HC Deb 17 July 1849 vol 107 cc492-514
MR. MACKINNON

presented a petition from several of the leading medical men of the metropolis, complaining of the sale of diseased meat in the London markets as being most injurious to the health of the inhabitants. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to call the attention of the House; to the report of the Committee on the removal of Smithfield Market. With regard to the constitution of that Committee, he might be allowed to say, that eight of its members had been selected from the Committee of 1847, and the remaining seven were chosen on account of their high station in that House, and of their being connected with the grazing interest. He thought it right also to premise that he did not believe there was a single individual on that Committee who had the slightest personal interest in the removal of Smithfield market. He said this, because he knew that rumours had gone abroad that some of the members of the Committee had a private interest in removal of the market to another site; but both on his own part, and on that of the other members of the Committee, he was able to say, that not one of them had the slightest interest with regard to the selection of another site. Therefore he thought it would be admitted that the report of the Committee had emanated from fifteen honest and honourable men. With regard to that report, he might state the substance of it in three words. It was simply this: that Smithfield market, from its deficiency in size, and from the inconvenience which was thereby created, ought to be abolished; and that the area of a new market, its site and locality, should be left in the hands of the authorities of the city of London; or if they declined, in the hands of the Government. The great leader of public opinion in this country, which had been called by an hon. Gentleman opposite the Bude-light of the press, and which was remarkable for either following or leading public opinion on all occasions—the Times—had expressed itself as being entirely in favour of the removal of Smithfield market; and therefore there Was some ground for supposing that the current of popular opinion was in favour of the decision of the Committee. The question was not one as to the mere removal of a market, but it was a question as to the best manner in which two millions of human beings were to be fed—it was a question involving the health, comfort, and enjoyment, with regard to food, of two millions of Her Majesty's subjects. Now, in the first place, the report stated that the area of Smithfield was too contracted. It was a singular fact that Smithfield had been a market for upwards of five hundred years, and yet even in the earliest times the site was thought to be an improper one. How much more so it had become in the nineteenth century, he need not ask the House to consider. When they bore in mind the vast number of cattle that were annually brought into this town for sale, it must be obvious that an area of 5¼ acres, which was all that Smithfield contained, was not sufficient for the purpose to which it was devoted. It was said, that the Corporation of London derived a revenue of between 5,000l. and 6,000l. from this market, and that if the market were removed, the loss to the corporation must be made good by the country. He considered that to be an erroneous impression, because he did not see why the profits or tolls of any other market to be selected, should not be given to them to the same amount as they now derived from Smithfield. But in addition to that consideration, the Committee were of opinion that Smith-field ought not to be enclosed, but should be converted into a square which would occupy about four acres, while the remaining acre and-a-quarter would be devoted to a range of handsome buildings, the rents of which would go a great way in making up for the loss of tolls sustained by the corporation. There was a vast amount of evidence tending to show that the area of Smithfield market was much too small. In the year 1809 a deputation from the city of London waited on the Board of Trade, praying for an enlargement of Smithfield market; and the answer they received was, that "by no possibility can the enlargement of Smithfield market be made so as to meet the convenience of the public in any manner what over." In 1731, there were only 38,000 head of cattle taken to Smithfield market in one year. About the middle of the century the number had increased to 150,000, while, in the year 1846, the supply amounted to 310,000 cattle, and 1,600,000 sheep. In 1828, a Committee sat on this subject, and their report was— That the passing of live-stock to and fro from Smithfield is a nuisance to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood and to the public at large, and that the present size and arrangement of the market does not afford sufficient accommodation for the live-stock therein offered for sale; and these are propositions which your Committee are prepared to maintain. The nuisance so described was, however, after twenty-one years, still allowed to continue and to increase. It produced very great injury to the graziers, to the public, and to the butchers. With regard to the graziers, it was an injustice that the producer of cattle should be deprived of that right which every man in a civilised country should possess of selling his own produce. In Smithfield the cattle must be consigned to some particular broker, and disposed of by a salesman at the market. The salesman might sell them at any price he pleased, or else the grazier must consent to send them back to the lair at an immense loss of his property. [The hon. Gentleman read some extracts from the evidence, showing the extent of this inconvenience.] He did not think it possible to adopt any other plan in Smithfield market; but at the same time he felt that it would be a very great advantage indeed to the grazier if he had the power of superintending the sale of his own cattle; and also, if he could have lairs in the vicinity of the market to which the stock could be removed without deterioration, if he did not choose to accept the price offered. But if the injury to the grazier was great, that to the population of London in general, and of Smithfield and its vicinity in particular, was ten times greater. Professor Owen had stated distinctly in his evidence that the greatest injury to the health of the inhabitants was produced by the retention of Smithfield market in its present overcrowded state. Professor Owen stated that— With regard to the places for the reception of those animals, they generally being in a ple- thoric condition, and full, therefore of blood, and of the nutritious elements of animal food, have more weight, and their extra quantity of fat is so disposed as to impede the action of the muscles; consequently, muscular exertion becomes more difficult, and thus it follows that, muscular exertion being rendered more difficult under those circumstances, the heart's action is increased, and respiration much quickened; and if compulsory locomotion, through Over-driving, is continued for a certain time, the respiration becomes unequal to the full oxygenation of the blood; in short, a state of fever is produced, and the blood is altered in quality, and that reacts upon the character of the flesh; and if to over-driving the animals in this condition, you add also pain and terror, all this tends to drive them more rapidly into that state of fever, and the consequence is, that when they are killed, the flesh as the butchers say, does not cut up bright; that is the common expression; it is of a dark colour. Professor Owen also stated that there was no country in the world where the meat was so fine, and where there was so much attention paid to the rearing and fattening of cattle, and to the perfection of their breeds, and yet there was no country where meat was brought to market in a state so unfit for human food. This arose from the fact that there was no country where animals were so ill-used in bringing them to market, and where the mode of slaughtering them was so calculated to render the flesh unwholesome and liable to decay. The number of diseases which the unwholesome character of the meat offered for sale engendered, was also dwelt upon in the evidence; and there was one disease—cancer—which was said to be extending considerably among the lower classes from this