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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, April 9.
SMITHFIELD ENLARGEMENT BILL
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Sir 11. VERNEY said the question ought to be considered
as one affecting the public interests. Was it or was it not
true that the existence of Smithfield-market in the heart of
the metropolis rendered the air impure, and poluted the
water of the Thames? There could be little doubt, he
thought, that such was the case. The Hon. Member for
Lewes said the market was originally intended for
a city of from 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants; but
now that the population had grown to two millions, accom-
modation of a different character, and a site capable of ex-
tension, were required. The Committee reported that one
of the great objections to Smithfield-market was, that
it was not accessible by rail. This was a matter of
great importance, and in framing an Act of Parliament
ought not to be lost sight of, because it was found that
animals were very much injured or deteriorated in value,
when they were brought to market by railway trucks instead
of being driven.— (Hear.) There was also another question
of very great importance which ought to be taken into con-
sideration, viz., having a large and ample area.—(Hear.)
It was quite clear that by the plan of the city of London,
Smithfield was not capable of sufficient extension, so as to
meet all the objections which had been urged against it on
the point of size. What they wanted was a space of be-
tween 50 and 100 acres. In consequence of the present
- crowded state of the market, and the long way the
. cattle had to be driven, bullocks lost in value between
Ws. and 205., and sheep 55., yet the owners of cattle
were so completely at the mercy of salesmen and butchers,
that they were eompelled to resort to Smithfield. He would
support the motion for referring the Bill to a Committee of the
House.— Hear.)
Mr. W. WILLIAMS was of opinion that the time had
come when a change ought to be made in the site of Smith-
field-market. According to his recollection the subject had
been in agitation for more than thirty years, and lie thought
when the question was now about to be finally settled,
. that this Bill, as well as the two other Bills should
be referred to a Select Committee.—(Hear.) He was not
prepared, however, to give his consent to the Government
Bill as it now stood, considering that it gave powers to a
Commission with regard to the selection of a site, the levying
of tolls, and the appointment of officers, which ought not to
he reposed in any body of men, especially as such vast
'interests would be entirely at their mercy.—( Hear.) If a
site were selected near HornseY or Highgate, all the cattle
from the southern counties would have to drive right through
the metropolis, and thereby occasion greater annoyance and
inconvenience than the inhabitants were at present subject
to. He would suggest that markets be established
on both sides of the river, and that they should be held on
. alternate days. He approved of the City Bill so far as it
. proposed to take the entire cost of the new market out of
the funds of the Corporation, but he thought that the best
eourse to pursue would be to refer all these Bills to a Select
Committee.
Mr. KEI SEYMER said he could offer no stronger
reason for sending the Bills to a Committee than the fact
that two Hon. Members who addressed the House did not
know on which Bill they were speaking.—(Hear.) He
hoped the assertions as to the want of reform in
the Corporaticn would not have the effect of
prejudging the question. He was himself inclined to think,
after divesting himself of all prejudice, that the City had
brought forward the best Bill.—(Hear.) No one was more
opposed than he was to continuing Smithfield-market in the
centre of the metropolis, but when he came to examine
into the question in detail he found that it was not
to be so summarily disposed of. He denied that the Times
Was correct in designating, as it had done that morning in a
leader, that the discussion was between the promoters of a
cattle-market as it ought to be, and the defenders of
the City market as it is. There was no provision
in the Government Bill as to preventing cattle being
driven through the streets. Now, as to the abolition
of private slaughter-houses, if the City plan were adopted,
the improvements which would be carried out under it would
get rid of some of the most disgusting and abominable collec-
tion of nuisances- which existed in the world.—(Hear.)
Sir .1. DUKE denied that the whole of the inhabitants
of Fleet-street were in favour of the Government Bill ; on the
contrary, the parochial authorities of that part of the
City had expressed to him their decided objection
to that measure. The nuisance of driving cattle
through the streets the City proposed to meet by
having a new market walled round, and preventing
any cattle being driven out of the gates after eight o'clock in
the morning. if the market was removed from its present
position the trade of many respectable gentlemen who had
carried on business there for more than half a century would
be entirely destroyed. One-third of the whole cattle
sold at Smithfield were driven over Blackfriars-bridge,
and if the market were removed to five or six miles
north of London, the evil of cattle traversing the streets
would be increased instead of diminished. Ile considered
that the system of establishing abattoirs, as proposed
by the Government, would have the effect of increasing the
price of meat. He was ready to agree to refer the
Bill to a Committee if the Members were not nominated by
the Government, but by the Select Committee of the House.
If such a Committee came to the conclusion that the City
plan did not remedy all the evils complained of, give ample
space, and prevent cruelty to animals, he, for one, would not
persist in supporting it.—(Hear.)
Mr. C. LEWIS entered into a statement of the steps which
had been taken by the House in regard to this subject, and
said the question now before them was, whether it was expe-
dient to perpetuate the market in the heart of the city, or ex-
pedient to remove it to a more convenient spot in the suburbs.
