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

MAJORITY-NOES, 138.

Abdy, Sir ThOmas Greenall, G. Peto, Samuel
Acland, Sir T. D. Grenfell, C. Pascoe Pilkingten, James
Adair, R. Shafto Grey, Sir G. Pinney, William
Aglionby, li. Grey, Ralph W. Ricardo, Osman
Ashley, Lord Grosvenor, Lord R. Rice, E. R.
Baines, M. T. Hallyburton, Lord Robartes, T. J. A.
Baring, Sir F. Hanmer, Sir J. Romilly, Colonel
Bass, M. T. Hardcastle, J. A. Romilly, Sir John
Bellew, R. M. Hastie, Alexander Russell, Lord J.
Berkeley, Admiral Hastie, Archibald Russell, E.
Berkeley, C. L. Hatchell, John Russell, F. C. H.
Bernal, Ralph Hawes, Benj. Scholefleld, W.
Blackstone, W. Heald, James
Seymour,So Lord
Boyle, Colons.Heathcoat, John D.
Bright, John Henry, Alexander Sheridan, R. B.
Brocklehurst, John Hepworth, Lawrence Slaney, R.:A.,,;
Brockman, E. D. Hinciley,Charles Smith, J. A.
Brotherton, Joseph Hobhouse, T. B. Smollett, A.
Brown, H. Hodges, T. L. Somers, J. P.
Caulfeild, J. M. Howard, E. G. Somerville, Sir W.
Cavendish, C. C. Hutchins, E. J. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Cavendish, G.H. Jackson, William Spearman, H. J.
Cavendish, W. 0 Kershaw, James Stanton, W. S.
Childers, J. W. King, P. J. Stuart, Lord J.
Clay, James Labouchere, Henry Tancred, H. W.
Clerk, Sir G. Lewis, G. C. Thicknesse, R. A.
Cockburn, Sir A. Littleton, E. R. Thompson, Colonel
Collins, William Locke, Joseph Tollemache, F. J.
Cowper, W. F. Mackie, John Townsheud, Captain
Craig, Sir W. G. M`Gregor, John Traill, George
Deedes, W. M'Neill, Duncan Trelawny, J. S.
Denison, J. E. Marshall, William Vesey, Thomas
Douglas, Sir C. Matheson, Colonel Villiers, Viscount
Drummond, Home Morris, David Watkins, Colonel
Duncan, Lord Mostyn, E. Westhead, J. B.
Duneutt, John Mowatt, Francis Willcox, Brodie
Dundas, Sir D. Mulgravo, Earl Williams, John
Ellice, IL., jun. Norreys, Lord Williamson, Sir H.
Ellis, John Ogle, S. C. Wilson, James
Evans, William Oswald, Alexander Wilson, Matthew
Foley, J. H. Owen, Sir John Wood, Sir Charles
Fordyce, A. D. Paget, Lord A. Wood, W. P.
Forster, Matthew Paget, Lord Clarence Wortley, J._S.
Fertescue, Chichester Palmer, Roundel' Wyvill, M.
Freestun, Colonel Palmerston, Vis. TELL/70.
Glyn, G. C. Parker, John Hayter, W. G.
Goulburn, Henry Perfect, R. Hill, Lord M.

ANALYSIS OF THE DIVISION ON MR. lIERRIES'
MOTION.
Majority (tellers included)—
Liberals ...
Conservatives

- 280

Minority (tellers inclAded)—
Conservatives
Liberals ...

... ... 197
f •• ••• •
15

-- 232

Absent—
Liberals (including pairs) ...
Conservatives (including pairs)
Seats vacant—
Aylesbury, Coventry, Enniskillen, Leith, Lon-
don, Longford, Somerset (West) ... ..
Speaker ... ~. ...
...
...
...

••• ••• 70
•• ••• C 6

4.1110.•
656

Sir W. Molesworth paired off with Mr. Whitmore against
Mr. Harries' amendment.
Mr. Traill, M.P. for Caithness, paired against Mr. Ilerries'
amendment with Mr. Thornhill, M.P. for the county of
Huntingdon.

