§ On the motion of sir C. Price, for the second reading of the Smithfield Market Bill,
Mr. Alderman Combsobjected to the further progress of the bill, as tending materially to injure many, who had for a long time resided were the market now stands. It was rather singular, that all those who lived where the present market was held wished it to continue there, and all who lived where it was intended to remove it to, objected to such removal. With these sentiments he would move that the second reading of the Bill should be deferred to this day six months.
§ Mr. H. Martinseconded the amendment. If this bill, he said were to pass into a law, the greatest inconveniences would arise from driving cattle through the streets leading to the projected market. Many individuals in the neighbourhood of the ground chosen for this purpose, would also suffer severely, by being in a great measure prevented from letting their houses. He knew of one individual, a Mrs. Doughty, possessed of upwards of one hundred and forty houses in that quarter, the loss to whom would be immense, some thousands, were the proposed measure carried into execution. He said it was absolutely impossible for them to find out any better spot than the present scite.
Mr. Rosesaid that the present market had been found much too confined to answer the purposes for which it had been originally intended. In former years, one hundred thousand head of cattle was generally the utmost which had been sent to it; but latterly this number was increased to more than one hundred and fifty thousand. The consequence of this increase was, the cattle were crouded to such a degree, that they not only injured themselves, but those who came for the purpose of buying or examining them. The city of London, sensibly feeling this great inconvenience, had made several efforts for some time past to enlarge the present market. It now consisted of four 73 acres and a half; and, to render it commodious, an addition of twelve were necessary. This addition, then, had been anxiously attempted to be made, but, after much inquiry and fruitless expence, it was discovered that no more than two acres could on any terms be procured. What, then, could they do, but come down to the house, and attempt to carry the removal of the market, and this they had done at a very great disadvantage to themselves. The spot to which the removal was projected, had been however objected to; he had to inform the house that two other situations were then in contemplation; if neither of which could be found eligible, then the house might reject the bill when it came to a committee; but he thought it would be peculiarly severe indeed to oppose the second reading of it. If it was thrown out, much inconvenience in his opinion would ensue, not only to the capital itself, but to the country at large; for many of the landlords would be debarred from the sale of their cattle owing to the want of room in the market. He trusted, at all events, that the house would allow the bill to go to a committe, where an opportunity of more mature consideration would be at least allowed.
§ Mr. Hornerobserved, that he understood that the city of London was in treaty for the particular spot in question. His principal objection was to the spot to which it was intended to remove the market.
§ Sir C. Pricesupported the bill, and urged the necessity of its being allowed to go to a committee.
Mr. C. H. Hutchinsonobjected to its being allowed to go to a committee. He feared, if it were left to the decision of a committee, that the spot fixed upon would be chosen. He was at a loss to know why they should pitch upon this place, which was so particularly objectionable.
Mr. Rosesaid, that the city of London had abandoned the spot they had first fixed upon, and had instructed their counsel to that effect.
Mr. Ponsonbysaid, that when the city of London expressed their wish to improve and beautify the metropolis, he felt a great desire to forward their views; but he hoped they would not attempt such improvement at the expence of private property. He was willing to accede to the second reading of the bill, but would not pledge himself to approve of any 74 place which the committee might adopt.
§ Mr. Mellishobjected to the bill. If the evil were removed from one place, it was not unlikely it might become equally objectionable. A place had been named, which would seriously affect the Gray's Inn Society.
§ Mr. Fullerthought the city of London should point out the spot where they would remove the market, before they had his vote. He had no right to trust them, if they would not trust him.
Mr. Alderman Shawspoke in support of the Bill. He thought all the objections might be done away in the committee. A place in front of Gray's Inn had been chosen, on a declivity particularly well suited for the purpose, from whence drains could be readily formed to carry off the dirt into the Fleet river.
§ Mr. Barhamsaid, his objections went to the way in which the bill originated. It was introduced without the parties interested having notice of their intention, and was an injustice to those individuals. How was it to be remedied? to be changed to some other place, where the people had notice of it? But then it was said, their interests might be guarded by regulations. He thought it the wisest course to reject the bill altogether. The mode he conceived fittest for removing such an annoyance as this market, would be to appoint a committee of indifferent persons, who might lay down some plan, which could have the effect desired. He believed such an annoyance was not to be found in the heart of another city in the world.
§ Mr. Whitbreadopposed the original motion. A worthy Alderman had said that the injury from driving the cattle might be prevented by putting up bars. He wondered he did not also provide against their making a noise.
The Attorney Generalsaid, for his part, he really did not see how the worthy corporation could silence the beasts, unless in their wisdom they thought proper to send the city officers along with them. (A laugh). It was pretty evident, from the silence of the hon. baronet, that the city did not intend to relinquish the objectionable spot of ground. When the offer was made him of empowering the committee to insert a clause, prohibiting the selection of this plat of ground, he did not offer to give his assent to it. But the gentlemen of the city thought they would rather benefit this spot of ground. "Oh, such 75 embellishments as it would receive! Such magnificent houses as they would build on it!" But for whom would they erect those buildings; for the beasts? Certainly no human beings could inhabit them! Who could possibly wish to fix his residence were vast droves of cattle were continually parading, and where all the disgusting scenes and tumult incidental to such a market were constantly exhibited? It was unjust then, in the first place, as it tended to the injury of private property; and impolitic in the next, as it went to defile one of the handsomest parts of the city; but then, says the Corporation, since you have such objections, we will relinquish this scite; we will select another; and how could he satisfy his conscience if he stood silently there content to ward off injustice from one part of the community, with the consciousness that it must fall upon another. He could not tolerate such an idea for a moment, and would oppose the further progress of this bill.
The question being loudly called for, the gallery was cleared, but the Amendment was agreed to without a division.