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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT•

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 9.
SMITHFIELD ENLARGEMENT BILL.
(Continuei from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Sir H 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, an
li d
tle pointed the
he
water of the Thames? There could be t doubt,
thought, that each was the case. The Hon. Member for
Lewes said the market as originall . intended for
a city of from 50,000 to 100,000 inyhabtants; 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
if was not accessible by rail. This was a matter of
great importance, and in framing an Act of Parliament
ought not to he 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-
tweea 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
its. and eos., and sheep 55., yet the owners of cattle
were so completely at the mercy of salesmen and butchers,
that they were eornpelled 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 13i11, as well as the two other Bills should
be referred to a Select Committee.—(Hear.) lie 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 to all the cattle
from the southern counties would have to drive right through
the metropolis, and thereby occasion greater annoyance and
oed
inconvenience than the inhabitants were itt present subject
to. • He would suggest
tandt t h amt art
hkeeyts shoulde be held hen
on both sides of the river,
alternate days. lie 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
lomnaittee.
Mr. IgER SEYMER said he could offer no stronger
eaisonfor sending the Bills to a Committee than the tact
',ammo lion. Members who addressed the House did not
knoe, en which Bill they were speaking—(Hear.) He
hoped the assertions as to the want of reform in
the Corporation would not have the effect of
prejudging the question. He was himself inclined to think,
after divesting himself of all prejudice, that the City hal
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 summagily disposed of. He denied that the Times
was correct int esignating, 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 J. DUKE denied that the whole of the inhabitants
of Fleet-street were in favour of the Government Bill; on the
coatrery, the parochial authorities of that part of the
City had expressed to him their decided objection
tot that measure. The nuisance of driving cattle
through the streets the City proposed to meet by
haying 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. 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 Members were not nominated by
the Government, but by the Select Committee of the House.
If such a Committee come to the conclusion that the City
pia s 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.)
Mi. 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 tele 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 retursed to have anything 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
that who insisted that the proposal of Government would,
if carried into effect, raise the price of inset; but he thought
if any increase in price was likely to take place it would be
the r sue; of a plan which laid an additional tax that must
be ultimately paid by the graziers. The question before
the House, which lie called upon the house to decide,
was whether it was expedient now for the first time to clear
away twelve acres of au intolerable grievance or whether
they would perpetuate it. lie thought the House was the
beet tribune. for deciding the queetion, 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 into-
lerable nuisance; that its limited area had often been the
scene of great cruelty to the animals brought there ; and he
welled be the 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 inure 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
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 experience known a single case of injury
to his eat: le. 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
neceseitiee of diplomatic relations, but it was altogether out
of their province to manage a great public market like this,
for they might jion es well attempt to create a man by Act
of Parliament as to ensure the success of that market which
they now Froponed. 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 200,000/., removed Fleet-market from the streets
of London, and had built a new market; but Farringdon-
market, an it was called, had never paid either dividend
or interest.—(Bear, hear.) Thee 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 persona from abroad who were likely to be present in
Louden 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 t ccupied 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 Sile)irtishofines, hospitals, Smithfield-market was injurious to public health.
They had 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
London 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 thett
there were fewer of sich 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
5,000/. a-year was derived from this market, and were the
Government or rive them
of_Commons in this year of 1851 to
any centuries? The Corporation had
attempt to deprive them of those_rights which they had
enjoyed for so many
pro-
vided against the continuance ofg the nuisances of which com-
plaints fact, every evil which could
paints had been made. The Corporation took powers, if the
Bill was granted, to obviate,
possibly be suffered from the continuance of the market in
Smithfield. The Hon. Alderman spoke amidst great inter-
ruption 'Sind continual cries of "Divide."
Mr. MIME said that he would not be misled by the lion.
A anlderm
• • If the Corporation of London were able and
willing to do awn wit the nuistance, which plainly arose
in Smithfield, they
from the existence of the cattle meek"
should have proceeded in a different 'way' Let a full inquiry
,lie instituted, and let the whole of the question be referred to
a Comunittee up stairs, not a Committee of two or three, but of
a sufficient number of Members to as certain all the particulars.
This was a matter that affected the whole country, and with
a view to tecomplish the object which he had just intimated
he should vote for the second reading of the Bill.
' Mr. WA.K.LEY said that, although he was opposed to the
present shape,
Bill in its pre he should vote- second reading,
for its secc
• with a hope that it would be referredorder
to a Committee, in 5
to come at all the particulars. Thereha
to subvert Smithfield-market, for they : been many attempts
to had several private
members who had proposed their owe
r. ad Russell and Co.—(A laugh)—engaged in
and now they
( Hear, hear.) He remembered that theg _on the work.—
' the Under-Secretary for the Home Hon. Gentleman
Department, who
seemed to have the principal care of the Govern-
ment Pill, was once a poor-law commissioner, and
hat when in that office he had tried to discover
subsist. Hear, hear, upon how
little a poor man could albs' ( , and a laugh.)
lie rather feared him now, and was apprehensive that if
the cattle market was removed 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, tberefore,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 Coliimittee of de-
gelding between two such opposite principles. The Hon.
e'Aiderman oppOsite had allowed that Smithfield in its pre-
• *nt state was ea intolerable nuisance, and the Commission
reported* that no amount of enlargement could do
'Way with these nuisances; the course then wag quite-clear.
-e 'Rik alight remark that this was not the first time that the