cause. Many medical men had given it as their opinion that this disease was much more frequent than it used to be, and that its increase was owing to the disgusting and filthy manner in which animal food was kept, and allowed to be tainted, if not putrified, and then sold for the use of the people. Comparing London with other great towns in Europe, he believed that the drainage was much more efficient than in most other capitals, yet might be greatly improved, and that there was consequently less mortality here from the use of impure meat than would otherwise prevail. With regard to the nuisance arising from the driving of cattle through the streets, the evidence of Professor Owen and of the other medical witnesses was, he thought, conclusive. [Mr. OSBORNE: No, no!] The evidence was certainly conclusive, he would repeat, to this extent, that the present system of selling and slaughtering cattle in the metropolis, and of making tripe and disposing of the offal, was most injurious to the health of the inhabitants. Dr. Gavin, one of the witnesses, had stated that there was more sickness in the vicinity of Smithfield, arising from the stench and putrefaction of slaughtered animals, than in any other lo-locality in that part of the metropolis. But there was also an injury sustained by the butchers, as the meat of animals so treated was more liable to decay than country killed meat. This injury, however, most probably fell ultimately on the consumers. The beasts were subjected to dreadful brutalities. Their horns were sometimes broken. Sometimes their hoofs were torn off. At other times their hides were shockingly lacerated. In fact, beasts were at times so injured as to be scarcely fit to be cut up. One butcher stated to him (Mr. Mackinnon) in the Committee, when examined, that he always knew cattle that had come from Smithfield by the number and variety of the injuries they had sustained. Another evil attendant upon the sale of cattle in Smithfield was consequent upon the vast importation of foreign beasts and sheep which now took place. Those foreign cattle were in many cases diseased. Amongst the sheep, in particular, the small-pox was very prevalent. Being landed, and usually driven into Smithfield during the night, where they were penned in close contact with other sheep or cattle, those diseases were communicated. There was no possibility of discovering the presence of the disease. The inspectors themselves were often totally unable to discover it. And when the sheep were purchased by graziers, who intended them for stock and drove them home, the infection was carried to and spread amongst the sound flocks. There was one noble Lord, a friend of his, whoso name he would not mention, who had 2,000 sheep contaminated in that manner, and no doubt before he discovered it, many of those diseased sheep might have been sent to Smithfield and sold. Hon. Gentlemen might assert the contrary, but he would maintain Smithfield market was a most shocking annoyance. Besides the terror it occasioned, and the cruelty of which it was the scene, it was the source of great loss to the butchers and to the public. The only persons who did not suffer by it, and to whom, on the contrary, it was a source of gain, were the salesmasters. He believed that every individual member of the corporation was in favour of its abolition; but they were kept in awe by the salesmen, by whom also the butchers were influenced, and the latter had great in- fluence in the Common Council. [Mr. Alderman SIDNEY: The corporation does not consist of the Common Council.] He was perfectly aware of the fact. But nevertheless he repeated that the influence of the butchers in the Common Council was what overawed the corporation. There was a combination between the butchers and the salesmasters to prevent the removal of the market, and that combination was most injurious to the public. Several butchers had given in evidence that the price of butcher's meat in the London market was from 2d. to 2½d. per lb. higher than it ought to be. Indeed, if they took the price by the carcase in Newgate-market, and compared it with the price charged to the public when the meat was retailed, they would see that from 2d. to 2½d. per pound more was charged than ought to be to the upper classes of the community, even allowing the customary profit of 1d. per lb. to the butcher. If a combination did not exist, the graziers would be able to look after their own sales, and effect them more advantageously for the public. Now, if they looked to the history of the area now occupied by the market of Smithfield, they would find that it was always remarkable for being the scene of cruelty. In ancient times it was the usual place where the burning of witches, or rather of persons accused of witchcraft and sorcery, took place. Subsequently it was the scene where eminent men were placed on the faggot for entertaining religious opinions different from those in authority. So they now seemed to think that its tradition for cruelty would best be kept up by its being the place where animals were exposed to injury and torture. If the House would agree to the resolution he was about to propose, he thought that the Government should undertake the task of the removal of Smithfield market. It would be a popular act. One of the first attempts at gaining popularity by Napoleon, when he was made First Consul of France, was the removal of slaughter-houses from Paris, and the erection of abattoirs outside the city. He did not mean to say that the noble Lord at the head of the Government ought to follow in the footsteps of Napoleon, but he recommended his obtaining great popularity by the somewhat similar act of removing Smithfield market and causing the erection of abattoirs. The butchers were coming round, and beginning to think favourably of such a change. A person of high character and standing as a butcher in Bond-street, had assured him (Mr. Mackinnon) that morning, that the re- moval of Smithfield would not be an unpopular act with the butchers when done. What he would suggest to Her Majesty's Government would be, since sooner or later the removal must take place, that in the first instance they should pass a short Bill, empowering commissioners to purchase an area of some forty or fifty acres of land wherever they should think fit. That they should then establish a market for the sale of live cattle, a market for dead cattle, and abattoirs for slaughtering, with whatever houses for the accommodation of the poorer workmen that might be necessary. If that were done by the Government, or the city authorities, the cattle, instead of being slaughtered in the cruel and horrible manner in which they were at present, would be deprived of life with as little of pain or unnecessary torture as possible. It would be too harrowing to the feelings of hon. Members, were he to go into the particulars which he had heard of the shocking cruelties attendant upon the present mode of slaughtering. And one suggestion had been made to him by a butcher (Mr. Giblet) on the subject which was deserving of attention. It was, that cattle should be killed by machinery—that the beast might be fixed with the head in a particular position, and that a heavy sledge hammer, being loosed by means of a spring, could be so directed as to fall directly upon the forehead of the beast, thereby insuring instantaneous death. It might be objected that the proposed abattoirs would be an interference with the rights of the private butchers and the slaughtering-houses. But he would let them enjoy those private slaughter-houses as well, provided they were so situated as not to interfere with the public health. He believed that the butchers would very soon find that the establishment of the new houses would not be such a loss to them as they apprehended. If his plan were adopted, he believed that 'the price of butcher's meat would be lowered in the London market, and that the meat would be in better condition and more wholesome than it was at present. But he did not wish to commit the Government to any definite course as yet. The resolution he was about to move was merely a declaratory one, consonant with the report of the Committee.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that the report of the Select Committee on Smithfield market, be taken into the early and serious consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

