§ Lord Lowther moved that the Report of the Committee on the Hay-market Removal Bill be brought up, on which
Mr. Byngobjected, on the part of his constituents, to this Bill, which, to the best of his belief, was only calculated to create inconvenience and expense to a large portion of the inhabitants of Westminster and the neighbourhood of the metropolis. Some farmers would have to carry their hay two miles further to the new market, and all would be put to great additional expense in going back with a return load of manure. No practical inconvenience was felt from the present situation of the market; and as the new market would occasion a great deal of inconvenience, he meant to oppose the Bill at every opportunity. He would not however resist bringing up the Report, as the House was so thinly attended, he being convinced that the Bill was the less 922 likely to succeed in proportion to the number of the Members who should be present at its discussion. He would only add, that it would compel the farmers who supplied that market to keep five or six hundred more horses than at present.
Lord Lowtherobserved in reply, that the unpopularity of the measure was by no means so universal amongst the hon. Member's constituents as he would have the House to believe. On the contrary, he apprehended that the suggestion for a removal was generally received with approbation. The reluctance of a few, even although they might lose by the alteration, ought to give way to the general interests of the public. In fact, if partial objections were not in such cases overlooked, all improvements of any kind whatsoever must be prevented. In Birmingham and Sheffield the respective markets had been removed from the centre to the outskirts of those towns, and the change was found to be in every respect advantageous and satisfactory to the inhabitants. What would be thought if it were now proposed to establish the market in St. James's Square, and yet that was more spacious than the Haymarket? In fact, when the market was first established, St. Martin's was really St. Martin's in the Fields, now it was St. Martin's in the centre of the town, and the situation had become unsuitable to a market. The place whither it was intended to remove this market was not distant more than a mile and a half from the northern districts of the metropolis.
§ The Speakerhere interposed, by stating that it was right he should inform the House, before the discussion proceeded farther, that the report of the committee was irregular, not being in accordance with the Standing Order that prescribed the terms in which the Report of a Committee on a private bill ought to be couched. This Report merely set forth that the Standing Orders had been complied with,—that they had heard counsel and made certain amendments, leaving out what was most important,—namely, that "they had examined the allegations in support of the Bill, and found the same to be true." It therefore became necessary that the Report should be recommitted before they could proceed further with the Bill, consistently with the observance of the forms of the House.
Mr. Byngremarked, that the promoters 923 of the Bill had not adduced any evidence whatever in support of it.
§ Lord Lowther moved that the Bill be re-committed, when
Mr. Hobhouseexpressed his concurrence in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Middlesex with respect to the inconvenience and expense which a great number of persons must sustain in consequence of the removal in contemplation. He should now, however, give notice relative to another subject nearly affecting the convenience and accommodation of the inhabitants of the metropolis—that when the Bill was brought fairly before the House, it was his intention to bring under its consideration the proposed obstruction at the end of Waterloo-place, which precluded the public from entering St. James's-park through the opening, as they had hitherto so naturally expected. They considered the stopping up the passage there as a direct violation of the avowed plan of the Government.
§ Mr. Humeagreed with the hon. Member for Westminster in objecting to this churlish exclusion of the public where there was no adequate reason for disregarding their accommodation. He was further of opinion that the House ought not to pass money votes either for the expenses of the Palace or for any other improvement connected with the Park, till this very reasonable demand should be complied with.
Mr. Hobhousestated, that his only reason for pursuing the course he did was, because it enabled him to take the earliest opportunity of opposing the obstruction, which was particularly desirable, as the workmen were at present actively employed in stopping up the passage in question.
§ Mr. Protheroeentertained a similar opinion as to the general inconvenience and disappointment which would be felt in the metropolis if the noble Lord persisted in refusing so reasonable a request. He wished to see the entrance from Waterloo-place effected by a double flight of steps into the Park.—The Bill recommitted.