The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-29 00:00:00

PARLIAM

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Corranons.)
STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
The following Resolutions were reported from the above
Committee :-
1. That in the case of the South Wales Railway (No. 2)
Bill, petition of Company of Proprietors of Glamorgaiashire
Canal Navigation, for dispensing with standing orders Nos.
105 and 166, the said standing orders ought not to be dis-
pensed with.
2. That in the case of the Birmingham Improvement Bill,
petition of Abel Rollason, for dispensing with standing orders
Nos. 105 and 166, the said 'atinding orders ought to be dis-
pensed with.
Second Resolution agreed to.—Report to lie on the table.

SMITHFIELD MARKET.
Yesterday a deputation, consisting of the undermentioned
gentlemen, waited upon Sir George Grey, at the Home-
office, upon the subject of the contemplated removal of Smith-
fieid-market : -The Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, Mr. G.
Barnard, M P. ; Alderman Copeland. M.P. ; Mr. R. Currie,
M.P. ; Mr. G. Dundas, M.P.; Sir J. Duke, M.P.; Sir E.
Filmer, M.P.; Mr. Mastermen, M.P. ; Baron Rothschild,
M.P. ; Alderman Sidney, M.P. ; Mr. Stafford, M.P.; Mr.
Wyld, M.P. ; Dr. Bushnan, Senior Physician to the Metro-
politan Free Hospital; Mr. G. B. Childs, F.R.C.S. • Mr.
Rose, surgeon ; the Rev. James Jackson, vicar of St. gepul-
chre's (the parish in which the market is situate); Mr. G.
Bovell, Mr. C. Gabriel, Mr. J. Blacket, Mr. J. Hill, Mr.'W.
Lacy. Mr. W. Riggerstaff, Mr. J. Stride, Mr. T. M. challis;
Mr..). Parson (vestry clerk of r•t. Luke's). Mr. J. Giblett,
Mr. R. Morgan, Mr. W. Collins, Mr. J. J. Millard, Mr. W.
T. Haly, Messrs. Bannister, Sharpe, and W.armington (a de-
putation from the Butchers' Company), Mr. H. L. Taylor
(chairman of the Markets Improvement Committee), and
Messrs. T. H. Hall, Hicks, Low, Daliin, R. Taylor, and Har-
rison (a deputation from the Markets Improvement Commit-
tee), and also the City Remembrancer, the City Solicitor,
and the City Architect.
The LORD MAYOR said, he had the honour of attending
as one of the deputation, and he trusted, that whatever
course the Government pursued, the public, who were deeply
interested, would have the opportunity of forming an opi-
nion upon the plan submitted by the corporation. He
trusted that no monopoly would be permitted, but that a
fair and open inquiry would take place, when it would ap-
pear that the corporation desired to remove, and that their
plan alone could remove, all the existing difficulties and
objections.
Sir J. DUKE hoped that the Government Bill would not
not be thrust forward without inquiry, but that the only fair
and reasonable coarse, and that likely to satisfy all interests
involved, would be adopted—namely, to send all the Bills
bef,re a fairly constituted Committee of the House of Com-
mons. He begged leave to set right a statement which had
been reported to hive been made on the occasion of a recent
deputation to Sir G. Grey on the same subject. It had been
said that a petition from.the coal trade of London. in favour
of the corporate plan, had but one signattire-..thae-orbitrr
brother-W-law. Aol!iithiFiliets wire theft-the petition in
favour of the Gevernment measure had received the signa-
tures of 119 person's, while that in favour of the corporation
plan was signed by 248 members of the trade. •
Sir GEORGE GREY, said he could not enter into the ques-
tion of petitions, or how numerously they might have been
signed. He could not prevent statements from being made
by gentlemen who waited upon him. That was not the pro-
per place for their investigation. With respect te send-
ing the Bills to the same Committee, he was of opinion that
such a course would devolve upon a Committee the duty of
the whole House. If the House should allow the Bills to
be read a second time the responsibility would in that case
rest with a Committee.
