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

enlargement of Smithfield-market had been mooted, for he
found that in 1803 the Board of Trade had refusel to agree to
a project for its enlargement on the ground that even then
it would be insufficient for the accommodation of the metro-
polis.

Mr. STAFFORD having personally visited the 1‘ hole
neighbourhood of Smithfield, and gone over almost every one
of the nuisances existing in and about it, now called upon
the House to support the present Bill, on the ground of self-
preservation, because if they passed the Government measure
they would leave all these nuisances untouched, and give
the City the opportunity of building over the small area,
which would then be left unoccupied. He thought, at
least, if they did pass the Government measure
they ought to take care to make such arrangements in Com-
mittee with the City as would obviate this objection. The
Noble Lord, he believed, was invited to dine with the Lord
Mayor this evening, and he wondered how it would be when
the Noble Lord rose to reply to the usual post-prandial com-
pliments. He must tell them that, though he had the
greatest respect for their generous hospitality, yet, as re-
garded their privileges connected with Smithfield-market,
those certainly he must deprive them of. He was surprised
at the intrepidity of the Right Honourable Gentleman the
Secretary of State is proposing another, and he hoped
it would be the last. This was a ques!ion beyond
humanity to animals, but one which conduced to the removal
of a plague-spot from the metropolis, which affected the souls
and lives of thousands of their fellow-creatures.
Mr. W. MILES thought that the speech of the Hon. Gen-
tleman was merely a prop to a falling cause he had appealed
to their humanity in favour of their fellow-creatures, and
entirely thrown away all consideration for the beasts. One
argument which would induce him to vote against this Bill
would be to do justice to the farmers and graziers of England,
and to rid them of the interposition of middlemen between
them and their customers.
OS OqußesNtEionsai, d this was not a butcher's question,
norM grazier'sar.B.but one which affected the supply of
meat to many thousands of individuals. He should support
the motion for referring the Bill to a Select Committee.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said the real question was,
whether the plan of the City, which the Government Com-
mission had admitted to be a great improvement, was
not deserving the consideration of the House. If
the Bill were rejected on the second reading, it
would preclude any improvement in Smithfield market this
year. The Government scheme would entail a large expense
on the country, while the Corporation were ready to carry
out the improvements of the market at their own cost, and
to sacrifice an income of 5,000/. a year to meet the expense.
Sir B. HALL considered this entirely a Corporation ques-
tion. It was only after the reports of sanitary commissioners
and a strong expression of public indignation against
the continuance of Smithfield-market, that the City
authorities ever thought of introducing the present
Bill. There was not one clause in the Bill to
compel the Corporation to carry out the plans they
proposed, and he was not disposed to give power to an irre-
sponsible body, who might use it to the injury rather than to
the benefit of the public.
Mr. MACKINNON opposed the Bill.
Mr. MASTERMAN supported the second reading of the
Bill. He considered that the Government measure would
create greater inconvenience to the public, and besides tend
to the destruction of private property.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he considered it his duty to op-
pose the second reading of the Bill. It had been correctly
stated that it would affect the interests of upwards of two
millions of people. He had not taken any hasty or
inconsiderate view of the question, because when
the Committee reported against the continuance
of Smithfield-market he said he thought the question was
a doubtful one, and deserved further inquiry. A commis-
sion was subsequently appointed to take the subject into
their consideration, and they arrived at the same conclusion;
and the question now before the House was not as to the merits
of competing Bills, but whether Smithfield-market should be
removed from a central part of the metropolis to some dis-
tant point in the suburbs.—(Hear, hear.) The Commission
mentioned several sites, but they did not venture to say
which was the best. L Poking at the great and increasing
population of the metropolis, it was impossible to find a site
within the limits of its boundary capable of being sufficiently
enlarged not only for the wants of the present day, but for
the next 50 years, without taking a large amount of valuable
property, the cost of which would have the effect of increas-
ing the toll charged at the market.—(Hear, bear.) It was

. _
quite evident that a market established in the reign of Edward
111., in the very heart of London, was unfit to meet the
necessities of our great population.—(Hear.) He considered
this a great public question. It was the duty of the House
to provide for the wants of upwards of two millions of
people ; before long that number would be increased
to three millions, and it was their duty to provide for the
improved health of the vast number of persons living
in so confined a space. There were besides other reasons
concerning the well-being of the metropolis which might be
alleged against the continuance of the market in its present
position ; and much as he regretted differing from many
members of the Corporation, he felt bound to oppose the
second rea

Mr. MOWATT objected to sending the Bill to a Com-
mittee, bacause he was opposed to any course which would
give the slightest acknowledgment that there was anything
to justify the continuance of the market in,the centre of the
metropolis. The existing market had been condemned not
only by public opinion, but by the decisions of every Com-
mittee which had sat on the subject since 1805.—(Divide )
Sir H. HALFORD explained that the farmers and
graziers of Leicestershire deprecated the removal of the
market to a suburban district, though they were in favour
of its enlargement and improvement.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ... ... 124
Against it
Majority ... —122
SMITHFIELD MARKET REMOVAL BILL.

Sir GEORGE GREY then moved the second reading of
this Bill, observing that it was the intention of Government
to refer it to the consideration of a Select Committee of nine
Members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
Mr. HLTME objected to the motion. It was too late to
refer this Bill to a Select Committee after the House had
rejected the other.