said, that in common with the rest of the House, he gave every credit to the hon. Member for Lymington for the great interest he took in the question. But he wished he had confined his energies to carrying out to its consummation the Motion which he had had so long in hand for preventing interment in towns. The hon. Gentleman had told the House that the complaint he made regarding Smithfield market depended entirely upon how far its existence affected the public health. Now if it could be proved that the present position of Smithfield interfered with the public health, the hon. Gentleman might make out a good case. But he (Mr. Osborne) did not think that the speech of the hon. Gentleman had at all made out his case. Having given his (Mr. Osborne's) serious attention to the consideration of the report, he should say that the hon. Gentleman's speech was not borne out by the evidence, which he had most wisely abstained from reading. He must be aware that the great proportion of evidence was directly against the assertions that he had made; and in a case in which so much money was at stake, it really was necessary to act with great caution. He understood that no less than 7,000,000l. worth of property changed hands in Smith-field in the course of the year; and before any interference was attempted with an interest such as that was, a stronger case should be made out than the hon. Gentleman had presented to them. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the bad effects upon the public health. Nothing was more easy than to raise an alarm by a cry of that description. He had also alluded to what he called "the Bude light of the press." He (Mr. Osborne) deprecated all allusions to the public press in the House. He did not like them. He did not indulge in them himself. But he certainly could not avoid expressing his disapprobation at such allusions to a paper on which the greatest talent of the country was employed. He did not always agree with the opinions advocated in it. He thought that in a great many points it had misled public opinion; but on others it had led it well. [Mr. MACKINNON: Led and followed.] He believed that in the present case it had neither led nor followed. The fact was, a great many old ladies, who were alarmed by meeting cattle in the streets, had gone to the hon. Gentleman, and had said, "Oh, Mr. Mackinnon, you are a friend of your species, for God's sake get Smithfield market abolished." But how had the hon. Gentleman set about making out his case? In the first resolution in the report it was set forth that "it is proved by experience that the existence of Smithfield market is attended with great inconvenience." The House would observe that it was said to be "proved by experience"—why not "by evidence?" They had evidence enough, but the case was not proved by the evidence. It was not proved certainly by the evidence of the butchers, nor of the graziers, nor of the medical men, because there the evidence was totally contrary to the case of the hon. Gentleman. The medical men's evidence went quite the other way. The hon. Gentleman had adverted to the evidence of Professor Owen. As a lecturer on science, he had a great respect for Professor Owen; but that gentleman never had a case of private practice in his life. It was the same with Mr. Grainger. In the first place, he should observe, that it was proved by all the evidence that Smithfield was a peculiarly healthy locality. One medical gentleman, Dr. Fortescue, gave as a reason for the peculiar healthfulness of the neighbourhood, that it was fifty feet above high-watermark at London Bridge; and said that there was only one case of cholera known to have occurred there in the year 1832. [Mr. MACKINNON: Dr. Gavin.] He would not take Dr. Gavin's evidence, because he was the one solitary doctor upon whom the hon. Gentleman had to depend. He was that party's great gun. But what did Dr. Fortescue say? Why, that the open space of Smithfield was positively a blessing to the place. Now, if they were to base their case upon doctors' evidence, let them see what it amounted to. Let them have a few facts. [Mr. MACKINNON: You have not read the evidence.] Well, then, would the hon. Gentleman show him in what part he would find those facts that were not the case he had just stated. Would he tell him how many instances had occurred of beasts from Smithfield disturbing tea parties by Walking up stairs, and into first-floor rooms? He had better move for a return of the number of tea parties in first floors interrupted by unexpected visits of bulls from Smithfield. What was the opinion of the inspector of sewers? Why— That Smithfield was drained by 2,000 feet of main sewer, averaging 4 feet 6 inches in height, by 2 feet 9 inches in width, into which the market was drained by 28 gullies, each furnished with a trap. In fact, that it was the best drained part of the metropolis, the water running through the sewers at a strong flush, and the smell being wholly repressed by the traps to the gullies, preventing those horrible effluvia so much complained of in Belgravia and about the neighbourhood of the House, causing an hon. relative of his to say the other