The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-19 00:00:00

iIPERIAL PA RLIAMENT.

(THIS DAI.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
tebe SPEAKER took the Chair at Ten Minutes past
ore.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
med. 6
Cam Navigation Bill was read a third time and
PETITION.
vv) 1r• CHRISTOPHER presented a petition from Lin-
'lt favour of the Lodging-house Bill.
TRANSPORT
OF IRISH PAUPERS TO
Col ENGLAND.
enel CHATTERTON asked the Secretary of
t,'"e p. for the Home Department if he had received any
'utounication from the Poor Law Commissioners re-
btieg the inquiry he promised he would direct them
htlaske as regards the treatment of certain paupers
1,/eYed by steam-packet from London to Cork; and,
41°, whether he had any objection to lay it on the
Of the House?
$:11' G. GREY said that an inquiry had been made on
s.:ubject, but the report presented was so defective
Ilbjechet. had sent back for further information on the
SMITHFIELD MARKET REMOVAL BILL.
()
? the motion for going into Committee on this Bill,
41! JAMES DUKE complained that since the Bill
been sent down from the Select Committee a sehe-
isoB had been attached to it increasing the tolls at least
Per cent., which he considered a most oppressive
kfrge• He should suggest that the schedule should be
ed back to the Select Committee.
41;G. GREY thought the time to discuss the
lyoeuiele was when the House was in Committee. He
tetld, however, object to have the schedule referred
s!t to the Select Committee.
tr JAMES DUKE then moved that the House re-
Pe itself into Committee this day six months.
4 any one read the evidence they would
that it was not strong enough to justifiy
° shutting up of a single shop. The decision
)%tthe Committee was carried only by a single casting
ika, and in fact, considering that one of the Committee
hit member of the Government, who it was
known was there for one purpose only, it was
tile'Y accounted for. He acknowledged that if
ittoY
.could not prevent cattle passing through the
to the day time they would deserve to have it shut
4 but the City bad offered to remove this. Ho hoped
i,l.llouse would reconsider its decision, for he was con-
4'ett that the Bill when carried out would lead to
:erous evils, other markets would spring up and a
of middle-men be created, and the public materially
itiered by the change. He believed this was the first
Otee in whio'l the Government had felt itself called
41,1 to advance public money to erect a market. Great
' had been felt as to the site of the new market,
th 4 as to who the future Commissioners were to be, but
Government had been obstinately silent on these ina-
w
I)°o`,,tant points. He thought the best course to be taken
41e1 be to withdraw the Bill, at least for the present,
; to allow the Corporation to amend the evils which
re Complained of.
jqrr. HUME thought that the Government were not
itel'aed in imposing the additional rates which
here complained of without allowing them to be con-
theted by the Committee. Until that had been done
wrocet3l3ill ought not to be ps
reserve of the Government
eded with. He also corn-
4itit?ed of the mysteriou
regard to the site of the market.
GREY still continued to think that the Corn-
mtt Cee of the whole House was the proper tribunal to
hilcust the schedule. As regarded the site he must re-
st his former declaration that the Government had
jbt Made the slightest approximation towards choosing
aeosight for the new market. With regard to the pre-
motion, he begged to remind the House that the
Jeet of the Bill had been fully discussed on a former
'ats ion.
thkr, A. STAFFORD complained of the introduction of
w 0 new schedule of tolls at the eleventh hour. This
w ts the main question of the Bill, and affected not only
the Government and the City on either hand, but every
Zs,sier who brought up a single sheep to the market,
aid the whole general public in the end.
,
CORNE
WALL LEWIS thought it would be more
tivenient to take the discussion on the separate
qa
uses when in Committee, and not to re-open the
;literal question on the motion for the Speaker leaving
11! Chair. It was not intended to pay the Commissioners
were to be appointed, neither would any grant of
rile money be asked for the erection of the market.
bring, however, withdraw the schedules now and
them forward again on the report; but he could
Zsure the House that in the aggregate they really con-
"ted no increase on the rates.
br. W. WILLIAMS entered a protest against the
4' en behalf of the Surrey side of the water. The
Itti/tise had no right to force the inhabitants of that dis-
trict to a market four miles beyond the north side of
1/4adon.
tctr,FREWEN had been given to understand that this
would not now be betore the House but for the
`'acing vote of the chairman of the Select Committee,
11141 under these circumstances, as the vast majority of
e Metropolis was opposed to the Bill, he should sup-
Pert the amendment.
kr. W. FATTEN hoped the House would consider,
Ow the Select Committee was nominated, before it al-
tfed itself to be influenced by the argument of the lion.
Member who had just sat down. It should be remem-
bered that at least a half of the Committee were op-
teksed to the Bill before it went before them; but the
tlusirman was a purely disinterested person, who took
oe interest in the Bill either one way or the other, and
:the whole he thought the Committee had arrived at
most impartial conclusion.
Olt RICE should support the amendment, because
" removal of the market would be a great inconveni-
Mee to the public.
air. Alderman SIDNEY trusted the House would
'glow him to say a few words on this motion, as the
resent was the only time that the Government Bill had
eo discussed in the House. The House ought to ob-
,itrvo a sense of justice in its judicial proceedings, and
Sfore they passed the Bill of pains and penalties they
teould wait to hear what arguments could
t? adduced against it. Pass the Bill, and it would be
;11tamount to telling the country that Government were
opinion that the citizens were unfit to manage their
own affairs; but he insisted that this Bill was an inter-
ference with the rights of the corporation which the con-
ll:titution did not sanction. The principle of centraliza-
tion, which the Government was endeavouring to carry
out in its domestic legislation, was highly objectionable;
kid as the Bill was intended to push that principle a
clap
further, he implored the House to reject it at once.
44 removing the market from the centre of the metropolis,
tts this Bill proposed, they would increase the nuisance
!t :Present complained of threefold, while it would
acid to the expenses of the metropolis, and as the Bill
Wts an act of the grossest injustice, under no circum-
stances ought it to be passed.
Mr. BURROUGHES went into the Committee on
NI Bill perfectly disinterested in the matter, and the
conclusion he came to was the result of a long and watch-
kJ investigation.
Mr. MASTERMAN, as one of the Members for the
city of London, felt it to be his bounden duty to oppose
the Bill. It unjustly interfered with the rights of his
Constituents, and to pass it would be doing a great
Wrong.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committee .•• ... 64
Against it ••• ••• ••• ••• 26
Majority
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
On clause 1 being proposed,
Sir J. DUKE called upon the Government to say now
and name in the Bill who were to be the Commissioners

