The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-18 00:00:00

THE SUN,

ment should interfere. Tile Hon. neetdeineu.e see,
however, did Lot, in opinion, snake out the case.
Indeed the speech was not borne out by the evidence
taken before the Committee. The Honourable Gentle-
man did wisely in abstaining from reading passages in
the report, because he mwet he aware that the great
proportion of this evidence is directly against the asser-
tions that he had made. Upwards of seven millions
of money turned in Smithfield-market, and before they
interfered with so large an amount of proparty he
thought a good case at last ought to be made out.—
(Hear.) It was all very fine for some old ladies to ask
the [lon. Member as a iriend to his specirs to come down
to Parliament and ask the Government to remove
Smithfield-market, because the tea• parties on their se-
cond floors had been disturbed by the intrusion of some
bullocks; but the experience of the butchers, graz:ers,
and medical men, directly showed that the market was
neither injurious to public health nor inconvenient.
With the exception of Dr. Govin, all the medical men
examined before the Committee stet, d that the position
of the market was peculiarly healthy. There had been
only one case of cholera. in 1832. Dr. Govin was the
solitary doctor who contended for its unheelehiness,
while Dr. F trtesque, Dr. Lancaster, Dr. Lynch, Dr.
Burrowes, Mr. Lawrence, and the Hen. Mr. Bytig,
as well as the inspector of sewers, gave it as their opi-
nion that the locality was peculiarly healthy—that the
wide open space was most beneficial to the city of
London, and conducive to the public health. They
had four to one in favour of Smithfield-market
thus verifying the adage that doctors differed. Out of
the 6,480 questions asked by the Committee in the
course of their inquiry, no less than 5,000 of the owners
were favourable to the continuance of the market. The
question of health then fell to the ground, for there
was not one word in the report about the public health.
The movement on the part of those who thought with
the Hon. Gentleman was nothing more or less than an
English pull at the Exchequer. The city of London
received about 5,0001. per annum from the market;
and, of course, if the market were abolished, the ground
would become valuable for building purposes. In order
to prevent the site being converted to such a use, what
a large sum would not the Consolidated Fund be called
on to lay out for its purchase! It became the House,
when they considered carefully the state of the finances,
to reflect how far a private Member of Parliament was
justified in calling on the Government to expend a sum
of money in the purchase of a site which was not in-
jurious to the health. Besides the medical gentlemen
whose names he had mentioned as being favourable to
the continuance of Smithfield-market, he might mention
that Dr. Cdnqusst had given evidence to the effect that
there was not a more healthy district in London, or one less
affected with either fever or cholera. When the Hon.
Gentleman talked of tea parties on the first floor being
disturbed by the intrusion of bullocks, he wished he
would move for a return of those intrusions.—(A laugh.)
Mr. Payne, the City Coroner, a gentleman well known
and highly respected, had given evidence, in the course
of which he stated that during seven years he had held
but two inquests on persons trampled to death by bul-
locks, but those deaths would hay, occurred, in all pro-
bability-, no matter where the market was situated. Did
the Hon. Gentleman mean to tell him that the small pox
in sheep had been brsught on by the confi ied site of
Smithfield? If so, why were not the bullocks affected?
The Hon. Gentleman did not suppose that they could
put each sheep into a loose box. If he thought so, the
Government certeinly would have enough to do in fur-
nishing loose hoses.
Alderman SIDNEY thought the difficulties of the mere
removal of Smithfield-market, and the compensation
tor that removal was the minor question in that
debate. The value of the market was not iii the tola
paid to the city of L indon; but in the commerce
brought to an immense amount to the market.--
(Hear, hear.) The value o' cattle sold in Siniinfield.
market was est;meted between seven and eight mil-
lions annually. Upon what grounds, he wished to know,
should the House interfere with the channel of c im-
rnerce so extensive in its nature as that of the Smith-
field-market. It they determined that Smithfield mar-
ket was to he closed as a market, then h., viought they
were bound to s-c the vested interests of the Corpora-
tion protected, Toe Haase pail the C ,rptration of
London a poor compliment in wasting their time discus-
sing the present qua stion. The Corporation had already
entertained the qiiestion without prejudiced views. and
out of 226 Members, of which the Corporation con•
sister!, only 12 were in favour of the remora! of Smith-
field market.