night, that the smells in the House were beastly. In Mr. Sadler's evidence it was stated that there were (including the smaller drains) 11,000 feet of sewerage, and four flush gates, which thoroughly drained the market, and that in all the sewers the water ran with great velocity. Dr. Lankester, the lecturer at St. George's Hospital, said that the large sewers and drains of Smith-field were excellent. Dr. Lynch, again—for as it was a question of doctors he would go through the weight of medical evidence, the more particularly as he did not think that hon. Gentlemen were justified in alarming the people of the metropolis with their cries of "mad bull!" and "cholera!" He supposed that the hon. Gentleman would not dispute the evidence of Dr. Lynch, or deny that it was against him. [Mr. MACKINNON: He is a servant of the city of London.] He might just as well, on his part, say that the Committee was packed, and that there were persons behind the curtain pulling the strings—persons who were interested in forming abattoirs at Islington—as for the hon. Gentleman to say that Dr. Lynch was a servant of the city of London. But he would not deal with the question after such a manner. But at all events Dr. Fortescue said that the wide opening of Smithfield was a blessing to the neighbourhood. Dr. Burrowes said, that, taking one day with another, Smithfield was one of the purest sites in the city of London. Mr. Lawrence was of a similar opinion. He was the treasurer of St. Bartholomew's Hospital. And when the hon. Gentleman talked about enlarging the streets and the area, was he not aware that the city of London had recently enlarged the area of Smithfield, and that the trustees of St. Bartholomew's Hospital had pulled down several houses for the same purpose? The hon. Gentleman was bound to consider the question upon a broader basis than that viewed by a mere partisan. The Hon. F. Byng, one of the most active of the commissioners of sewers, considered the market as being rather conducive to health. Mr. Lynn, the surgeon, was of the same opinion; and Dr. Conquest, who lived in the neighbourhood 56 years, and practised there above 20, considered it not more unhealthy than any other part of London. There was less of fever than in other places; and as to cholera, he knew of only one case in the year 1832. And, with regard to cholera, he (Mr. Osborne) should say that he believed a great deal of it was created amongst nervous persons by such alarms as had been given by his hon. relative, and those other hon. Gentlemen who had come down and talked about the danger of it. There was another argument which he should call the driving-into-the-first-story argument. He would read a little bit of evidence touching that point. He had before him the evidence of the coroner of the city of London (Mr. Payne), who was not a creature of the corporation. A more respectable man than Mr. Payne did not exist, and the rate in which he was hold was indicated by his position on the poll when he contested the representation of the city of London. When he retired from the contest, Mr. Payne gave 3,000 votes to the poll of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Mr. Payne said he had searched his register of inquests for the last seven years, and the only cases he had during that period of deaths caused by bullocks in the city of London amounted to two, namely—one, a little girl, named Mills, who was killed by a bullock in Lower Thames-street, in October, 1845; and the other, a little girl who met her death in a similar way in Bridge-street, Blackfriars, in October, 1846. Did the hon. Member for Lymington mean to say that the smallpox in the sheep in the market was owing to the confined space in Smithfield market? Why, the hon. Member had said the sheep had come to Smithfield with the small-pox. Did the hon. Gentleman suppose that he could manage to give every sheep a loose box to himself? If such a proposition was sought to be carried out, the Government would have enough to do to furnish loose boxes for the sheep in the country. In the evidence taken by the Committee which sat last year, 6,580 questions were asked, and 5,000 of the replies were in favour of continuing Smithfield. The House could only legislate upon the evidence taken he-fore the Committee. If the evidence of Committees was to be disregarded, the whole system of appointing Committees was a farce and a delusion. Then the hon. Gentleman came down to the House and said, he and his party would not do anything, but they would throw the onus of improving or removing Smithfield market on the Government. That meant nothing more than having an English pull at the Exchequer. What did he suppose would be the price of the market? If that market was abolished, the building ground in Smithfield would be excessively valuable. The corporation raised no less a sum from the market than 5,600l. per annum. If the hon. Gentleman made out a case that the health of the metropolis was seriously jeopardised by Smithfield market, he (Mr. Osborne) would say there was no sum of money which would not he well expended in its removal; but he did not think that the hon. Gentleman had made out any such case.

MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY

said, that the value of Smithfield was not the toll paid to the city of London, but the commerce of the city of London which was brought to such an immense amount annually by this market. The value of Smithfield was estimated at seven or eight millions sterling. On large market days it was stated that as much as 30,000l. was spent in merchandise in the city of London by parties coming to the market. He asked the hon. Gentleman whether he did not think it right to take into consideration the vested interest of persons in trade connected with Smithfield? For what reason should the House interfere with channels of commerce so extensive in their nature as those of Smithfield market? The owners of property would have a right to ask for remuneration. It had been said that hotels on the lines of railways were not remunerated; but the two cases were totally distinct. In the case of the old turnpike roads, although the traffic was removed, the use of the roads was not prohibited; but, if by an Act of the Legislature, Smithfield, which had existed probably for upwards of twice 500 years, was to be closed as a market, then they were bound, not only to see the vested rights of the corporation of London respected, but the vested rights of those owners of property deriving benefit from the market. The House paid the corporation of London a poor compliment in wasting its time in discussing this question. The corporation of London had debated for three successive days the policy of removing this market, and they were almost unanimous in their decision; for of the 226 members who composed the corporation, only 12 were for the removal of the market. If Smith-field market were to be removed on the ground of a nuisance, how long would it be before Newgate was removed, and Leadenhall market, where the hides of oxen and sheep were sold? How long would it be before they asked for the removal of Billingsgate? The trade of the city of London, and much of the employment of its population, arose from its markets. As well might they ask for the removal of the steam-engines and chimneys which enriched Manchester. An hon. Member might get up a Committee of Inquiry, and prove that smoke and the noise of steam engines was a nuisance. The neighbourhood of Smithfield was not only not unhealthy, but the reverse. He would prove this by five large establishments in the neighbourhood. First, there was the West London Union Workhouse, numbering between five and six hundred inmates. He paid a visit of inspection the other day, and found all the inmates to be in a healty state. There was the crowded gaol of Giltspur-street, numbering frequently between 300 and 400 persons, covering half an acre of ground; and the gaol of Newgate; and he challenged comparison with any other gaols in point of health. He might also take St. Bartholomew's Hospital, where they had 50,000 patients annually, and the united testimony of whose directors was that a healthier site could not be found in the metropolis. There was, then, the Charter-house and Christ's Hospital, where there were 1,000 hoys, and where the average of deaths for the last seven years had not been more than five for every thousand. On the ground, therefore, of the unhealthiness of the spot, the present attempt must fail. The only argument that then remained was, that the site was too narrow for the extraordinary quantity of cattle. Here he must add that the constant agitation of this question prevented the corporation from taking those effective steps towards increasing the size of Smithfield which otherwise they would be bound to take. The hon. Member was wrong in saying that the corporation had done nothing of late years. They had enlarged the site of the market, and it was now six acres; they entertained the idea of purchasing property for the permanent increase of the market. As to instances of cruelty, he was quite sure that they would not be abated by any change of neighbourhood. It was impossible for any place to be found in which there was more attention and anxiety to prevent cruelty to animals. Before the House passed a resolution pledging themselves to the removal of the market, they ought first to hear the fullest evidence. He had carefully read that evidence, and if he sat as a juror, he should give a verdict, "not proved, upon my honour."

SIR DE LACY EVANS

concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Alderman, and complained that there had been something very much like packing in reference to the formation of the Smithfield Market Committee, and a decided disinclination to put the metropolitan Members upon it, he himself having been two or three times strenuously excluded from it. This showed clearly enough how the matter stood, and that the Committee had made up their minds before the evidence was heard. The hon. Member for Middlesex, however, had turned the whole case into ridicule, and he was far from saying that it did not afford a very fair field for the exercise of his faculties in that capacity. As the hon. Alderman who had just sat down had observed, the real truth was, that the only ground on which the case against this market could at all be supported was that it was not sufficiently large for the wants of the metropolis. The statement, however, which he had made, that the corporation were anxious to enlarge the market, might be taken as a pledge of the wishes and intentions of that body.

SIR E. FILMER

, as a Member of the Committee, could say that, throughout the whole of the sitting, it appeared as if there was one party cutting against another, and one market against another; which rival markets hon. Members were forbidden to mention. The evidence was of so loose and contradictory a character, that he should recommend that it be taken, in future inquiries of a like character, upon oath, as was done before Committees of the House of Lords; for there was nothing of which he felt more entirely convinced, than that unless the Committees of that House took the evidence brought before them in a manner to afford just grounds for confiding in its accuracy and trustworthiness, their investigations would be of very little advantage to the public.

