The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-09 00:00:00

fourtir,,'; .3: Wan

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS DA Y.)

ROUSE OF COMMONS.
.The BrEALZia took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.
THIRD READINGS.
The following Bills were read a third time and passed:
Great Western Railway (Arrangements with reference
to the purchase. &c., of the Wilts, Somerset, and
Weymouth, Ste. Railways).
Stockton and Darlington, Wear Valley, and Middles-
brough and, Redcar Railway Companies eAmalgh-
mation (No. 2).
Uttoxeter to Stoke, near Stone, and from Millwich to
Sandon Turnpike Roads.
SMITHFIELD MARKET.
Petitions were presented in favour of the removal of
this market, by Sir E. N. Buxton, from South Essex;
by Mr. U. Drummond, from Dorking; by Mr. Henley,
from Oxfordshire; by the Dud of Arundel, from
Surrey ; by Mr. 'Steedford, from Reading ;
by Mr. Carter, from the Society for the Pre-
vention of Cruelty to Animals; by Sir George Grey,
shtned by 30,000 of 'the merchants and bankers of the
city of London; by, Mr. Christopher, from 500 graders
of the county of "Lincolnshire; also from Stamford and
.Boston.
Petitions we re also presrnted against the removal of
the market by Major Beretford, from Essex; by Mr.
i)eedes, fror-h Hampshire and Wiltshire; by Sir IL Hal-
f Id, from Leicestershire; by Lord Burghley, by Mr.
Stafford, from Northamptonshire; by Sir J. Duke, from
78,000 of the inhabitants of London.
ST. ALBAN'S ELECTION.
Mr. AGLIONBY moved that so much of the evi-
dence taken before the St. Alban's Election Committee
as constitutes the charge reported by the Committee,
upo'a which Henry Edwards has been committed to the
cwatody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, be laid before this!
• Fouse.
Sir G. CLERIC thought that the course proposed by
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was not the best that
could be taken in the matter. It would be quite suffi-
cient for th purpose if the short-hand writer were or-
dered to attend at the bar of the .House with his notes
Of the evidence.
Ater a short discussion the short-hand writer was
. ordered to be in attendance at the bar to-morrow at
five o'clock.
METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET BILL.
Mr. B. DENNISON withdrew this Bill, and in doing
so begged to deny the insinuation which bad been cir-
culatCd abroad, that the Great Northern Railway had
anything to do with this Bill.
SMITHFIELD ENLARGEMENT BILL.
On Sir JAMES DUKE rising to move the second
' reading of this Bill, a discussion ensued on a point of
order, which was ultimately settled by
The SPEAKER, who decided that, according to the
rules respecting notices given at the Private Bill-office,
the Hon. Baronet was quite in order; and
Sir JAMES DUKE then simply moved the second
reading of. the Bill.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER then said that as the second
reading of this Bill was persevered in. he should, with
~the permission of the House, recall the circumstances
under which this Bill was introduced. In the first
place, they would remember that this Bill had already
been submitted to a Select Committee, and that on the
evidence taken by it, the Government had decided on
bringing in a Bill for the removal of Smithfield-
market to another locality. Only two members of the
Corporation had ventured to oppose the introduction of
the Government Bill, and he therefore thought that he
was perfectly entitled to consider the two' Bills together.
--(Hear, hear.) What did the Corporation propose?
Why, nothing more than to keep the market in
its present central situation, only with an
enlargement. He was told by one of the
witnesses in the Committee that this enlargement would
be to the extent of about sixteen or eighteen acres, but
on going over the ground by a correct admeasurement it
was less than eight and a quarter acres, a space altoge-
ther below the necessities of the case. He was told
something about baths and washhouses, but what was
the benefit to be derived from them compared with the
disadvantages which would be incurred by the continu-
ance of the market? The alterations proposed could
only be effected by the expenditure of upwards of a
million of money.—(Heir, hear.)
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY begged to correct the Eon.
Member.—(Cries of Order!' and the Hon. Alderman
ultimately sat down.)
Mr. CHRISTOPHER resumed, and said that accord-
ing to the published estimates the money required would
be 1,043,0001. Now it should be recollected that a few,
and only a few, but more than he wished to see, of
foreign cattle came to Smithfield. Some, but not many,
came from Sussex and the southern counties of; England,
so that it became a paramount object that the cattle
sold in the market should not be driven, as they now were,
through the narrow streets and lanes of the City. If
this enlargement was made it was very evident that the
whole of the expense must come out of the pocket; of
the tarmerit and graziers of the counties north of London.
And even supposing that was not to be, yet still the mere
alteration of the market could not serve the object
which all admitted it was necessary to obtain. The Hon.
' Gentleman then read a resolution of the Select Committee,
in order to show their condemnation of the mere alteration
of the market, and the necessity for its removal. Now, ac-
cording to the best computation, on a full market day
net less than 7,000 head of cattle and 30,000 sheep
were crowded to ether on the inadequate space of a
little mere than six acres of ground. Jr. was, therefore,
manifestly impossible that the business could be properly