After a few words from Mr. C. LEWIS,
Alderman SIDNEY gave it as his opinion that this Bill
ought to be made a public measure. He begged to ask if
the Bill had not up to the present stage been conducted by
Parliamentary agents, and at the publie expense?
Sir GEORGE GREY was understood to reply in the af-
firmative.

Alderman SIDNEY thought that was contrary to all pre,
cadent.

Sir GEORGE GREY repeated that it was quite regular.
Mr. A. STAFFORD wished to know if Government were
prepared to take steps to keep Smithfield an open space, in
the event of the market being removed, by puichasing the
land?

Lord J. RUSSELL said the Government had certainly no
idea of purchasing the site.
Sir JAMES DUKE would not put the House to the
trouble of dividing, but in justice to the City both Bills ought
to have been referred to the Committee.

Mr. DUNCOMBE would be glad to know whether this
Bill was to be treated as a public or a private measure.
Sir GEORGE GREY said the Bill assumed the double
character of a public and a private Bill, which would have
to be considered both by a Select Committee and a Com-
mittee of the whole House.

The SPEAKER explained that when the Bill had been
disposed of by the Select Committee, it would be considered
in a Committee of the whole House, and thenceforward it
would become a private Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked if the opponents of the Bill,
who were the owners of the market, would have an oppor-
tunity of giving evidence before the Committee?
The SPEAKER said if the owners of the market petitiAned
against the Bill, their petition would be referred to the Select
Committee, and if the Committee thought fit the petitioners
would have an opportunity of proving their allegations.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE wished to know if the Bill, or the no-
. .

tices which had been given under it, would embrace a new
site for the market?

The SPEAKER not having seen the notices, could not
answer that question, but the Bill would have to be con-
fined strictly to the object which the notices embraced.
W. JOLIFTE said from his own knowledge an immense
number of cattle were driven over Blacktriars-bridge, and
therefore a sufficient accommodation was required on the
south side of the Thames. Ile wished to ask the Govern-
ment to answer the question as to whether any notice had been
given to the landowners in the southern counties respecting
the alteration which was now proposed?
Sir G. GREY said that notices were required in order to
take land by compulsion; but no such notices were required
to t eke land when it was to be done by voluntary agreement.
After a few words from Mr. DEE DES,
Mr. HENLEY wished to ask a question consequent upon
what the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had said. He
had understood the Right Hun. Gentleman to say, that no
notice was necessary when land was to be taken by private
agreement. Were the Government in a position to say
whether they knew of any site that might be taken by agree-
ment; and, if so, to state what that site was?
Sir G. GREY replied to Mr. Henley that the Government
were not pledged to any particular site, but that they would
take that or those sites which appeared most eligible for the
market. Due notice would of course be given to the landed
proprietors and their tenants.
In reply to Mr. BAILLIE,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that whatever site might be
selected it would be kept open.
Captain HARRIS begged to remind the Government that
the access from one part of the metropolis to another for
cattle was exceedingly difficult, and that some guarantee
should be given to the public that no inconvenience would
arise from the change. He thought that a better Bill should
be intro tuced, and this one altogether done away with.
Mr. S. WORTLEY would observe that by the charter of
the city of London no market could be established without
the consent of the Corporation within seven miles of Smithfield.
Mr. HUDSON said he regretted that they had re-
jected the previous Bill, and the only plan which could be
advisedly pursued was to defer this Bill till next year.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY arose amidst great opposition and
cries of " Spoke, spoke."
The motion for the second reading was then put, and
The House divided, when there appeared—
Fer the second reading ...
Noes .

... 230

Maority •••
The Bill was acjcordingly... read a•••• second time.
On our return to the gallery, we found
Mr. lILJME on his legs, declaring his opinion that the
course which the Governmgnt ought now to take was to
abolish the Corporation of London, for if there was one
thing more than another which was the duty of a corpo-
ration, it was the management of its own market.—(Hear.)
But the Government would not let them.— (Hear, hear.)
Where was this system of centralisation to end?—(Hear,
hear.) He objected to this vote, because it was tantamount
to a declaration that the Corporation of London was unfit to
manage its own affairs.—(Hear, hear.) He had always been
of an opinion.that the best site for a market was the centre
of the town, and looking at the improvements that the
Corporation bad made and were preparing to make in Smith-
field, he thought it 74:sar mostust for that House to ititer-
cnancewofsthedßaciilml passing this
with them. —(He hear.). He had
.this consolation,
f ere
no
ISSELL did not think the City would be much
Lord J.t(lhateatrhoere was
shesowsioenveL,
_ (Hear, hear, anct laughter.) tVn should be abolished.
obliged to Hthle lion. Member for suggesting that its corpora-
Mr. be .
: 4uat rather than pass this Bill it would
E had made no such suggestiton.. I-.le. simply
expressed an op:n.oup L. .
t taken the charter away
consistent had Gee ern men
have been better, or at all events it would have been more
from the Corporation altogether.. n
Lord JOIIN universally admitted
that the present market was exceedingly inconvenient to
the public, end since the Corporation had the offer
RUSSELL said it
of Government to provide a new market elsewhere, Govern-
ment
had no alterowive but to provide one themselves.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said, though this was not a ques-
tion of abolishing the Corporation, yet it was a question of
abolishing the property of the Corporatien, an cl;he thought
the simple and expressive words of " a robbery" would
best convey th© real character of this . Bill
• He hoped
therefore that if this Bill Passed clauses would be introduced
into it for compensating the Corporation for any loss they
might sustain from the removal of the market.
Der. STUART WOUTLEY wished to know from the

...--Iss