considered to be his duty, and concluded, amidst cheers,
by stating that he should vote for the previous question.
Mr. BLAKE opposed the view which Alderman Law-
rence had taken in every instance. He was convinced
that the health of the public was injured by the market
and its mass of filth and abomination. Ho knew that
excessive cruelty was practised upon the animals, and
that there was foundation for every charge by which its
character was assailed.
The Court then adjourned.

Yesterday the debate was resumed, and the discussion
was re-opened by
Mr. WILLIAM JONES, who complained of the manner
in which the Corporation had been treated, and their
motives and actions impugned. He had filled the office
of chairman of the market committee, and could bear
testimony to the anxiety evinced by the Corporation,
regardless of expense, to enlarge and improve the
market,7—(Hear.) The objections which had been made
agiiinst the market un- act-bunt of the public inconveni-
ence which. it r was supposed •to occasion, were grossly
exaggerated. Of course, in conducting the extensive
operations of a market to supply the greatest city in the
world with food, some inconvenience would be experi-
enced. It was impossible to conduct any extensive
branch of trade in a crowded city without being sub-
jected to similar evils. The railway vans and waggons
in our narrow streets and courts created a much greater
impediment to the conduct of the business of the City,
but they escaped the observation of those who
had taken upon themselves, through the medium
of the public press, to be the censors of the
Corporation on account of Smithfield Market. But the
Corporation were wholly undeserving of the imputations
they cast upon them. The site of the market had been
from time to time enlarged by the Corporation, at an
outlay for which the tolls afforded a very insufficient
remuneration, and if the Corporation consulted their own
interests alone they would at once consent to the removal
of the market, and would appropriate their property to
a more beneficial use. Mr. Jones then proceeded to read
extracts from the evidence given before the Committee
of the House of Commons to prove that the market was
not injurious to the health of the inhabitants, and that it
was not attended with the accidents and other evils attri-
buted to it by the mover of the question.
Mr. Deputy DixoN (Cripplegate) said he should not
be deterred from doing what he believed to be his duty
to his constituents by the attacks of the press. The
press had attempted to wake him appear ridiculous, by
ascribing to him language he lied not used.--(dear,
hear.) lie repeated that as the father of a family,
residing in the vicinity of the market, he could bear
witness that the statements of its injurious effects upon
the public health were either greatly exaggerated or
wholly untrue.—(Hear, hear.) The statements of the
cruelty practised upon the animals were equally un-
founded; and he would ask the Lord Mayor, during the
number of years he had acted as a magistrate, how
many cases of cruelty on the part of drovers and others
connected with the mat ket had been brought before him?
The LoRD MaYon—Very few ;certainly no
down. t balt a

Mr. Deputy Dixosf—lf it were true that the graziers
desired that their stock should be exhibited
did in
they a larger
market, as was sometimes pretended, whynot
go to Perkin's market Islington? That atwas big
establishment
enough; but the fact was, that when that
s desired to
was first opened in 1838, many of the.
give it a fair trial, and sent half tbeirgrhnezastsoftothlsel new
ton and half to Smithfield. The proprietors
market, fancying they could ge t the whole business
into their own hands, told their customers
they mast
have all or none. The graziers took th _ hint,
and and sent
Steady
their cattle where they could get a a certain
sale.—(Hear.)
Mr. WYLIE would support the motion. 1.10 had re-
ceived letters from correspondents in Scotland, repro-
se ntig n
that the animals sent by steamers to Smithfield
wore go touch deteriorated by their treatment in the
market, that they could scarcely recognise them, and
were
obliged to dispose of them for what they
would
fetch, rather than retire theta and keep them for ano-
ther market, which would be the case if they had sill-
ficient acFommodntion. He had himself no doubt that
the injurious effects of the market, in a sanitary point'
of view, so far from being exaggerated, were in fact un-
derstated. The citizens of London Were indebted to
the interposition of Providence, which had saved them
from the cholera in the filthy regions of the market, and
they ought to show their gratitude in return, by taking
means to remove to a distance from the crowded city the
injurious and disgusting nuisances whist) existed in the
market, or were immediately connected with it.
Me. ELLIOTT said that the honour and character of
the Corporation were deeply interested in the right de-