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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 9.
SMITHFIELD ENLARGEMENT BILL
(Continued 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, and pointed the
water of the Thames? There could be little doubt, he
thought, that such was the case. The Hon. Member for
leeeees said the market was originally intended for
a city of from 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants; 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 eajeotions to Smithfield-market was, that
it was not accessible by rail. This was a matter of
great importance, and in framing an Act of Parliament
(Inept not to be 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-
tween 50 and 100 acres. In consequence of the present
crowded state of the market, and the long way the
cattle bad to be driven, bullocks lost in value between
its. and 205., and sheep 55., yet the owners of cattle
were so completely at the mercy of salesmen and butchers,
that they were eompelled 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 he thought
when the question was now about to be finally settled,
that this Bill, as well as the two other Bills
wallsss nothould
be referred to a Select Committee.—(Ei"r•) He
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 repssed in any body of men, especially as such vast
interests would be entirety at their mercy.—(Hear.) If a
site were selected near Hornsey or Highgate, all the cattle
from the southern counties would have to drive right through
the metropolis, and thereby occasion greater annoyance and
Inconvenience than the inhabitants were at present subject
He would suggest that • markets be established
()ton. both sides of the river, and that they should be held on
alternate days.
He 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
coarse to. pursue would be to refer all these Bills to a Select
Committee.
KER SEYMER said he could offer no stronger
reason for sending the Bills to a Committee than the fact
that two Hon. Members who addressed the House did not
know on 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 had
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 summarily disposed of.. He denied that the Times
was correct in designating, 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 oat 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 Fflet-street were in favour of the Government Bill ; on the
contrary, the parochial authorities of that part of the
City had expre-eed to him their decided objection
to that measure. The nuisance of driving cattle
through the streets the City proposed to meet by
having a new market walled rowed, 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 ceme to the conclusion that the City
pia i 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.)
Mr. 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 spat in the suburbs.
The Corporation of London had had an opportunity offered
to them of taking the 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 mimed to have anything to do with it. On that refusal
the only proposition they c )uld make was to appoint a special
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
tholi- who insisted that the proposal of Government would,
if carried into af,tot, raise the price of me it; but he thought
if any increase in price was likely to take pace it would be
the r suit of a plea which laid an additional tax that must
be ultimately mita by the grazier. The question before
the House, w hich he called upon the House to decide,
wax wnether it we; expedient now for the first time to clear
avrey twelve acres of an intolerable grievance or whether
they would perpetuate it. lie thought the House was the
best tribunat for deciding the question, and not a select Com-
mittee. In conclusion he might state that Government had
no iniere,t in this question as a Government; they had fixed
en no site, and had no preference for any one more than

anosle

Mr. Alderman SIDNEY said no oue 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
would 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 ke thought that the public would have no more reason to
complain. eV itli 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 cat _le. He thought that that assertion was emphatically
indicative of the state of the case. The members of the
Government might be intithately 'acquainted with all the
necessities of diplomatic relations, but it was altogether out
of their provinc ; to manage a great public market like this,
for they might just as welt attempt to create a man by Act
of Parliament as to ensure the success of that market which
they now proposed. He would now call the attention of the
House tie what the Corporation of London had done, and what
had been the result of their proceedings. They bad, at an
expense of 200,0001., removed Fleet ...market from the streets
of London, and had built a new market; but Farringdon-
market, as it was called, had never paid either dividend
or interest.—(Hear, hear.) Then there was Billingsgate,
which unquestionably was overcrowded, and an attempt had
been made to supersede it by the establishment of the
market at Ilungerford, 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 view the great number
, a to supply
of persons from abroad who were likely to be present in
London during the ensuing few m on ths Hear hear, and
cries of " Divide.") He would re.; (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 , ecupied for the first six or seven months, but
ever since that time it had b
divide.") He would now turneento closed.nol—r(Crles of "Divide,
engaged much of public attention.a Itt theweassualessjeecrttewdhtihcahthd
nresent Smithfield-market was injurious to public
they had prisons, hospitals, schools, an
in the immediate neighourhood, and yet
yet dlle was a large workhouse
show, that during the late lamentable '. prepared to
"imitation ox cholera no
place to London had been more free from disease than Smith-
field. It was alleged that a cattle i
market
n the centre of
London was likely to be prejudicial to the
existence of slaughter-houses, general welfare
by' the knackers'-houses, and
-
other similar establishments. ..-Now it was the fact th
there were fewer of sech establishments in the neighbouart
hood of Smithfield than in any other part of the crowded -
dis-
tricts in London. It should be recollected that a revenue derived from this market, of
5,0001. A-year was
Government or the House of Commons in this year of 1851 to
dttempt to deprive them of those rights which they had
enjoyed for so many centuries? The Corporation had pro-
vided against the continuance of the nuisances of which com-
plaints had been made. The Corporation took powers, if the
Bill Ivies granted, to obviate, in fact, every evil which could
ssibly be suffered from the continuance of the market in
Smithfield. The Hon.
Alderman spoke amidst great inter-
ruption and continual cries of "Divide."
Mr. FIUME said that he would not be misled by the Hon.
Alderman, r
T
'''' thP Corporation of London were able and
willing tq do away with the nuisance, which plainly arose
from the existence of the cattlemarket in Smithfield, they
... „ ey, gold have proceeded in aead'ff
different way. .
be instituted, and let thewhole be referred to
of the question
a Committee up Ettur4 not Committee of two or three, but of
a sufficient number of Members particulars.
This was a matter that affee to ascertain all the
with
a view to accomplish the object the
eewhole country, and
ich he had just intimated
he should vote for the second readingw
Mr. WAKLEY said that, although of
the
Bill.
Bill in its present shape, he should vot he was opposed to the
with a hope that it would be referred to
e for its second reading,
to come at all the particulars. Therehac*eommittee, in order
to subvert Smithfield-market, for they had
had several
attempts
lumbers who had proposed their own a
plans, several private
lad Russell and Co.—(A laugh plans'
iannd now they
(Hear, hear.) He remembered that the II the work.—
. Gentleman
the Under-Secretary for the Home on
Department,
seemed to have the principal care of the who
meat Pill, was once a poor-law commissioner, Govern-
meat -
rn;
that when in that office he had tried to discover upon how
little spoor man could subsist.—( Hear, hear, and a heal
He rather feared him now, and was apprehensive that if 1
the cattle market was removed out of town, the price of
meat wcul I be increased ; and that, in fact, they would have
a small quantity at a high rate, and he should, therefore,vote
for the mecoad reading of the Bill, with a view to have the
Whole affair investigated before a Committee.
Sir GEORGE GREY said that Hon. Memberi had spoken
as if the- two Bills were intended to serve the same ob-
ject, whereas tkey were •eseeetially different in character,
1 N telqd led to very different termini. He thought the duty
,'Qtikht not t i be imposed upon a Select Committee of de-
e ciding between two such opposite principles. The Hon.
AMcrinan opposite had allowed that Smithfield in its pre-
,
' aentlstate was an intolerable nuisance, and the Commiss:oa
-2. e ' lea4irep.orted that no amount of enlargement could do