The Corporation of London had had an opportunity offered
• to them of taking the management of the new market, and
the Secretary of State for the Home Department had written
to them on the subject; but, after some consideration, they
had refused to have anything to do with it. On that refusal
the only proposition they could make was to appoint a special
commission on the subject, which would sit and report
to the House. With regard to the tolls the City proposed
to carry out this plan of theirs by imposing an additional
toll ; and to this fact he begged to direct the attention of
thee-4 who insisted that the proposal of Government would,
if carried into effect, raise the price of meat; but he thought
if any increase in price was likely to take place it would be
- the r-salt of a plan which laid an additional tax that must
be ultimately paid by the graz:ers. The question before
the Home, which he called upon the House to decide,
was whether it was expedient now for the first time to clear
away twelve acres of an intolerable grievance or whether
they would perpetuate it. He thought the House was the
best tribunal for deciding the question, and not a Select Com-
mittee. In conclusion he might state that Government had
ntainterest in this question as a Government; they had fixed
en no site, and had no preference for any one more than
another.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY said no one was more ready to
allow that Smithfield-market in its present state was an into-
lerable nuisance; that its limited area had often been the
scene of great cruelty to the animals brought there ; and he
would bethe last to ask for its perpetuity. In the new plan,
however, of the city of London, all these difficulties and ob-
jections would lae obviated ; there was space enough in the
new market to tie up twice as many animals as ever had yet
been brought. The driving of cattle through crowded places,
which had been so much complained of, would be removed,
and he thoughathat the public would have no more reason to
complain. With regard to the letter of the Secretary of State,
offering the Corporation the management of the new market,
the Corporation bad refused it, because they had felt them-
selves to be trustees of the properties of the citizens of the
metropolis in general. He wanted to know what was the
reason that Government could give for bringing in this Bill?
He asked them in what respect they had abused the privi-
leges which they had inherited. The Hon. Member for
Northamptonshire had stated that though as a grazier he
had sent cattle for 40 years to Smithfield, he had never in the
whole course of his expeaence known a single case of injury
to his cat. le. He thougn t that that assertion was emphatically
indicative of the state of the case. The members of the
Government might be intimately acquainted with all the
necessities of diplomatic relations, but it was altogether out
of their province to rump a great public market like this,
for they might just as well attempt to create a man by Act
of Parliament as to ensure the success of that market which
they now proposed. He would now call the attention of the
House to what the Corporation of London had done, and what
had been the result of their proceedings. They had, at an
expense of 200,0001., removed Fleet-market from the streets
of London, and had built a new market; but Farringdon-
market, as it was called, had never paid either dividend
or interest—(Hear, hear.) Then there was Billingsgate,
which unquestionably was overcrowded, and an attempt had
been made to supersede it by the establ shrnent of the
market at Hungerford, but that was precisely in the same
position. It had never paid a single dividend to the share-
holders, and he believed that it wa4 let to a company of
French speculators, with a view to supply the great number
of persons from abroad who were likely to be present in
London during the ensuing few months.—(Hear hear and
cries of " Divide.") He would next e fer to another
market which had been attempted at Islington.r An exten-
sive area had been laid out for the sae of cattle. It Was
opened and ccupied for the first six
.or seven months,. but
ever since that time it had be
en osed
turn tel —(Cries of "
Divide,
divide.") He would now
another subject which had
engaged mach of public attention° t was asserted that the
present Smithfield-market vsseasine.turious to public health.
,hey had prisons, hospitals,
h schools,
and yetand hae large
pwreopr akrheodu ts oe
in the immediate neighour
show, that during the late lamentable visitation of cholera no
in London had been more free from disease than Smith-
fiedplace
it was alleged that a cattle market in the centre of
Lolnd. on was likely_
to be prejudicial to the general welfare
by the existence of slaughter-houses, knackers'-houses, and
other similar establishments. Now it was the fact that
there were fewer of 3,..ch establishments in the neighbour-
hood of Smithfield than in any other part of the crowded dis-
tricts in London. It should be recollected that a revenue of
5,0004 a-year was derived from this market, and were the
Government or the House of Commons in this year of 1851 to
attempt to deprive them of those rights which they had
enjoyed for so many centuries? The Corporation had pro-
vided against the continuance of the nuisances of which com-
plaints had been made. The Corporation took powers, if the
Bill was granted, to obviate, in fact, every evil which could
possibly be suffered from the continuance of the market in
Smithfield. The lion. Alderman spoke amidst great inter-
ruption and continual cries of "Divide."
IitIME said that he would not be misled by the Hon.
Alderman. If the Corporation of London were able and
willing to do away with the nuisance, which plainly arose
from the existence of the cattle market in Smithfield, they
should have proceeded in a different
way. Let a full inquiry
be instituted, and let the whole ofthe sitestion be referred to
a Committee up stairs, not a Committee
a sufficient number of Members
of two or three,to ascertain all the particulars.
but of
This was a matter that affected the
a view to accomplish the object whole country, and w.
which he had just intimatedith
the Bill.
he should vote for the second reading
should vote
Mr. WAKLEY said that, although of
he was opposed to the
Bill in its present shape, he
afeits second reading,
with a hope that it would be referred toCommittee, in order
many attempts
to ruby at all the particulars. There had been
to rt Smithfield-market, for they had hada
the work.—.
members who had proposed their awn
Gewntolre
Plans, and now
private
ad Russell and Co.—(A laugh)—enitsged they
He remembered that the Hon.
(Hear, hear.)
the Uader-Secretary for the Home Department, Gentleman
seemed to have the principal care of the Govern-
ment fill, was once a poor-law commissioner, and
I hot whan in that office lie l'ad tried to discover upon how
little a poor man could Hear, hear, arid a laugh.)
He rather feared him no w, and was apprehensive that it
the cat!ie market was rmoved out of town, the price of
meat would be increased ; and that, in fact, they would have
a small quantity at a high rate, and he should, therefore, vote
for the second reading of the Bill, with a view to have the
whole affair investigated before a Committee.
Sir GEORGE GREY said that Hon. Members had spoken
as if the two Bills were intended to serve the same ob-
ject, whereas they were essentially different in character,
and led to very different termini. He thought the duty
ought not to be imposed upon a Select Committee of de-
ciding between two such opposite principles. The Hon.
aro& rik*A* osi t e had allowed that Smithfield in its pre-
• :4 an intolerable nuisance, and the Commission
tft
at no amount of enlargement could do
laf witir:th'e - nuisances; the course then was quite clear.
reikarjk that this wee not the first time that the

~.",