HC Deb 05 June 1828 vol 19 cc1049-53
Mr. R. Gordon

presented a petition from upwards of 1,400 merchants, bankers, and inhabitants of London, complaining of the present condition and management of Smithfield, and the places appropriated to the slaughtering of cattle. The hon. gentleman entered into an examination of the present condition of Smithfield Market, and observed that its present situation rendered it objectionable upon several grounds. The first was, the manner in which the cattle were driven, with blows and execrations, through the streets of the metropolis, to the great danger of its inhabitants. The second objection arose from the system of driving the cattle into London on a Sunday evening, and keeping them penned up, without food or water, and in a state of the greatest torment, until Monday. Another objection to the present state of Smithfield was found in the confined nature of the ground allotted for the reception of the cattle. Two days in every week there were collected in an area of little more than three acres, as many beasts as amounted to one hundred and fifty thousand, and as many sheep as averaged one million, three hundred thousand every year. He would not stop to dilate upon the tendency which the wanton infliction of cruelty upon animals had to render men prone to the commission of crime, but he would observe, that the accounts of the treatment of cattle in White-chapel and other places were calculated to excite disgust and horror. It was said that sheep were thrown down through open trap-doors into places in which the blood and filth covered their legs.—So much with regard to the grievances which the petitioners complained of as far as the animals were concerned. There were other inconveniencies also. It was the business of all good governments to economize food; if, therefore, it could be shown that the present system caused a diminution of food, the government ought to entertain the petition. It had been calculated, that by the blows and bruises inflicted upon the cattle, the country lost food to the amount of between 60,000l. and 70,000l. a year. This bruised meat, too, was sold to the lower orders; and the living upon such food was known to give rise to fevers and other disorders. The petitioners merely asked for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the truth of the statements which they had made; and, in the event of these statements being proved, they were ready to raise, from their own funds, a sufficient sum to establish a better system; to construct the markets differently, to establish slaughter-houses like those of Paris, and to remedy all the inconveniencies now complained of. He thought the economizing of food a very important point. They all knew that in Paris no part of the beast was lost. The horns, the hoofs, the blood, the bones—every thing was turned to account. Oil was extracted, in Paris, even from that part of the offal, which, in London, was looked upon as a nuisance. This could only be done where large establishments existed; because it was necessary that the process should commence immediately after the slaughtering of the animal.

Mr. Alderman Thompson

said, that though he was in the city six days in the week, this was the first time he had heard of the petition. It was a question of the greatest importance to the corporation of London, who owned no less than fifty markets; and also to the owners of houses in Smithfield. He was therefore surprised, that in a question which involved the private property of so many individuals, the hon. member should propose going into a committee without giving the representatives for the city an opportunity of being heard upon the petition. The corporation of London had spent large sums upon Smithfield-market, and had lately given 150,000l. to defray the expenses of removing Fleet-market, and making a more convenient access to it. As to the cruelty exercised in driving cattle to market, there were acts which made it necessary that every drover should wear a badge, in order that, if guilty of any cruelty, he might be taken before a magistrate. He believed, too, that cattle were not driven to market on Sunday, but early on Monday morning. He could not help thinking that this petition, had been got up by some of those persons who were adepts in getting up Joint Stock Companies. He could not help thinking that the inquiry was to further the views of individuals, seeing that so little publicity had been given to the matter.

Sir H. Parnell

said, that the subject had occupied public attention during the whole of the spring, nor was it so little known as the hon. alderman seemed to suppose. It was not proposed by the petitioners to interfere with the interests of the corporation of London; their object being only to remove a most offensive nuisance. He had himself been in Paris in the course of the last winter, and could bear testimony to the excellent plan on which the abattoirs were conducted. Nothing could be more perfect, both as it regarded cleanliness and arrangement, and he thought the example worthy of imitation.

Mr. Martin

said, that the inconvenience and danger of driving cattle through the streets of London must be apparent to every one. On a market-day, a man might as well walk in a country cattle-fair as from Ludgate-hill to Lombard-street. He believed that the opposition to the removal of Smithfield-market arose principally from persons who, because they had kept public-houses in the neighbourhood for some years, fancied that they had chartered rights, and that the public was to be put to the greatest inconvenience in order that those rights might be preserved. He hoped the House would take measures to get rid of this nuisance.

Mr. Robinson

suggested, that there was no occasion for a committee to inquire into the inconvenience of driving cattle through the streets, because that was well known to every body. Let the hon. member bring in a bill at once for the removal of Smithfield-market.

Mr. Secretary Peel

said, he certainly could not congratulate any gentleman upon his task, who, at that late period of the session, should undertake to carry a bill through parliament, which should remove Smithfield-market, provide another, and settle all the claims for compensation of the parties concerned. He did, however, think that the proper course would be, to give notice of a motion for the appointment of a committee, and not make such a motion then. He had read the petition, and thought that a committee ought to be appointed to inquire into the statements it contained. For instance, the grounds upon which the nice calculation respecting the loss of meat from bruises, seemed to him to be worth inquiring into. He had received a letter from the master butchers, who were in the greatest alarm, and begged of him to oppose the prayer of this petition. He had assured those gentlemen, that nothing should be done without giving an opportunity to every party of being heard. It was impossible to look at the state of Smithfield-market and not say, that it would be very unfortunate if it must be continued. He did not consider it an objection, that these individuals had come forward with a view to their own private interests. Government, in this country, could not take charge of such institutions; they must be left to individuals as a great many others were; and if any set of individuals could effect a great public convenience, of course they ought to be remunerated for it. At the same time the rights of individuals ought to be taken care of; and it would be better if the hon. member would give notice of a motion for the appointment of a committee.

Mr. Alderman C. Smith

said, he should be glad to know who were the merchants and bankers that had signed this petition. In his opinion, there was a strong feeling in the city against it.

Mr. P. Thompson

thought it would be advantageous, if a system similar to that of Paris was introduced in London. Every capital in Europe but our own, had its slaughter houses without the city.

Mr. Spottiswoode

stated, that these markets were the property of the city of London, and any disposal of the property of others involved grave consideration. The subject was one that should be left to private speculation.

Mr. Gordon

gave notice that, on Monday, he would move that "the Petition be referred to a Committee."

Ordered to lie on the table,