The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-16 00:00:00

ISLINGTON MARKET.

Petitions in favour of the Islington Market Bill were pre-
sented by Mr. Duncombo, from the Counties of Cambridge,
Oxford, &c. ; by Mr. Handley, from the County of Lincoln,
and Grantham ; by Colonel Owen, from Leicestershire; by
Mr. Wakley, from the parish of Islington, signed by 846
persons ; by Mr. Blamire, from Northwich ; by Mr. Clay,
from St. George's East ; by Mr. Wodehouse, from Norfolk ;
and by Mr. Williams, from Norwich.
Mr. GROTE presented a petition from the inhabitants of
the City of London in favour of the removal of the cattle
market at Smithfield to Islington.—( Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of CHANDOS presented petitions from the
farmers and graziers of various places in Buckinghamshire, in
support of the Islington Alarket Bill.
Lord SANDON brought up the report of the Committee
on the Liverpool Railway Bill.—Laid on the table.
Mr. DARE presented a petition from Colchester, and an-
other from Chelmsford, against the Islington Market Bill.
Mr. H ANDL Y moved the second reading of the said Bill.

Mr. FOTTE R said—he had spent three or four hours
that morning in Smithfield-market, and found that there was
a very strong feeling amongst the salesmen and buyers against
the removal of the market, and he confessed, that had he been
aware of that before, he should not have joined in the oppo-
sition to the Bill for the enlargement of Smithfield-market. On
examining the place, he saw no reason for the complaints
made against it, for there appeared to be plenty of room, and
for more cattle than were in it. If the market at Smithfield
were given up, and removed to Islington, the consequence would
'37: that markets would be required at the west end of the
town, and other points of the metropolis, especially after the
completion of the several rail-roads now in progress. He
should not oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he
should watch its course very narrowly.
Major II A NDL E Y said he had followed the Hon. Mem-
ber who had just spoken to Smithfield.--(Laughter.) From
the company in which he saw that Hon. Member in, he had
doubtless imbided those impressions which he had just endea-
voured to convey to the House. As to the capacity of the
market, the Hon. Member was not there at night, nor at
a proper time of the day, to judge of it. When he (Ma-
jor Handley) was there last, there were two thousand
head of cattle more than could be possibly accommodated,
and there was always a surplus stock waiting for turn in the
neighbouring inn-yards. He begged distinctly to state that
the Bill now introduced was not intended to cause the removal
of Smithfield Market, or to oppose the establishment of any
other markets at any future time. All he asked was, let the
Islington Market be established, and let the public judge
which was the most advantageous of the two.—( Hear.)
Mr. BL AM IR E thought the Hon. Member might take a
higher ground in advocating this measure. He himself bad
been particularly struck with the inconvenience and want of
arrangement which prevailed in the market at Smithfield.
He thought this question had not been rightly handled by the
parties who were opposed to each other upon it. It did
not appear to him that they had fairly examined the whole
merits of the case. He thought if the city retained Smithfield
Market, and the present Bill should pass, the result would be
most unfortunate to all concerned and injurious to the public.
He could not, consistently with his duty, impose upon the inha-
bitants of this City the responsibility of maintaining two mar-
kets. He knew of no place where markets were better regu-
lated than in Scotland, and he thought that the House in
deciding upon the merits of this question could not have a
better example before it. The system of consolidation was
well understood there, and if Hon. Members looked over the
list they would find that in Shires where 400 fairs were for-
merly held, now only 100 was held. He considered it impos-
sible to have the two markets--that of Smithfield and Islington
—established, if the interests of the producers and provision
merchants were at all to be consulted.

Mr. POTTER explained.
Mr. HEATHCOTE—The only difficulty to be obviated
was the consequences of removing the market from Smith-
fiald, and these were, that the duties would be transferred from
the superintendence of a corporation, and left at the discretion
of an individual.

Mr. WILK S—This Bill would not have the effect of re-
moving Smithfield market, as the Hon. Gentleman observed,
but would take away the disadvantages which was experienced
by the public from it, and afford them the scanty protection
which Islington held out.
Mr. HA L FORD, as the Representative of an immense
grazing district, considered the continuance of the market in
Smithfield as very desirable for purchasers ; whereas, if it
were removed, it would create a monopoly, that would be dis-
advantageous only to another class of traders. He made
these statements in order to show the House that the removal
of Smithfield market to Islington, which was in fact the chief
object of the Bill, was not in accordance with the general wish
of the graziers of the country.
Mr. WARBURTON denied that the effect of the Bill was
to compel either butchers or graziers to resort to Islington
market. As to the advantages or disadvantages of Smithfield,
nothing contained in this Bill rendered it compulsory to resort
to it. It was left voluntary on the part of the buyers and
sellers to frequent whatever market they chose.
The second reading of the Bill was then agreed to, without
a division.