Sir JAMES DUKE begged to remind the Right Hon. Baronet
that no Committee of the House had yet decided upon the
present proposal of the corporation. A Government Com-
mission, it was true, had reported upon it; but the plan
was certainly deserving of the fullest inquiry which could
be given to it. In his opinion a Parliamentary Committee
would constitute the best and fairest tribunaL 1
Alderman SIDNEY could not speak as calmly of the course
pursued by the Government as his friend and colleague had "
done. The Government Bill was to all intents and purposes
a private Bill, mischievously
.interfering with vested rights,
private property, and trading interests; and the only course
consistent with the usages at Parliament was to refer it to a
Committee. He begged to state that the Royal Commission
had never been recommended by the Legislature. More-
over, the City and the trading interests were most inade-
quately represented in that Commission, for of the majority
of its members five of the seven were pledged by their pre-
vious opinions and acts to the removal of Smithfield-market
from its present central position. A large majority of the
citizens of London was opposectto the Government measure.
Mr. Gurney had said that 99 in 100 of the inhabitants were
favourable to the removal, while, in fact, 70,000 of them, and
more than 6,000 of the registered electors, had already signed
in favour of the corporate scheme. He had no hesitation in

asserting that when that scheme should be thoroughly in-
vestigated and understood by the public, it would be found
fully to satisfy every person of candid mind that every ra-
tional objection had been anticipated and met.
Mr. MASTERMAN could state from his own knowledge that
a large majority of his constituents took a lively interest in
the retention of the market. The City plan, in his opinion,
remedied every abuse. As one of the Committee which had
sat upon the subject in Parliament, he could state that his
views upon the subject had been greatly changed by the evi-
dcnce adduced before them. He believed that the great re-
quisite was an enlarged area, and that desideratum was li-
berally supplied by the scheme submitted by the City. It
seemed to him that the Government plan tended only to
destroy, without proposing anything definite, or anything ad.
vantageous as a substitute.
Alderman COPELAND was anxious to learn what eourse
Government were prepared to take as regarded the other
Bills, for there were now four before the House. He had sat
upon the Committees of 1347 and 1849, and he felt that r o
case had been made out for the removal of Smithfield. If
the market were removed to Islington or to Tuffnel-park, it
would still be surrounded by a populous district. He had
reason to know, in his capacity of treasurer to the corpora-
tion of the Sons of the Clergy, that they had been applied to
for the sale of so much of their land as lay within 103 yards
of the Tuffnel-park estate.
Mr. STAFFORD said that he had also sat upon the Parlia-
mentary Cetnngittee. andetbe evidence _ adduced had produced
eapen his mind an effect similar to stated by the worthy
Alderman:-- Cbrizrectod-resthergrezio-tag.k....le.,rar
interests, he could declare that the farmers and graziers
almost unanimously preferred the central site of Smithfield
to any of the suburban schemes proposed. All the evidence
converged to the point that there could be but one cattle-
market for the metropolis, and as a transit market, with fully
one-third passing over Blackfriar-bridge, that market should
necessarily be in a central pesiton. Ile begged to draw Sir
George Grey's attention to the fact that every northern
suburb had petitioned Parliament against the removal of
the market to their locality. (The Hon. Gentleman here
detailed the list of petitions from fifteen of those suburbs.)
The Government plan proposed to inflict a double injus.
Lice in removing the market from those who desired its
continuance to those who had petitioned against such visita-
tion. He had carefully examined the plan submitted by the
corporation, and be desired to see it carried out as the
only plan that met the requirements of the trade on the one
hand, and remedied the inconveniences greatly complained
of by the public on the other.
Sir G. Gain- thought the arguments of Alderman Sidney
were entitled to serious consideration, but were more fitted
to the Home of Commons, where the question must be de-
cided. In the decision of that House the Government were
prepared to acquiesce. He saw no objection to the plan of
permitting all the Bills to proceed to a second reading, as the
question had already been submitted to a Committee.
Alderman SIDNEY—The Committee had only reported
that the present Smithfield-market was liable to objection,
and should, therefore, be removed. The corporate plan for
the abatement of the evil of which they complained had
never yet been submitted to Parliamentary inquiry. He
begged to mention that he had presented apetition from the
wretched inhabitants prepared to be cleared, signed by 257
individuals, praying that the plan of the City for providing
them better habitations might be carried out.