Sir DE LACY EVANS said there had been a &al
of lest labour in the forming of the Committee, and
something, he thought, very like packing, and a desire
to exclude certain Honourable Members from sitting
upon it. He could not sea on what principle that
should be done. He himself had been excluded from it.
Under such circumstances, it could only be concluded
that they (the Committee) had made up their minds
upon the subj ct.—(Hear, hear.) The great ground
urged against Smithfield was, that it was not adequately
large enough for the purpose. He thought, however, the
statement that bad been made, that the Corporation of
London were resolved to make it so, met that objection.
In the event of Smithfield being removed, they had to
recollect that comp .nsation would be demanded, and he
was told that one of the v-ry first items the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would have to put down, would be
100,0001 compensation for the removal of Smithfield-
market.—(Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend had said that
he did not mean to interfere with private slaughter-
houses; and yet he at the same time proposed to re-
move Smithfield, while he allowed the nuisance of the
private slaughter-houses to remain. There could be no
doubt that the Corporation of London would make a
claim for compensation, and that point was one which
should be taken into consideration. It seemed that toe
public would not go to Islington-market, and now au
attempt was made to make them.—(Hear, hear.) Hav-
ing been prevented sitting on the Committee, he had
risen to make the few observations he had addressed to
the House on the subject.
Sir EDMUND FILMER said that when he took his
seat upon the Committee he had endeavoured to du his
duty. The question among the witnesses was not so
much as to the propriety of removing Smithfield-market
as that of rival parties cutting against each other. It
was six of one and half-a-down of the other—and one
could never know what they were driving at.—(Hear,
hear, and laughter.) He was persuaded it could not be
otherwise with their Committees unless they had power,
as the Committees in another place had, of taking the
evidence upon oath.--(Hear, hear.)
Lard ROBERT GROSVENOR said that there were
in the neighbourhood of Smithfield market knat.k,re-
yards, bone-burning establishments, and nuisances of
itots,tlhfe._h(eauletbar,ohf inhTahbei t aenvtisd
etnhcaen w
ee
nv t
e
such a character which he thought were more injurious
ntothperolveeerthkaett
eathr.e)
the market was too small, and that there was no room to
niarge it sufficiently to meet the demands of the
popu-
lation. As to the question of compensation, h a
denied
taut Smithfield was producin. any profit enied
adequate
to
entitle the Corporation to eauP en 'n.
also that the inhabitants of the net ahattr He thought
eurh ?tad were not
entitled neon any just grounds to compensation.—gear,
hear.) He was_ very sorry that any individual should
suffer loss, but in changes and improvements of thekind
contemplate 1, individual losses could net possibly b.
prevented. The Corporation of London lied a claim
over the market within seven miles of St. Paul's, and he
was quite willing that the Cerperation should hue the
management of the new market. His opinion was, that
a Commission should be eppoi,?ted to see where a pro
per site could be obtained. Coa.idering th it all the
evidence went to show that Smithfield never could be
made a suitable marker, he conceived that a Cemosis-
sion should be appointed in concert with that Corpora-
tion,
and he thought an arrangement might be made
satisfactory to all parties. . . .

Mr. B. OABORNE rose to explain, and said with re-
ference to what had been stated by his Noble Coll-ague
(Lord R. Grosvenor) as to the income of the Corpora
tion for Smithfield—he (Mr. Osborne) held in his hand
a return according to which it appeared that the income
of the Corporation for Smithfield-market, in 1848 was
5,6411. 9s. 10:1.—(Hear. hear.)
Lord R. GROSVENOR said he was still of opinion
that if everything was taken into account the Corporation
of London did not receive one shilling of income from
Smithfield-market,—(Hear. hear.)
Mr, AUGUSTUS STAFFORD said the question as
to the effects of the mar;iet upon the sanatory c ,ndit:on
of the neighbourhood had been sufficiently established.