'S

/ r

h,~ '`~
r~`

-
41."*,
,;,.,:i .-... .
~,N
..,,, fight remark that this Wall not the first time, that i the
1.4.1. :7
x a s

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-

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 is proposing another, and he hoped
it would be the last. This was a ques!ion beyond
humanity to animals, but one which conduced 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 do jiatice to the farmers and graziers of England,
and to rid them 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 bad 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
oat 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 he 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. ',poking 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 i
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 mady
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 bad 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 favuur
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 not 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?
Tne 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 had been given under it, would embraca 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.
it W. JOLIFFE said from his own knowledge an immense
number of cattle were driven over Blacktriars-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 tike 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 Hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had said. He
had understood the Right Hun. 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 site 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 bo
advisedly pursued was to defer this Bill till next year.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY arose amidst great opposition and
cries of ‘‘ Spoke, spoke."
Themotion for the second reading was then put, and
The House divided, when there appeared—
Fur the second reading ...
Noes .

••• ••• 230
... ..• 65

aority .. . —•
The Bill was acjcordingly. read a— second time.--165
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.e,entralisation to end ?—(Hear,
hear.) He objected to this vote, because it was tantamount
to a declaration that the Corporation of London was unfit to
manage its own affairs.—(Hear, hear.) He had always been
of an opinion,that the best site for a market was the centre
of the town, and looking at the improvements that the
Corporation had made and were prepariug to make in Smith-
field, ho thought it was most unjust for that House to inter-
with them.—(Hear, hear.) He had this consolation
ofthe Bill ' ' hieorlevever, that there was no chance
session.—(Hear.)
• n —(Hear.)
RUSSELL did not think the City would be much
J. Hon. Member for suggesting that its corpora-
de no such suggestion. He simply
Mr. HUME had
made
rather than pass this Bill it would
expressed en opinion,
toibciLni:srellitilodtbhee abolished. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
ntstaiktenwouthlde heahvaerbteeren
away
admitted
that from the Corporation altogether..
have been bhetatder, oGroavteranl lin
that the present market was exceedingly Lord JOHN RUSSELL said
had declined the offer
the public, and since the Corporation
of
Sir H.
NlynieLialtooupGrolivißdye asanie: it
wedasisgunlyiveinrscaolnlyveandi
eevnet
themselves.
ment had no alternative but to provide one
not a ques-
tiontion of
question
market elsewhere, Govern-
ment
of abolishing the Corporation,th oyuegthitthwiliaswaas
abolishing the property of the Corporation, and;he
the simple and expressive words of " a robbery" woulded
best convey the real character of this Bill. He hop
thought
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.
Dlr. STUART WORTLEY wished to know from the

SUN,

LONDON,

Speaker, if the Corporation of the City would have a right to
be heard by counsel before the Committee?
EThe SPEAKER said, if they petitioned against it they
would.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER was glad the House had pronounced
against the continuance of Smithfield markeL 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 convenient 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. JOLT,IFFE moved that the order of the 4th
of April, for the third reading 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.