§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ SIR JAMES DUKE moved the second reading of this Bill, which provided for the removal of the dead-meat market from Newgate and its establishment in Smithfield. The Bill had received the approval of the Home Office and of the trade, and he therefore trusted that the House would consent to the second reading of the Bill, and its consideration by a Select Committee of independent Members upstairs.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
asked of what use were Reports of Committees and Commissions if, when they pointed out the benefit 20 to the health of the inhabitants from open spaces in large towns, their recommendations were to be thus disregarded? He protested against the annoyance to the inhabitants of the Metropolis of establishing a dead-meat market in the heart of the City. If a dead-meat market were wanted, let it be established at a proper distance from town. The Bill was, in fact, a most arrant City job, and, believing that the health and welfare of this great Metropolis required its rejection, he moved that it be read a second time that clay six months.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
§ MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS
said, he should support the Bill, as he believed that a dead-meat market was much wanted in the City of London, and never so much as now, because a larger amount than ever of dead meat was sent to the Metropolis from the provinces.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that the result of removing the City Cattle Market was that the ancient site of Smithfield was unoccupied. The City of London proposed to establish at their own expense a dead-meat market in the place of Newgate Market, which had become utterly insufficient for any purpose, and, in short, a public nuisance. Owing to the great extension of railways and steamers the trade in dead meat as compared with that of live cattle sent to the Metropolis, was annually on the increase, and required additional accommodation. So far from this being a City job, he trusted it would not prove a losing speculation for the City. The Bill, being partly public and partly private, would go before a Select Committee upstairs, where any objections to its details might be fully considered. He, therefore, trusted that the House would agree to the second reading.
§ MR. HANBURY
said, he trusted the House would pause before it gave its assent to the Bill proposed, as not only the formation of a dead-meat market, but the erection of slaughter-houses in the City, might interfere with the sanitary condition of the Metropolis.
§ SIR MORTON PETO
said, that while professing to take only a comparatively small portion of the site of Smithfield, the Bill would in fact take the larger portion of it. And he believed, moreover, that, under the cover of a meat market, the Bill designed to advance the interests, 21 especially, of a proposed railway, which was to have a considerable extent of the space assigned to it. He objected on behalf of his constituents to any buildings being erected on the site of Smithfield, and urged that to pass the Bill would be to contravene the decision of the Commission which inquired into the removal of the Cattle Market.
said, he had been Chairman of the Committee which had considered this question, and he thought this plan did carry out a great portion of their intentions. The plan proposed would tend, as he believed, to the sanitary improvement of the Metropolis, and he thought the House might lend its sanction to the measure.
§ MR. NORRIS
said, that all that was proposed to be taken of the ancient site of the market for the purposes of this Bill was 447 yards, while the City proposed to give up 2,270 yards of their corporation property for the benefit of the public. He would not then go into the merits of the Bill, but he hoped it would be read a second time, so that it could be referred to a Committee up-stairs.
§ MR. T. S. DUNCOMBE
said, this Bill bore on the face of it the appearance of a job, from being mixed up with the Corporation of the City of London and the Metropolitan Railway, but he should have no objection to the Bill being read a second time, if it should then be referred to a Select Committee. While the establishment of this market might prove of benefit to some portion of his constituents, yet he thought they were bound to keep open spaces in the City for their recreation.
§ MR. E. P. BOUVERIE
said, he wished to direct attention to the circumstance that this Bill, which was essentially a private Bill, had been introduced as a public one by a Motion in the House. Such a course was permitted only when a measure of this sort was brought forward by a Member of the Government, because the Crown could not appear as petitioner for a private Bill before the House.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he did not know whether this was the proper time to take the objection, or whether it ought not to have been taken at an earlier stage. The Metropolitan Cattle-market Bill was brought in by the Government and treated afterwards as a private Bill. This Bill was not brought in by the Government, but he did not understand that if it were its quality would consequently be altered.
§ MR. W. EWART
said, he rose to order. 22 He wished to ask the Speaker whether it was competent for the right hon. Gentleman to address the House twice upon the same Motion.
§ MR. SPEAKER
said, that the right hon. Baronet was out of order, as he had already addressed the House.
§ MR. SLANEY
said, he also must urge the necessity of open spaces being kept for the benefit of the people, and with that view he hoped the Bill would go before a Select Committee. Unless some pledge were given that it would be so referred, he trusted the House would resist the Bill.
§ MR. DEEDES
said, he could not help thinking that there was great importance in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), and it was quite clear that a Bill like that, involving such great interests, both public and private, should not be sent to a different tribunal than that which usually investigated matters of that kind, and therefore he was in favour of it being referred to a Committee to be nominated by that House.
§ SIR JAMES DUKE
said, he moved the second reading of this Bill with a view of having it referred to the Committee of Selection; so to that extent the objection to the Bill was removed.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department had no objection to the Bill being referred to a Committee of Selection after the second reading.
§ Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read 2°, and committed to the Committee of Selection.