SMITHFIELD MARKET. (Hansard, 16 April 1849)

§ MR. MACKINNON
said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to consider the propriety of the removal of Smithfield market, as being a public nuisance, to a more convenient site. He would not detain the House more than a moment, whilst he merely made his Motion. A Committee had formerly been appointed to consider how far it was expedient to remove Smithfield market, and the Chairman had merely reported that the subject required further consideration, and that it was desirable that the Committee should again be formed. No Committee had been formed last year; and this year the Chairman of the former Committee, who was himself unable from bad health to attend to his duties, had requested one of three individuals to move for the reappointment of the Select Committee. Lord Ashley had been applied to to bring forward the Motion, but had declined; Mr. Sidney Herbert had also declined, on account of ill health; and it had therefore devolved upon him (Mr. Mackinnon) to comply with the request of the late Chairman, and move for this Committee, which he proposed should consist of Lord Robert Grosvenor, Viscount Mahon, Mr. Bramston, Mr. Alderman Cope-land, Mr. Masterman, Mr. William Miles, Mr. Yorke, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Pugh, Mr. Mackinnon, Sir Edmund Filmer, Mr. Cornewall Lewis, Sir Charles Douglas, Mr. Childers, and Mr. Christopher. He would also give notice, that he would move the addition of two more names—the Earl of March and Mr. Ormsby Gore.

§ LORD J. RUSSELL
said, the hon. Gentleman had altered the Motion which he had put upon the Paper; and, as far as he could collect the import of the precise Motion just read by the Speaker, it would appear that the hon. Gentleman asked the House to determine the question that Smithfield market should be moved, and another site found for it. Now certainly, 377 if anything of this kind was implied in the terms of the Motion, the Motion ought to have been regularly entered among the notices, as the House ought generally to be aware of the nature of the Motion before it was asked to come to a decision.

§ MR. MACKINNON
said, his hon. Friend the Member for the city of London had wished him to alter his Motion in the terms he had done, as being the terms of the Motion upon which the original Committee was formed.

§ LORD J. RUSSELL
submitted to the hon. Gentleman, whether he had not better postpone to another day his Motion for a Committee, that the regular notice might be given of the altered terms in which it had been brought forward.

§ MR. MASTERMAN
said, his hon. Friend the Member for Lymington had alluded to him as having suggested that it would be better that the terms of the Motion should be the same as those used last year. The corporation of the city of London would not shrink from any inquiry respecting the removal of the market; at the same time they would deprecate anything in the Motion that would tend to prejudice the question.

§ SIR E. FILMER
had belonged to the former Committee, which had not come to the conclusion that the market was a nuisance; they had not found sufficient evidence for deciding either the one way or the other; and, therefore, they had only suggested that the Committee should be revived.

§ MR. MACKINNON
said, as the alteration suggested by the hon. Member for the city of London had not met the approbation of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he saw no reason why he should not go on with his Motion in its original shape, as it stood on the Paper.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY
did not stand there to represent the corporation of the city of London; but he could express their sentiments by saying, he was sure they would not object to any inquiry into the state of Smithfield market. If the market was now complained of as a nuisance, it had only become so in the course of time; and it should be remembered, that when first established, it formed part of the suburbs of London, and now the metropolis encircled that part. Much had been said in the newspapers condemnatory of the attachment of the citizens to this so-called nuisance; but he thought it would be found that, with the exception of the 378 market being too crowded, and not large enough for the purpose, and the streets being somewhat incommoded by its being held there, no other evil results arose from the market. He must express, on behalf of the citizens, that they would have no objection to the House passing an Act, authorising the removal of the market to another place in the neighbourhood of the metropolis; but they did say that if the Legislature chose to pass a measure making its compulsory to close that market, the it would be but right for the House to bear in mind that they would have to pay a considerable sum to the citizens to compensate them for the loss of the market, as such an event would cause very considerable destruction to the interests of individuals and property in the neighbourhood. The citizens, as citizens, he repeated, did not object at all to inquiry; but they would object to the asking for a Select Committee in terms that would at once prejudge the question.