The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-25 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 24.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
SMITHFIELD MARKET REMOVAL BILL.
On the motion for the third reading,
Mr. STAFFORD protested against the Bill, but inti-
mated that it was not his intention to divide the House
on the motion for the third reading. He hoped the Bill
would meet with a different fate in another place.
Mr. HUME thought the House had proceeded in a
rash and inconsiderate manner, in agreeing to this Bill,
which in his opinion stigmatized and disgraced the first
municipal corporation in the country. He moved that
the Bill be read a third time this day six months.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS rose to second the amendment,
believing that his constituents would be very seriously
injured by this Bill.
Sir G. GREY defended the Bill, and called upon the
House to adhere to his former decisions on this Bill,
and read it a third time. There was no desire to exclude
the city of London from the management of the new
market; but, on the contrary, he yet entertained hopes
that eventually the Corporation would be induced to un-
dertake its entire control.
Sir JAMES DUKE repeated that the City was dis-
posed to make the existing market almost a free market,
besides considerably increasing its size and improving its
details, and he therefore could not help feeling that there
was no necessity for this. He insisted that the Govern-
ment ought to give the House some idea of the number
of acres that would be required for the new market if
they were not prepared to name where its site would be.
Again, he protested against the Bill, and trusted it
would be thrown out elsewhere.

Mr. CARDWELL supported the Bill. Ho denied

that the Select Committee who considered the
matter had not done ample justice to the City.
They gave the Corporation a fair hearing, and
he ventured to assert that when the public came
to look fairly at the question they would agree that the
Committee had arrived at a just conclusion.
Sir H. VERNEY contended that Smithfield was a

great nuisance, and its removal was imperatively de-
manded by the wants and wishes of the public.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE thought it'was for the advantage of
the public that the market should be in the centre of the
metropolis, rather than five miles to the north. It was
not strictly correct to say that the city of London was
fairly treated either by the Bill or the Government,
because how could they undertake the management of
a market which they knew nothing of?
Then House then divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading 81
,Against it
Majority ... —49
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
CHURCH BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. HUME asked what the object of the measure was.
Sir G. GREY said the Bill proposed to facilitate the
erection of churches in populous districts, and make pro-
vision for their endowment by the sale of pew rents.
Mr. HUME complained that there was one clause in
the Bill which would have the effect of preventing parties
from building churches unless they allowed the bishop
of the diocese to nominate the clergyman. The Bishop
of London and others of • his class made a great
noise about the spiritual destitution of parti-
cular districts, and yet they promoted Bills of this
description, which were little better than a robbery on
the public and the poor. It would have the effect of
taking away one•half of the free seats in all churches
that have been built by voluntary contribution.
Sir GEORGE GREY said he should have no objec-
.

tion to take that clause out.
Mr. HTIME was glad of it, but even that would not
remove his objection to the Bill; and it appeared to him
to be a measure that ought to be referred to the consi-
deration of a Select Committee. This mode of legisla-
tion, in defiance of the wishes and wants of the poor,
would before long lead to the destruction of the Esta-
blished Church, and he should propose that it be read a
second time this day six months.
Sir B. HALL said the clause in the Bill for
the sub-divibion of populous parishes was a good
one, but the Bill went considerably beyond that, and the
House should pause before they reed it a second time.
This was not the first occasion in which a Bill of this
nature had been introduced; for in a former session a
similar Bill was brought in, which would have had the
effect, had it passed, of considerably increasing church
rates, and this Bill was like that, the Bill of the Bishop
of London. Its real object was to tax the free seats of
existing churches. His Hon. Friend the Member for
Montrose had truly stated that no private individual was
SUOMI to 000 0 *WA VIULIMI OCicsigin it, 444 the
- -