LORD R. GROSVENOR

said, that if Smithfield alone were to be considered, the crowding of cattle would be compensated in a sanitary point of view by the pains taken to clean the market, and the fact of having so large an open space in that part of the town. But it was not Smithfield alone that was to be looked to, but the streets and alleys in its immediate neighbourhood, with their knackers' yards, bone grinders, gut spinners, and various other similar establishments, which, collected within a small area, and amidst a dense population, continually exhaled the most noxious effluvia. If hon. Members had read the evidence, they would see that every one of the witnesses—even those pecuniarily interested in the maintenance of the market—were agreed upon one point, and that was, that the market was not large enough for the wants of the country, while there was no possibility of having it properly enlarged. On these grounds he had voted for the report. As to Government compensating the city of London in case of removal, he did not believe there was any valid claim for compensation in that quarter. His opinion was, that if the revenue derivable from Smithfield market were set on one side, and the expenses on the other, it would be found that the corporation made nothing at all by the property. As to enlarging the market, it would be impossible to get ground for the purpose, except at an expense which he felt sure the corporation would not undertake. With respect to another claim I for compensation, that of the traders in the vicinity of the market, he was of opinion that that claim should never have been set up. They had no claim whatever, their case being precisely that of the innkeepers injured by railways; and they must only follow their trade, to whatever might be its locality. The long time, 500 years, during which it was alleged the market had been held at the same place, was urged as an argument against its removal. He looked upon it in a contrary point of view. The market which served London 500 years ago, was manifestly insufficient now, and another should be provided more suitable to the times, and to the immensely increased size of the city. He was sorry to advocate any thing which might create loss to individuals, but he thought that the I removal might be effected gradually; and besides there was no reason why the trades I of the various parties should not thrive as I well in a new locality. His opinion was, I that on the Government should devolve the duty of selecting a site for the new market, when the care of it might be given to the corporation, who had certainly done their best to make the present circumscribed space fulfil the purpose intended. His wish had been, in the Committee, that a Government commissioner or inspector should be appointed for the purpose of selection. He had not at all looked upon the question as a struggle between Islington and Smithfield. Islington had never entered his head, as in his opinion it never could be made a suitable market. In his opinion, the market should not contain less than fifty acres, while Islington contained only fourteen. Further, he thought that there should be public slaughter-houses out of the town; and if such changes could be effected gradually, his firm belief was that great good would result to the community.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

said, his statement as to the revenue arising from the market had been questioned by the noble Lord who last addressed the House. He (Mr. Osborne) begged to say that he held in his hand an account of the net income of Smithfield market, from the 1st of January, 1844, to the 31st of December, 1848; and the net annual income of the city of London, given by that paper, was in 1848, 5,641l. 9s. 10d.

LORD R. GROSVENOR

said, he would certainly undertake to produce a table showing the revenue arising from the market, though he had it not by him at that moment, from which it would appear that the city of London did not receive one farthing of that revenue,

MR. STAFFORD

observed, that though he had listened attentively to the speech which the House had just heard, yet he confessed himself somewhat at a loss to imagine how his noble Friend intended to vote. As to his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee, he was so completely absorbed by the subject of Smithfield market, that on a recent occasion he found it very difficult to define what he meant by smoke; and as to the evidence taken before the Committee, his hon. Friend seemed to think, that, like the meat to which it referred, there was no keeping it, and he was, therefore, evidently most impatient to serve it up to the House as soon as possible; hence, notwithstanding the morning sittings and the pressure of business towards the close of the Session, he urged this subject upon the attention of the House and the Government with extraordinary earnestness. It was to be regretted that his hon. Friend had so little confidence in the Government, and that so great were the eagerness and haste with which he pressed forward on this subject, that he went in direct contravention to the resolutions adopted by that Committee of which his hon. Friend was himself the chairman. As to the degree in which Smithfield was supposed to affect the health of the citizens of London, he believed that that question was set completely at rest—that the case in favour of Smithfield had been clearly established. Then, as to the enlargement of the market, although the population of London had reached to a very high amount, yet that of itself did not create a necessity for enlargement, inasmuch as the increasing wants of the metropolis were supplied by an increased transmission of dead meat killed in the country and sent to London by the railways. Amongst the gravest complaints urged against Smithfield market was, it created a necessity for driving cattle through the streets. Now, the hon. Gentleman told them that he would not abolish the slaughter-houses existing in various parts of London; and surely, if he did not, it signified little—so far as driving was concerned—where the market was situate; for so long as private slaughterhouses were permitted to remain, cattle would be driven through the streets. Even the establishment of Islington market, though a favourite scheme, would not prevent that evil. It happened, however, that that undertaking had proved an egregious failure, though it possessed the name of W. A. Mackinnon as a trustee and honorary director. If twenty or thirty markets were built in various parts of London, Smithfield would have nothing to fear from free competition. Neither the butchers nor the graziers would go to any other markets. He should now come to the question of cruelty. Some cases of great cruelty exercised towards animals were mentioned in the report; but he thought, considering the great number of cattle collected in the market, that it would be very difficult to prevent cruelty in all cases. The testimony of the witnesses, however, went to prove that these cruel practices were diminishing; and he believed it a vain delusion to suppose that by removing the site of the market they could altogether prevent such practices. The question of the cruelties committed in slaughter-houses, and of the nuisances arising from boneburners and tripemakers, had nothing to do with the locality of the market. Those nuisances might be put down under existing Acts of Parliament; and the witnesses who had complained most strongly of such nuisances almost unanimously admitted that they had never taken any measures for their prevention. The hon. Member for Lymington had not alluded to one important part of the question—the great extent to which Smithfield was now used as a transit market. The farmers in the southern counties found it to their interest to fatten their sheep, and cattle at a certain period of the year, and to send them to Smithfield for sale to dealers from the northern counties; and at another period of the year they came to Smithfield and bought cattle for their own use. Now, how would it be possible, if this system, which had grown up from the establishment of railways, continued, to prevent the driving of cattle through the streets? In the case of foreign cattle, also, which might be landed near a populous part of the city, how were they to be conveyed to the market without being driven through the streets? The question was one of so much magnitude, and with which so many interests were interwoven, that it was one with which it was very difficult to deal. If they determined that the market should not continue to be held in Smithfield, to what site would they remove it? If they placed it far from the metropolis, they would increase the expenses of the butchers, who would raise the price of meat to the consumers; and if they placed it near this advancing city, which was spreading out its streets in all directions, they might, before they had concluded their arrangements, find all the inconveniences of the dense population now accumulated in Smithfield. Then, if the market were removed, was Smithfield to be left an open space? Every one admitted that was very desirable; but no doubt the corporation of London would insist upon erecting buildings in such a valuable situation. It had been said that the price of meat was high in London in consequence of the maintenance of Smithfield market; but he could assure the House that meat was not dearer in London than it was in the country. Although the price of some joints of meat might be higher, others were cheaper, and he believed the average was much the same. But he might whisper to some hon. Gentlemen what had been whispered to him by west-end butchers—that if Gentlemen allowed their servants to take a large percentage, and did not pay till 1851 the bills which were due in 1849, it was very unfair to charge the poor butchers with raising the price of meat. The hon. Member for Lymington proposed that a Bill should be passed enabling certain commissioners to buy forty or fifty acres of land for the purpose of establishing a market; but it would doubtless occur to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was necessary such commissioners should be provided with money for the purchase of the land, and where were these funds to be obtained? He thought they had better decide to what site they would remove the market, and in whose hands they would place its management, before they realised the fable of the dog and his shadow, and abandoned the meat they now had for the shadow beneath them. The question was, whether the House would act in opposition to the decision of the Committee—whether they would decide that they would not trust the Government to take the subject into consideration, but would force an immediate determination upon them. As no definite plan had been laid before the House for the substitution of another market in the place of Smithfield market, he would oppose the Motion.