He thought many of the vestions and answers might
fairly be termed superfluous, and that the report had
been unnecessarily swelled out in consequence. It was
to be observed that every year the supply of dead meat
brought inea London was largely increased, and that fact
had not been taken into nec 'tint. It was stated in one
of the resolutions that it was desirable that one great
cattle-market only should exist in London, and that re-
gard should be paid to have it near to a great railway
terminus. But he would remark that as it was proposed
not to touch private slaughter-houses, the evil complained
of by the existence of the market of Smithfield would not
be remedied by its removal, if private slaughter-houses
were still to be permitted to remain. He believed that
only a very few butchers in London were in favour of
the removal. He believed also that years aeo the market
at Islington had been opened, and as ample space had
been provided it was thought that the butchers would
flock to it. A flaming prospectus had been issued, anal
among the names of the patrons he found that of William
Mackinnon, M.P.—(Hear.) But notwithstanding all
that had been provided, notwithstanding the flaming
prospectus, notwithstanding that his i fonourahle Friend
the Chairman of the Smithfield market Committee (Mr.
Mackinnon) figurel as one of the trustees and honorary
directors, the butchers had not flocked to the new market,
and Smithfield had not been ruined as had been antici-
pated.—(Hear) In regard to the cruelty part of the
question, it was said, that tying up cattle in ring grooves,
as was down in Smithfield, was an act of great cruelty ;
but it was the fact, that some cattle would not stand
anywhere else, and besides, the system was not now
nearly so much practised as it was wont to be. Sheep
had been alluded to, and the cruelty p-actised to them;
but in the case referred to the sheep did not catch the
disease in the market, tor they had contracted it before
they came there. No doubt there were cases in which
cruelty was exercised, hut he considered that where
there wore 5..) many cattle it would be difficult to avoid
some eases cruelty, and he did net see how in some in-
stances, they could he avoidsd. The crueltids perpetra ed
in euaterraneen slaughter-houses, and the question es
to the b me-burners and tripe•trimmers, they had nothing
to do with. They might be put down by legislative
enactment ut present, but none of the pirti.s who owned
these had ever been brought before a magistrate under
the Removal of Nuisances Act that he had ever heard of,
nor had any complaint eve r been preferred atr''ai est them.
gOne point had not been alluded to during the and
which he thought important. Smithfield was now used,
to a considerublo extent, as a transit market. Cattle
wore sent ua by the railways from the agrcultural dis-
tricts to S:uithfi.ld, for th., purpose of being transferred
to other districts, so that a continual transfer took plJc.
from the south to the north side of the water, and in that
respect a large business was now carried on. In that

r. t, thi•refor.,

:

out e esoeed e, tee eo . ,
be no UV' in th st respect. It they placed the ins' !tee in
the country, how were they to get the cat le to
it ? By reilsvey ? Why the evidence taken be
fore the Committee went to show that driving
cattle for five or six miles on a railway injured them;
that while they might be driven long distances by
rail without iejury, conveying them short distances
spoiled them, and that they had better be walked.
How, then, in the case of Irish, Scotch, and Dutch cat-
tle, coming from all the steamboat and railway stations,
in and around London, could they arrange the mode of
conveying them to market? But the fair way to have
put the question to the House would have been, was the
House prepared wholly to charge the system of supply-
ing meat to the people of this great metropolis? '1 hat
view of the case involved so many questions, all mixed
up the one with the other, that. it was most Lk ly soy
tourteeu men, as well as the Committee they h sd now
to do with, would, in considering it, be far more apt to
point out inconveniences than remedies. There was not
a doubt that it they removed the market from where it
now was, they would increase the price of mean; but
there was still another inconvenience to encounter.
Suppose they remoy d it to the outskirts of London—
to a place where there were few, or, perhaps, no
houses, in the meantime, but who did not see that
in this advancing aed extending metropolis that the
place which they might now select free from dwelling-
houses, might not in a few years, even before the new
market buildings were completed, be surrounded with
them, so that there would soon be as much anxiety rot
the removal of that as there were now for the removal of
Smithfield-market. At all events, before they removed
the present market, let them show satisfactorily how
they were to provide for it in another place. His Hon.