Carried on, and the consequence was, that farmer or
grazier was left entirely at the mercy of the butcher and
salesman; and he had heard that on one occasion as
many as 2,000 head of cattle had been driven aeay, be-
cause there ivas no room for them in the market.—
(Hear, hear.) But even should adequate space bo af-
forded, that would not remedy the other serious evil of
which both the farmers and the public bad to complain,
viz., the deterioration of the quality of the meat.—
. (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member then read some ex-
tracts from butchers before the Select Committee, to
prove thin point; and then went on to say that by the
system now pursued the cattle were depreciated in qua-
. ,lity to the extent of 1/. per head. With regard to the
agricultural districts, ho could only say that they had
been induced to support the removal of the mar-
: . ket .under an erroneous impression, but be hoped
the House would abolish the abominable nui-
settee and support the Bill of the Government.
He concluded by moving that the present Bill be read a
second time this day six months.
Mr. FITZROY said before he went into a considera-
tion of the advantages or disadvantages of the Bill, ho
should like to say a word or two upon the
sttbject of the claim which the Corporation
wet up to continue the market in their
own hands. Now, how stood the fact ? When the
market was originally established the whole population
• of London was almost comprised within the walls of
the City, but since then the population had been re-
duced to 120,000, and of those same 50,000 claimed the
prescriptive right of keeping the market with all
its attendant inconveniences within the City in opposi-
tion to the opinion of the majority.—(Hear, hear.) A
- second class of persons who opposed its removal besides
these was the market salesmen and money-takers; but
' he would first dispose of the City population before he
dealt with the salesmen.—(gear') Now great stress
had been laid by the Hon. Baronet the Member for the
• • ClitY upon a petition which he had recently presented
on this subject, and with the permission of the House
he would mention a few facts in connexion wish that
petition. Ile had a right to ascertain whether or no
alt the signatures to that petition were genuine.
wel, thee, besides those which had been attached to it
underl an erroneous impression of its prayer, he had
been given to understand, and the parties themselves
were ready to
that no less make an affidavit of the fact,
then sixty-one names had actually
been forged to the petition.—(Hear, hear.) Contrast,
on the other hand, that fact with the petition which had
been presented by the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary
of State for the Home Department, and they found that
whereas the one was unworthy of credit while the other
bore the names of every eminent house in the City,
and some 2,121 of the
Lion, Baronet's own ward.—(Hear.)inhabitants of the
He came now to
• the second class of people who object to the removal,
namely, the salesmen and stoney-takers. That their
individual interests would be injured by the re-
moval there could be no question, but the grounds
which they. urged against the removal were
unfounded in truth. They say it will not
injure them, but it will destroy the trade; but so far from
doing that, in his opinion it would considerably improve
and increase the trade of the metropolis.—
(Hear, hear.)
New with reference to the details of the Billit wassaid the
enlargement would be amplysufficientto accommodatethe
Public.- but he distinctly denied that it would, for
although one of the witnesses examined before the
Commission, Mr. Taylor, he believed, stated that
5'°450 beats was the maximum number ever re-
quired to be tied u in Senithfield-rnarket, he found
by the returns that on the 16th of December
lent there were
6,400 beasts actually turned and sold
out, besides some 30 000 odd sheep, so that if the enlarge-
ment went upon the and he was told it
did this, the understanding,
greater than
maximum would
never be
-
5,000, how could it be sufficient accommodate the
daily increasiog trade ofhe to e
tro
volts ?—(Hear.)
• , Then, agein, with respect to the loss which annually re-
, in suited foom the want of room
the market, that was
not a question which concerned but
the tradesman alone,
it was a question that materially concerned the general
public too. The annual loss from the deteriorationof the
boasts was estimated in round numbers
ateeh like
200,0001., and from that loss the public suffered severely,
besides getting sometimes very bad meat into the bar-
gain: gatn.—(ffear, hear.) But how was it proposed to carry
. out this extewion? Wby in this way :_three en-
• trences were to be placed near Victoria-street,
where only one would be required, lied one was to be
placed to the north of the market, where at least half-a-
do:en would be wanted. The plan, therefore,
was defective in the extreme, and since it was
only proposed .to promote tile interest of the retail
dealer in the neighbourhood of the present
market, where one house in every five
Was a tavern, he was quite confident the House would
not pass the Bill in opposition to the • expressed wishes of
—(fl
the vast body of the community. hear•
)
ear,
• Sir CHARLES KNIGIITLEY was at a loss to
know what his Honourable Friend who had just
spoken had to do with the question, for he
had never sent a single ex; or sheep to the
market in his life.—(Hear, and laughter.) Now, the
opinions which be had to give to the House on the sub-
, ject wore all founded on experience. For forty years he
had been in the habit of sending cattle to London. On