SMITHFIELD MARKET.
(From the Morning Advertiser.)
We must own that we feel somewhat surprised that the
nhabitants of the metropolis should regard with so much
seeming indifference the Bill now before Parliament, for
erecting a new cattle-market in the neighbourhood of Horn-
sey,—which is intended to supplant the cattle-market which
has stood for so many centuries in Smithfield. We can only
account for this indifference, on one of two suppositions,—
'either that the population of London have no definite notions
as to how far they will be affected by the contemplatod
transfer of the metropolitan cattle-market to llornsey, or
that they are making sure the measure will never receive the
sanction of the Legislature.
With regard to the latter assumption, has i never oc-
curred to the inhabitants of London that their inactivity
and seeming indifference are more adapted than anything
else that could be imagined, to bring about the very result
which we know they would deprecate did they suppose it to
be probable? Will not the very fact, that they are so silent
and inactive on the subject, be pleaded as a reason why the
Bill promoted by a parcel of private speculators should be
passed? If that measure is to be opposed in Parliament
with any chance of success it is clear that the inhabitants of
London must raise their voices to the loudest pitch in oppo-
sition to it. It is right they should know that unless they
adopt, without delay, some energetic measures to oppose the
Bill, there is too much ground to apprehend that it may re-
ceive the sanction of Parliament.
There are, we know, some persons who think that any ac-
tive efforts, on the part of the metropolitan public, to oppose
the Bill for a cattle-market at Hornsey, are unnecessary,
because Sir George Grey, speaking in the name of his col-
leagues, has intimated that it is the intention of Government
to oppose the Bill. No doubt the Home Secretary meant
what he said. But then it is to be remembered, that Go-
vernments, as well as individuals, sometimes change their
opinions. And even when Ministers do not change their
minds, they are sometimes themselves made the subjects of
change. The Whig Ministry can speak feelingly, because
experimentally, on the subject. They know what it is
to be out of office as well as in office. They were out a few
weeks ago, and the odds are that they will he out again be-
fore many more weeks have elapsed. To rely, therefore,
on the opposition of Government to the llornsey Cattle-
market Bill, for its rejection, would be to rest on a broken
reed. Besides, even were it certain that they will remain
in office for a little while longer, and that they were to op.
pose the measure with all their might, what certainty, we
should like to know, have we, that their opposition would be
successful ? They are no strangers to minorities. That is
a destiny to which they have
_been a good deal accustomed
of late. They are getting so much used to it, that it must
by this time come to them as a matter of course.
If the measure is to be successfully opposed, it can only be
by the population of London adopting some energetic mea-
sures, with the view of knocking it on the head before the
private adventurers who have got up the project, proceed
farther with it.
We rather suspect that the metropolitan population have
not any very distinct idea as to the way in which they will
be affected by the measure. It is doubtful, indeed, whether
the mass of the population have any idea that they will be,
in any way, affected by it. We are disposed to ascribe thetif
indifference to it, to the assumption that it is of no iinpotre
ance to them. It is only because they are ignorant of
h
provisions of the measure, that they could have come to
this
conclusion. Is it nothing to them, that the tolls on cattle
are to be raised from twopence to eightpence per head, and
those on sheep in the same proportion ? Surely, no
one who
is cognizant of this provision of the Bill, can be simple enough
to suppose that the increased tollage will fall on any other
party than the consumer. They will have to pay, in the
shape of an increased tax on all their butcher's meat, the
enormous sum meant to be expended on this new cattle
market—this huge site for the sale of living and dead beasts,
with which it is meant to deform one of the most beautiful
spots in the neighbourhood of London.
We have never hesitated to acknowledge and lament the
evils which have been so long associated with Smithfield
Market. And were the choice to lie between the retention
of the metropolitan cattle market on its present site, and its
transfer to Hornsey, we should not hesitate in saying—let it,
by all means, be transferred to Hornsey, or to any other place
in the neighbourhood of London. But that alternative is
not placed before us. The question does not lie between
Smithfield Market and its enormous evils, and the erection
of a new market at Hornsey. Smithfield Market is suscep-
tible of great improvements. And, wkat is more, the Corpo-
ration are ready and willing to make such improvements as
may be necessary to obviate the objections usually urged
against it. Their plans are before the public. They are so
comprehensive, that most, if net all, the objections which
may be made to the present metropolitan market will be ob-
viated in the apprehension of every person of unprejudiced
mind.
Still we deem it right to express our conviction that the
plans of the corporation for very greatly enlarging the area
of Smithfield, and making such erections in connexion with
the market, as may obviate existing evils, are, though good,
not all that they might be. They are susceptible of great
improvement. A still wider area might be embraced. We
pointed out, in our paper of Thursday last, how this might
be done. If the space proposed to be devoted to lodging-
houses and baths were to be appropriated to the new
market, the latter would be made one-half larger than is
at present intended. This would be an immense addi-
tional improvement. It would remove every conceivable e-
jection to the metropolitan cattle market being continura
where it is. And what is to prevent this improveng3Lo
What is to hinder the adoption of our "g" bates
It is not too late. As we remarked last
'vein their
and lodging-houses are excellent
way. We can say this the more freely,
because
as our own.
ins
no journal
has devoted so much space to their advocacyusesand baths. As
But other sites can be had for lodging-houses
a sufficiently en_
compared with the importance of ha
larged area for the metropolitan cattlevi:ngarker, they are un-
worthy a moment's consideration.
corporation, in the
We throw out thew hints to the hope
weightiest objections to the
that as they have done so well to remove, their contem-
ma do still better, by so
plated new market, many of
they
site remaining where it is, oncil3er to the
improving their plans as toaKec.
those
retention of the
cattle market where it is, littl_ who are not personally
interested in the success of the Hornsey speculation.
Since the above was in type, we have received a communi-
cation, which we elsewhere insert, consisting of a declaration,
signed by 7,363 citizen electors of London, and which has
been forwarded to I,9rd Mau Ti wen And the ether city
re.