Friend who had introduced the subject, had alluded to
a machiue which had been invented for killing cattle,
which, he said, worked exceeding well, but which had
never been introduced in Smithfield; and he had also
stated that the price of meat was higher in London than
it was anywhere else, in consequence of Smithfield
market. But that he denied; for although there might
be some prices dearer, and some cheaper, than in the
country, upon the average there was no difference in
price whatever. No doubt, and the butchers themselys s
had whispered into his ear, that if gentlemen at the
west•end of the town, in large houses, did not pay their
Butchers' bills due in 1849, till 1851, the butcher was jus-
tified in charging a per centaee for laying out of his
money, bui, that did not affect the general price
of meat. Much had been said about the bruises.
the cattle received, and the effect these had on the
meat; but they had it in evidence that most of
these were received in the course of transmission by
railway, or at all events before they reached the market,
so that with that matter, in talking of the removal of
Smithfield, they had nothing to do. The Hon. Gentle
man proposed that a Bill should be passed, authorising
Government Commissioners to purchase forty or fifty
acres of land, on which to erect a market in place of
Smithfield; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
no doubt see that this land, if bought, would have to be
paid for, and would not be so ready in giving his sanc-
tion to such a measure. The House, however, was
now celled upon to adopt a motion which would compel
the Government into taking such a step, and to such
a mo-ion he could not give his support.
Sir JOHN TYRELL said he believed Smithfield
was in some respects used as a transit market, but he
believed at the same time that had they a market fitted
up with proper convent- uses for the keep of cattle, and
with a p,oper supply of water attached to it, so that
cattle could be lop; teere until a market answering the
expectations of the seller, it would be of great advan-
tage. Just now they were obliged to sell, good market
ec bed, es there was ne place for keep, and besides, from
the ready transit to it by radeay and ste-amers from all
qua tern, it was one of the most gambling markets;
out that would be put an end to were the system he
had stated adopted. Representing the county he did,
it might be exp cud of him to support the present
market, and he could not deny that in a cemacereial point
of view it was a convenience to have the market ne sr
tne Bank of England; but he could not go along with all
the commendations bestowed upon Smithfield by the
Hen. Metebe, for Middlesex (Mr. Osborne), who was
called the butchers' pet—(L.,ugh-er)—and who, he be
sieved, was to be feasted at a fish dinner after this at
ti mpt to remove it had been defeated—along, of course,
with those who had aided him in causing that defeat.—
(Laughter.) Upon the whele, he thought that Govern
m nt ought to take up the matter, and ascertain whether
or not it would be for the advantage of the public t 3
have another place provided for such market.
Mr. ORNIS 3Y GORE said the object of the Hon.
Memb r who bad introduced the subject was more for
the purpose of ascertaining the opinion of the Govern•
went upon it than with a view to coerce them into the
consideration of it. The health part of the question he
considered the least important part, although that the
present market was dstrimental to the health of the in-
habitants of the surrounding locality had been fully es-
tablished. Professor Owen, Dr. Aldis, Mr. Grainger,
and a person named Grimesby, whose wife had died of
fever, caught by malaria, had all given decided evidence
in that respect. In regard to what had neon said about
Smithfield being a transit market, that was one
of the strongest reasons why it should be extended
or removed to another place, for it was at present too
small for any such purpose. The fact, however, was,
that Smithfield had alw sys been considered a nuisance—
for the past 300 years it hail been so, for at that time
1,6001. was laid out in paving it, in order to keep down
the malaria arising from it. It should be also borne in
mind that the Aldermen and the Board of Trade peti-
tioned against this market in Smithfield, and that they
expressed a desire that the cattle market should not be
less than 12 acres. He would refer the House to the
resolve of the people of Manchester and to other large
towns, which entered into a resolution to remove the
cattle markets outside the town, and this was well worthy
of consideration, as it had been already proved before
the Committee that there were in 1830 no less a number
than 189,000 sheep and 30,000 cattle, and in 1846,
210,000 sheep and 50,800 cattle, and that in a space of
5i acres. Such a state of things required to be consi-
dered by Government, and he hoped that such a pesti-
lent nuisance would be removed as immediately as would
suit the convenience of the public.
Mr. MACKINNON said that his motive for thus
pressing the motion was, that many Hon. Members con
sidered the report of the Committee of the House of
Commons on this subject would be considered as a dead
letter, if he had not brought it on, and in concurrence
with Those Hon. Members he felt fully satisfied that such
a market was a nuisance and an abomination.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he did not mean to inter-
fere with the Committee on this subject, and could not
idler any opinion until he saw their report.