Dr. Rushers); stated that he had paid great attention to
the statistics and sources of cholera in the metropolis, and
had been led in the course of that investigation to examine
the neighbourhood in question. Having written upon the
subject, he would not detain Sir G. Grey further than by in-
troducing his friend Mr. ECM, a surgeon residing in that lo-
cality, who had assisted him in his examination.
Mr. Ross said, he had had many opportunities of judging
of the sanitary aspects of the question. Many, with the
best intentions, had come to erroneous conclusions upon the
subject from a want of accurate knowledge of the facts of the
case. If the Govemmeut carried their plan, it would be
greatly to the prejudice of the health of the neighbourhood.
He begged to submit a memorial signed by almost all the
practitioners of the district, urging the propriety of a scheme
which removed so largely the sources of poverty, disease, and
demoralization from the neighbourhood.
Mr. BORLASE Omens, F.R.C,S., surgeon to the police
force, stated that he had from 500 to 60) men and their
families under his care. The city was divided into six dis-
tricts, the second of which, having Smithfield for its centre,
was decidedly the most healthy. He regarded Smithfield as
one of the lungs of the city, as a reservoir of pure air es-
sential to the health of a densely crowded district. It was
a remarkable fact that during the visitation of cholera in
this city in 1848 there had ocourred no case in the area
of Smithfield. Out of 153 cases of spasmodic diarrhoea
in the police force not one had happened in the Smithfield
district.
Sir G. GREY asked whether that fact was not referrable to
the open area rather than to the cattle market?
Mr. CHILD assented, but asked whether the open area was
not necessitated by the cattle market?
Alderman CorniatieD requested to know from Sir G. Grey
what were the intentions of the Government with regard
to the Metropolitan or Hornsey Cattle-market Bill ?
Sir G. GREY replied that that Bill being inconsistent with
the Government Bill could not be allowed to pass a second
reading.
The Rev. J. JACKSON, A.M.—As vicar of St. Sepulchre, he
must say it was his deliberate conviction that the scheme
of the corporation would confer a lasting benefit on the
community. The physical, sanitary, and especially the
moral interest., of his parishioners, were seriously involved
in this question. Ten or twelve acres of miserable courts
and alleys, abounding in physical and moral abomination,
would be exchanged for an open area provided with suitable
accommodation for the industrious poor.
Sir G. GREY said he had no disposition to undervalue the
positive advantages of the corporation plan. It constituted
an unquestionable improvement upon things as they were.
Baron ROTHSCHILD, as largely connected with the trading
interests of the City, begged to assure the Right Hon. Baronet
that a great majority of his constituents were most decidedly
against the Governwent proposal. He expressed an earnest
hope that her Majesty's Ministers would not precipitate a
decision upon a question of such paramount importance
without affording an impartial hearing of all the parties con-
cerned.
Mr. C. PEARSON hoped that Sir G. Grey would pay spe-
cial attention to the statement of his Hon. Friend (Baron
Rothschild), as unhappily that gentleman was precluded the
expression of his opinions in another place.—(Hear.)
Sir J. DUKE inquired how the Government Bill would of
fect Islington market?
Sir G. GREY—Not at all, that market being now in ex-
istence.
Sir J. DUKE—So also is Smithfield market; and it will be
most unjust in the Government to ruin the interests of the
one while it leaves untouched those of the other. Surely
the Government could not be justified in destroying a trade
turning 8,000,000/. annually on a mere bare majority of the
House of Commons. At any rate Ministers were bound to
grant a full and fair investigation of the proposition of the
corporate body.
state that they were determined toe bvtiateeeenvtertaTersetatsleonmaar_
objection which could be urged agms a
meMntr.Clol.mLo.liTttseve,eaOnnd
oa
as
behalf
Chairman
theof
corporation,the
MarketsliimegPgred°:tevo-
lic streets, that evil could only be
could best
be regulations to that end
regulations, and e
be carried out in a central situation, and upon the plan sub-
mitted by the corporation. They were but trustees for the
citizens,for theam among ket. With respect to driving therecmatetdleistdhrbonygah
styhsetepmubo-f
hg e
me whompr tpohesered.erteedthean mthroestltdaetcsidemeed prefer-
enceiength
ulna the undefined charnotor of the Government proposal.