SIR J. TYRELL

would support the Motion. He admitted that Smithfield market might to some extent be a transit market; but still it was necessary to establish a sort of quarantine after cattle had once been in there, in order to free the said cattle from any disease they might have imbibed. He also admitted that the hon. Member who had just sat down had adduced all that could be said in favour of the market, derived as his information had been from the whispers of the butchers; but it must be recollected in a matter of this kind that the consumer and the butcher had in some respects a conflicting interest. At present the owner of cattle was compelled to sell at almost any price in the winter months, if his beasts were driven to Smithfield; and, therefore, it was desirable that a larger market should be erected in a less objectionable situation, where the cattle could be supplied with sheds and water, and where they could be kept until disposed of, at a reasonable cost. It was probably true that Essex, the county he had the honour to represent, was interested in matters remaining as they stood at present, and that there were advantages, in a commercial point of view, in having Smithfield market in the neighbourhood of the Bank of England. The hon. Member for Middlesex, who had advocated the interests of the butchers, was perfectly welcome to make the most of that admission. [Mr. OSBORNE said that he had advocated the interests, not of the butchers only, but of the public] The hon. Member was called "the butchers' pet." He believed that the hon. Member, and also the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, were promised a fish dinner—concluding with roast beef and plum pudding—at the conclusion of this Smithfield debate. But whatever their advocacy might have been, and how- ever elaborate might have been their defence, still the broad facts were these—that there was great opposition upon the part of the city of London, represented by the First Minister of the Crown, to Smith-field market being removed; that vast interests must therefore be come in contact with; and that, although the hon. Member for Middlesex might consider himself one of the élite in representing popular grievances, still that it would be a great public advantage if another market were established in a suitable situation.