Mr. MACKINNON said that in consequence of the
inteivion of the Noble Lord he did not mean to press his
tn..tion, and consequently withdrew it.
Me.
fate an hour as el, yen o'clock, but hoped that the Go•
v- rtiment •
LIORSMAN said that he did not wish to bring
on his motion relative to the condition of Ireland at
oppor
Lord J. RUSSELLgIve him an
d th tuhnaidty
noof
obb
jriencgtiionng
tiot
on at some future day in the week.
,ai
allow the Hon. Member to bring on his motion on 'rhurs•
day or Friday.
Mr. C. ANSTEY moved that the
petitionof
Rer-
oules Ellis, Esq., barrister-at-law, complaining
e
conduct, of' the Judges of the Common 1l e- in Ireland
(presented (presented 25th June), be printed with the votes. Tne
lion. Gentleman entered into a long statement of the
es e. when
Me. THORNELY, as chairman of the Committee on
that matter, objected to such a line of proceeding.
Lori J. RUSSELL said that if there were really a
stvpicion of impartial conduct on the part of the Crown,
there might be some ground for acceding to the Hon.
Gentleman's motion; but it appeared to him that there
was certainly none.
Alter a few words in reply from Mr. ANSTEY,
The motion was negatived without a division.
Mr. FREWEN moved for a return of all the fees paid
to the Faculty-office, Doctors' commons, for dispensation
to clergymen to hold benefices and pref rm'nts in plu-
rality since the passing of the Act 1 and 2 Vic., it. 106,
called the Pluralities Act, stating the amount paid for
each dispensation, which was agreed to.
Mr. BitorHERTON (in the absence of Mr. Bright)
rnov, d that an humble address be presented to her MA-
j-sty, praying that her Majesty may be graciously
pleased to direct the Commissioners of Woods and Fo-
rests to institute an inquiry into the reversions reserved
to the Crown in grants of land in Ireland, for the pur-
pose of ascertaining the nature, extent, and value of
such reversions, and of devising means for their more
simple registration and speedy sale or extinction, which
was agreed to.
BENEFICES IN PLURALITY (No. 2) BILL,
Mr. FRE WEN having moved that the House should
resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill,
Lord J. RUSSELL opposed the motion, as he did not
think that they could deal effectually with a question of
that difficulty and importance at that advanced period of
the session. He should therefore move that the Bill be
committed that day three months.
After a few words from Mr. FREWEN, the amend-
ment was adopted without a division, and the Bill was
therefore lost.
JUVENILE OFFENDERS AND SMALL LAR-
CENIES BILL.
The order of the day for the House resolving itself
into a Committee on this Bill having been read,
Mr. R. PALMER said he put it to her Majesty's Go-
vernment whether it would not be advisable to abandon
the Bill for the present session, on the ground just stated
by the Noble Lord with respect to another measure—
namely, that they could not then give to it the necessary
consideration
After a few words from Mr. B. DENISON, the further
consideration of the Bill was postponed till Thursday
next.
The Railway Amendment Bill passed through Com-
mittee with amendments, after some discussion.
NUISANCES RENIOVAL AND DISEASES
PREVENTION BILL.
The House went into Committee on this Bill.
Sir J. GRAHAM wished to know what was the
meaning of the hieh penalty of 501. on any person re-
fusing to give evidence before the Bard of Health ?
Was It to be read thus, that the board should have
power to tunonion the party allege I to h ive a nuisance
on his premise„,,, and make him convict himself?
Lord ASHLEY said no; it was only for the purpose
of getting witnesses iu order that nuisances might be re-
meved.
The penalty was reduced to 201.. and the clause was
then amended, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. J. A. SMI l'H wished to ask the Right Hon. Se-
cretary for the Ilene Department whether anything was
to be done with that master nuisance, especially iu Lon-
don, the state of the graveyards?
Sir G. GREY said
the question was under the consi•
aeration of the Board of denith.
Lord D. S ruART said the apathy of the Govern-
meet on that stthject would lose them the confidence of
the people. The grievance was a monscrous one, and he