to carry out the Bill.
Sir G. GREY said the Government had not fixed upon
Any Commissioners yet, and he hoped it would never be
necessary for them to do so, for he was not without some
expectation that the City would eventually undertake
the management of the Bill.
Alderman SIDNEY assured the Right Hon. Baronet
that the City would never undertake anything of the
sort. They would not consent to manage a market so
far off, in which they had no interest.
After a few remarks from Mr. A. STAFFORD and Mr.
ZonsTnn,
Mr. CARDWELL said the necessity for a Commission
could not arise for three years, and to name them now
Would be absurd, because they might die in the interval.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS repeated that the Bill would
Only extend the principle of centralization, which ap-
peared to be in so much favour with the Government.
After some observation from Mr. Bucu and Mr. P.
MILKS,
Mr.-V. SMITH could see no objection to naming the
Commissioners now, inasmuch as in the event of the
city of London not undertaking the administration of
the Bill within six months, the Government would be
bound to appointment.
Sir IL VERNEY said gentlemen could not be named
as Commissioners without being first consulted on the
subject, but ho fully anticipated that then ity would
ultimately see the expediency of taking up
the management of the market.
Sir JAMES DUKE said there was anothera reaso
than
why the Commissioners should be named now, dwas the Commissioners would have power to select the
site for the new market. Now their selection might be
highly objectionable, and he hoped they would be named
now, so that the public might have an opportunity of ap-
proving or disapproving of them.
Sir G. GREY was understood to intimate that the
selection of the site would be subject to the approval of
Government.
The House then divided on the question that the firs
douse stand part of the Bill, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it

-37

Majority •
The clause was accordingly screed to.
On clause 2,
Mr. A. STAFFORD wished to know, before they
proceeded fuether, where the site of the new market was
to be. He thought both the questions, as well as who
were to be the Commissioners, ought to be settled at
once. At all events, the power of the Commissioners to
select the site. should be confined to particular districts.
Mr. MACKINNON thought it would be highly in-
judicious to disclose where the site was to be, because it
would give rise teal l.sorts of speculations in the locality,
and increase the price of the land that might b© re-
quired for the market. He hoped, therefore, the time of
the Committee would be no longer taken up on this
subject.