MR. ORMSBY GORE

said, that the hon. Member for Lymington had been wrongfully accused of pressing this subject with unnecessary eagerness upon the Government. All the hon. Member and the country were anxious for, was to obtain from the Government some announcement of their views, not upon all the minutiae of the question, but upon the point whether it was their intention to countenance the labours of the Committee. A great part of the debate had turned on the sanitary state of Smithfield market. He looked upon that as the weakest ground the Committee could have taken, and therefore all the supporters of Smithfield had seized and enlarged upon it. But he must take the liberty of setting the hon. Member for Middlesex right with respect to some of his assertions on this point. It was true that Dr. Lynch had described Smithfield as being most salubrious; but in answer to a question, he had also stated that if he had a guarantee that the area of Smith-field would be kept open as a square for the purpose of recreation and health, he would much prefer that state of things to the existence of the market. The hon. Member for Middlesex was also mistaken when he stated that but one or two witnesses had spoken against the unwholesome influence of Smithfield; for amongst those who had given such evidence were Mr. Aldis, Professor Owen, Mr. Bullen, Mr. Grainger, and Mr. Grimes, the latter's evidence being the more remarkable on account of his having lost his wife through fever produced by malaria. In 1809, so convinced were gentlemen connected with the city of London of the nuisance of Smithfield market, that a deputation from the City Lands Committee waited upon the Board of Trade, having in view an enlargement of the market; but the Board of Trade told them that the inconvenience could not be removed by enlargement, but that the removal of the market to a more convenient situation, and to a space not less than twelve acres, was necessary. Where could the city of London, if they retained the market within the walls, get twelve acres for such a purpose? Yet forty years ago it was thought necessary that the space should not be less than twelve acres. It was said that the butchers and salesmen were very much opposed to a change of the site of the market; and so were the butchers of Paris before an alteration took place there; but having had the benefit of experience, they would not now consent to have the market in the interior of the city. Was it not extraordinary that this great metropolis, the first in the world, should be the only city in Europe which had the nuisance of a cattle market in its very centre? In all the great towns—in Manchester, Glasgow, Shrewsbury, and others—the nuisance of the cattle market was being removed without the walls. He would ask the opponents of the removal of Smithfield how they would like, supposing the cattle market did not exist in its present locality, if the Government were to attempt to impede the free and open circulation of the city by establishing a market in its centre? After adverting to the cruel treatment of the cattle and sheep in Smithfield market in consequence of its confined space, the hon. Member noticed the increase which had taken place in the animals sent there to be sold. In 1830, 159,000 cattle were sold in Smithfield; and in 1846, sixteen years afterwards, the number sold had risen to 210,775, being an increase of 51,775 head of cattle. In 1830, the number of sheep sold amounted to 1,287,000, and in 1846 to 1,518,500, being an increase of 231,000 sheep. The population of the metropolis was increasing, and, of course, the supply must increase; but it appeared that the area of the market must not. When Smithfield market was first established, it was placed within the walls; and all that was now asked for was, that it might be removed to some more convenient site than the present, and he trusted that the Government would hold out a hope that they would adopt some measure to get rid of this pestilent nuisance.

MR. CORNEWALL LEWIS

could not allow this debate to close without offering a few remarks upon the observations of his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee. He (Mr. C. Lewis) was a member of the Committee last appointed, but not of the Committee of 1847, that previously investigated the subject of the removal of Smithfield market; and his object had been to come to the best opinion that he could, according to the evidence adduced before the Committee of which he was a member. At the commencement of the proceedings of the Committee, an attempt was made to treat the question mainly as a sanitary question, and various witnesses were examined to prove that Smithfield market was detrimental to the health of the neighbourhood, and ought on that ground to be removed. On that part of the case he entirely agreed with the very amusing, but also argumentative, speech of the hon. Member for Middlesex, who considered that it was not proved in Committee that the cattle market in Smithfield caused any serious injury to the health of the neighbourhood. He further thought it was proved, by satisfactory evidence, that considering the disadvantages that might arise from the congregation in Smithfield of a large number of animals two days in the week, on the one hand, and considering, on the other, the advantages arising from the existence of a large open space uncovered with buildings in the middle of the town, the balance preponderated in favour of the healthiness of Smithfield. That, he thought, might be taken as the fair result of the evidence taken before the two Committees. Strong opinions were given by the medical officers of St. Bartholomew's hospital on the subject; and he must say that he heard no evidence to show that the existence of the market could be objected to on sanitary grounds. But the case did not terminate with the sanitary part of the question. The reference to the Committee was simply the abstract question of the removal of Smith-field market. It was not called upon to choose a site in lieu of Smithfield market, but simply to give an aye or no to the question—is it desirable that the cattle market at Smithfield shall be removed? On going further into the question, it appeared to him to be proved by conclusive evidence that the space of Smithfield market was insufficient. It appeared to him that the question of the removal or non-removal of Smithfield market, resolved itself into a question of small area. The question was, whether the area of Smith-field market, as it now existed, was sufficient for all the exigencies of the public, and moreover, whether facilities existed for enlarging the area of the market in its present situation. For it must be re- membered that the population of the metropolis was largely increased, and would continue to increase, while the area of the market remained the same. The hon. Member then proceeded to refer to the evidence of the inspector of the city police, given before the Committee, the effect of which was to show that the present area of the market was not sufficiently large. With respect to the Motion then before the House, the hon. Member for Lymington had, within a few days, since the voluminous blue book had been laid upon the table of the House, and without giving sufficient time for the Government to form an opinion upon so difficult and intricate a subject, proposed an address to the Crown, pledging the Government to adopt a decisive course with respect to it. He felt that it was impossible to give his assent to the Motion of the hon. Member, or to give any other assurance on the part of the Government than that they would take the report of the Committee into their consideration. At the same time, he thought that the hon. Member could hardly expect the House to come to any decision on the subject so soon after the report had been presented, and trusted that upon reflection the hon. Member would consent to withdraw his Motion.

MR. MACKINNON

said, that he had been induced to adopt the course he had taken in consequence of the representation of two or three Members of the Committee, that unless he brought forward the subject in the present Session, the report of the Committee would fall to the ground as a dead letter. He had no wish to press the subject unnecessarily upon the attention of the Government; and upon the assurance that they would take the subject into their serious consideration, he had no objection to withdraw his Motion.

LORD J. RUSSELL

said, that the report of the Committee having been brought before the notice of the Government, it would have been, as a matter of course, taken into consideration by them. At the same time, he wished it to be understood, that by undertaking to take into consideration the report of the Committee, the Government did not pledge themselves to the adoption of the measures recommended by the Committee.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at half after One o'clock.