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

SUN,

THE

enlargement of Smithfield-market had 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 be hoped
it would be the last. This was a question beyond
humanity to animals, but one which cond. uced 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 ahem to the farmers and graziere of England,
and to rid 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 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 5,0001. 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. 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 be 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. Loking 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 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 reading.
Mr. MOWATT objected to sending the Bill to a Com-
mittee, because 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. 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 nut 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. JOLLIFFE wished to know if the Bill, or the no-
tices which bad 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.
esit W.JOLIFFE 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 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 tale 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 llon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had said. He
had understood the Right Hon. 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 cite 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 introduced, 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 „,
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,
htoeaar
.leelaireat°i
objected to ttonethisvote,
Corporationbecause it
London
tantamount
mofaannagoep
!nal opinion that atihr, se. best of was unfit to
(Hseiater,folireaar.laHrkeethawdaaslwthaeyseebneterne
at the improvements that the
Cofortphoerattoiwonn'haadrima aldoeokanindgwereprep.orringnato make in Smith-
field,no chance
had he thought it was most unjust ttllliosuse to inter-
nee of the Bill passing this
consolation,
hteorlevewveirth,
thtrith.
session.—(Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL did not think the City would be much
obliged to the Hon. Member for suggesting that its corpora-
tion should be abolished. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. HUME had made no such suggestion. He simply
expressed on opinion, that rather than pass this Bill it would
have been better, or at all events
consistent had Government taken the charter away
from the Corporation altogether.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was universally admitted
that the present market was exceedingly inconvenient to
the public,. and since the Corporation had declined the offer
'of Government to provide a new market elsewhere, Govern-
ment had no alternative but to provide one themselves.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said, though this was not a ques-
tion of abolishingr
the Corporation, yet it was a qutstion of
abolishing the property of the Corporation, and;he thought
the simple and -expressive words of " a robbery" would
best convey the 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--
Mr. STUART WORTLEY wished to know from the

230

... 65
...-165

Speaker, if the Corporation of the City would have a right to
be heard by counsel before the Committee?
rg The SPEAKER said, if they petitioned against it they
would.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER was glad the House had pronounced
against the continuance of Smithfield-market. It was a
public nuisance, and as the Corporation had refused to re-
move it, Government was bound to do it for them. The
public must and would have a more convenient market.
Sir JAMES DUKE did not object to the public having a
more c-Invenient market, but what he and the Corporation
did object to was, that the Government wanted to shut up
their ancient market in defiance of right and justice.
If the public wanted another market, and the Government
was disposed to find it for them, all well and good, but
don't let the Government at the same time attempt forcibly
to close Smithfield.

Mr. A. STAFFORD was quite convinced this Bill would
not be passed by the Upper House, and the consequence
would be that Smithfield would have to remain in its pre-
sent inconvenient state for another twelvemonths. How
much better it would have beeen had the House passed the
Corporation Bill, and allowed the present market to be con-
siderably enlarged and improved without a moment's delay.
Alderman SIDNEY renewed his application to Govern-
ment to make the Bill a public measure, and let the whole
House decide upon it.
Sir G. GREY said the forms of the House would not allow
them to pursue that course.
The Bill was then ordered to be committed, and a resolu-

tion passed directing the Committee of Selection to nominate
nine Members to sit on the Committee.
STROUD AND GLOUCESTER TURNPIKE•ROAD

BILL.

Sir W. JOLLIFFE moved that the order of the 4th
of April, for the third reacting of the Stroud and Glou-
cester Turnpike-road Bill, be read and discharged, and
that the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee.
Agreed to.
ST. ALBAN'S ELECTION.
Mr. E. ELLICE said he was directed by the St
Alban's Election Committee to apply to the House for
leave to adjourn until twelve o'clock on Monday next.
Agreed to.
RELIGIOUS HOUSES BILL.
On the order of the day being read for the second
reading of this Bill,
Mr. LACY moved that it b 3 postponed until the
30th of April.
Mr. GRATTAN hoped the House would treat the
Bill with the contempt it deserved, and kick it over the
bar. It was an insult to all Roman Catholics.
Mr. REYNOLDS suggested, if the Hon. Member was
in earnest in proceeding with the Bill, that he should post-
pone it until a further period, in order to enable Irish
Members to be present. The Bill was an insult to all
Roman Catholic ladies who occupied these religious houses.
Mr. LACY was perfectly in earnest in bringing
forward the Bill, and should proceed with it as long as he
lived and the House gave him power to do so.
Mr. O'FLAHERTY said he was anxious that the Bill
should be discussed in the House, because he considered that
it was a foul libel on religions houses, and that discussion
would place them in a true light before the public.
The order of the day, after some further discussion, was
then postponed until the 14th of May.
EXPENSES PROSECUTIONS BILL.
The amendments to this Bill were considered, and agreed to.
COMPOUND HOUSEHOLDERS BILL.
The amendments to this Bill were considered and egeed to,