THE SUN,

tho average he had sent 100 in the course of the
season, and during that period he had never had a loss
or accident of any kind whatever.—(Hear, hear.) The
inhabitants ot4 Smithfield did not want the market re-

moved, they did not complain of its being a nuisance,
and he should be glad to know what business anybody
else had to interfere in the matter?—(A laugh.)
He was told that fine ladies were alarmed by the horned
beasts, and that nurses and children were continually
being run over.—(Hear, hear.) Why, how could that
be, when half the beasts were driven to and from the
market before these fine ladies could be out of
their beds, while, as for the nurses and children, they
had no business in the streets leading to Smithfield,
they ought to confine themselves to the squares and
retired parts of the town.—(A laugh.) The fact was, there
were some people who wanted to make their fortunes by
the removal, and that was the real secret of this opposition.
The question resolved itself into this-whether they
should sweep Smithfield market clein away out of the
town, and compel parties to drive cattle right through
the town from certain directions, in order to get to it?
He thought, himself, there was a great deal of mock
humanity connected with the present subject. He should
give his decided opposition to the present measure—
(Laughter)—he meant his support to the proposition of
the Ci,y authorities.—(Hear.)
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 bad to be driven, bullocks lost in value between
10s. and 205., and sheep 55., yet the owners of cattle
were so completely at the mercy of salesmen and butchers,
that they were compelled 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 he 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
be 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
course to pursue would be to refer all these Bills to a Select
Committee.
Mr. KER SEYMER said he could offer no stronger
reason for sending the Bills to a Committee than the tact
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 corporatienghwould 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 this 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 its 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 J. 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 expre,sed 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 Thad
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. He 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 ,q-embers were not noini', aced 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.-Z(Hear.)
21r. C. LE ‘VIS 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 iii the heart of the city, or ex-
pedient to remove it to a more convenient sp 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 any thing to do with it. On that refusal
the only proposition they could make was to appoint especial
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
those 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 ,sult of a plan which laid an additional tax that must
be ultimately paid by the graziers. The question before
the House, 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
no interest 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 intol-
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 be 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 thought:that 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 had 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
)lhrthamptonshire 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 experience known a single case of injury
to his cattle. He thought 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 manage 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 this
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 establishment 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 was 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 refer to another
market which had been attempted at Islington. An exten-
sive area had been laid out for the sale of cattle. It was
opened and cccupied for the first six or seven months, but
ever since that time it had been closed. —(Cries of "Divide,
divide.") He would now turn to another subject which had
engaged much of public attention. It was asserted that the
present Smithfield-market was injurious to public health.
they had prisons, hospitals, schools, and a large workhouse
in the immediate neighourhood, and yet he was prepared to
show, that during the late lamentable visitation of cholera no
place in London had been more free from disease than Smith-
field. It was alleged that a cattle market in the centre of
Londone etenewxiaslikeeely to be prejudicial to the general welfare
other similar by the existence
establishments. slaughter-houses,
of
No. knackers'-houses,
there were fewer of such establishw
melnttswians
theth h e
neighbour-
hood thatour
hood of Smithfield than in l
b
anye e
other part of the crowded dis-
tricts in London. It should
e t-yo e
deprive
ore
rpthe was
Houle derived
of
from this
oholnlsescted that a revenue of
minartkheist,asanrdo thenf-elBremto
attempt
Governments
rive them of those rights which they had
enjoyed for so many centuries? The Corporation had
I.pro-
vided against the continuancee of the nuisances of which com-
plaints
was granted,liadbee to obviate,nmade.Th in f
e Corporationaerysystosovkilh
powers,wich
if the
Bill could
possibly be suffered from the continuance of the market in
Smithfield. The Hon. Alderman spoke amidst great inter-
ruption, and continual cries of "Divide."
H UME 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 of the question be referred to
a Committee up stairs, not a Committee of two or three, but of
a suficient number of Members to ascertain all the particulars.
This was a matter that affected the whole country, and with
a view to accomplish the object which he had just intimated,
,
he should vote for the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. WAKLEY said that although he was opposed to the
Bill in its present shape, he should vote for its second reading,
with a hope that it would be referred to a Committee, in order
to come at all the particulars. Therehad been many attempts
to subvert Smithfield-market, for they had had several private
members who had proposed their own plans, and now they
had Russell ftlgl lAugh)—engaged iu the work.—

LONDON,

(Hear, hear.) He remembered that the Hon. Gentleman
the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, who
seemed to have the principal care of the Govern-
ment Bill, was once a poor-law commissioner, and
that when in that office he had tried to discover upon how
little a poor man could subsist.--(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
lie rather feared him now, and was apprehensive that it the
cattle market was removed out of town, that 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.
Alderman opposite had allowed that Smithfield in its pre-
sent state was an intolerable nuisance, and the Commission
had reported that no amount of enlargement could do
away with these nuisances ; the course then was quite clear.
He might remark that this was not the first time that the
enlargement of Smithfield-market kid been mooted, for he
found that in 1809 the Board of Trade had refused 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 whole
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 in proposing another, and he hoped
it would be the last. This was a question 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. .

Mr. B. OSBORNE said this was not a butcher's question,
nor a grazier's question, but one which affected the supply of
meat to many thousands of individuals. He should support
the motion fur 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. H
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 5,0001. 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. M.A.STERMAN 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 tie 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. L3oking 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, hear.) 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 *lumber 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 reading.
Mr. MOWATT objected to sending the Bill to a Com-
mittee, because lie 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. HAL FORD 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 o
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. HUME 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 public expense?
Sir GEORGE GREY was understood to reply in the af-
firmative.
Alderman SIDNEY thought that was contrary to all pre-
cedent.
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 purchasing 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 petitioned
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. JOLLIFF -. 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.
Mr. HENLEY said from his own knowledge an immense
number of cattle were driven over Blackfriars-bridge, and
therefore a sufficient accommodation was required on the
south side of the Thames. He wished to ask the Govern-
ment to answer the question as to whether any notice bad been
given to the landowners in the southern counties respecting
the alteration which was now proposed?
After a few words from Mr. DEE DES,
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 introiuced, 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—
For the second reading
Noes ... •-• •••
Majority .. •„
The Bill was accordingly read a second time.
On our return to the gallery, we found
Mr. HUME on his legs, declaring his opinion that the
course which the Government 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.) Ile objectal to this vote, because it was tantamount
to a deelaration 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 had made and were preparing to make in Smith-
field, he thought it was most unjust for that House to inter-
' fere with them.—(Hear, hear.) He had this consolation,
however, that there was no chance of the Bill passing this
session.—( Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL did not think the City would be much
obliged to the Hon. Member for suggesting that its corpora-
-1 tion should be abolished. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. HUME had made no such suggestion. He simply
expressed an opinion, that rather than pass this Bill it would
have been better, or at all events it would have been more
consistent, had Government taken the charter away
from the corporation altogether.
Lord JOAN RUSSELL eaicl it vote uelyereally admitted

... ..• 230
... 65
...---1,5