HC Deb 08 April 1870 vol 200 cc1543-52
MR. SAMUDA,

in rising to call attention to negotiations going on for the selection of a site for a waterside Foreign Cattle Market, said, that by an Act passed in 1869 the Corporation of the City of London was authorized to construct such a market; but in case of its failure to do so to the satisfaction of the Privy Council by January, 1872, the project might be taken up by other parties, who would be considered "the local authorities" for that specific purpose. The matter was one of very great importance. In the year 1865, just before the appearance of the cattle plague, no fewer than 300,000 oxen and 900,000 sheep were sold in the Metropolitan Cattle Market, and were, he presumed, consumed in the metropolis. Of those, rather more than one-half of the entire number were imported. If the result of the cattle plague had been to raise the price of meat 1d. per pound, that increase imposed an additional charge of £1,000,000 sterling a year on the meat consumers of the metropolis. The Corporation had solicited offers of sites for a waterside market, and at least four sites had been offered, of which three were on the north side of the Thames. The first was offered by the Victoria Dock Company, and lay at North Woolwich. It consisted of 35 acres of ground contiguous to the river, and in immediate connection with 300 or 400 acres of pasturage land, separated from the other marsh pasture by a wide dyke. Railway communication both with the Cattle Market at Islington, and the Dead Meat Market at Smithfield, was close at hand. The second site was one of 15 acres, contiguous to the upper entrance of the Victoria Dock, and known as Odams Manure Factory, Blackwall. It had a wharf frontage of 700 feet, and the advantage of proximate railway communication. The third site was the surplus land of the Millwall Docks, in the Isle of Dogs. It was 50 acres in extent, was near railways, and had a wharf frontage of 1,200 feet on one side, and 2,000 feet on the other. In addition to those, an offer was made of a small piece of ground—about 12 acres in all—on the south side of the river at Deptford, called Deadman's Dock, and situate immediately above the Government Victualling Yard. These four sites had been submitted to the Common Council, and he understood they had submitted to the Vice President of the Council the piece of ground on the south side of the river at Deptford as that which they desired to take for the purposes of a Foreign Cattle Market. Seeing that that site was so unsuitable and inferior to the others, he himself put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, and was followed up by another from the hon. Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), in replying to which the right hon Gentleman said, although it was not the business of the Government to find out the best site in or near the metropolis, it was their duty to say that a site would not be satisfactory if it evidently would not; and he went on to state that after hearing the Markets Committee's statement the Privy Council came to the conclusion that there was no reason for objecting to the proposed site at Deptford provided the area was sufficiently large to meet the requirements of the market and to give the necessary wharf accommodation. Now, he (Mr. Samuda) had every confidence in his right hon. Friend's determination to do what was right in that matter; and his present object was to point out to him that even if 14 acres could be obtained at Deptford, they would be wholly inadequate for the requirements of the public and the trade, and also that, whatever quantity of land could be procured there, the south side of the river would not be nearly so suitable a site as on the north side of the Thames. With respect to the comparative advantages of north and south, it was manifest, in the first place, that two - thirds of the consumers lay on the north of the river. In the next place, so completely had the general trade of the metropolis fallen into the course which he stated was most convenient that the majority of all the foreign cattle were disembarked on the north side. Brown's Wharf, Victoria Dock, Blackwall, were the great depôts. Thirdly, the distance between the Mill-wall site and Whitechapel by road might be accomplished with, a light travelling cart in 20 minutes, while to go to the south side by the same conveyance you would have not only to pass over three miles of ground when you reached the other side of the river, but, what was of much more consequence, the whole of the traffic would have to be carried over London Bridge, the management of the traffic over which was already one of the great difficulties of metropolitan regulation. With regard to the amount of acreage required, it was perfectly clear that the City of London had not, in the slightest degree, realized the intentions of the Committee of that House. When the City authorities came to examine the sites on the northern bank of the river, and the large extent of acreage available was pointed out, the reply was that they did not want 15 or 20 acres; an acre and a half would be sufficient for them; all they required was a place large enough to turn in the cattle that might be diseased. Now, the whole object was to keep foreign cattle separate from the Islington market, and when it was recollected that on the average 2,500 foreign cattle and 10,000 sheep were landed every week, it was easy to perceive that even for lairs an acre and a half would be entirely insufficient. At present three-fourths of the foreign cattle came under the ban of the Act applying to infected districts; and if sufficient space were not provided, the shippers could not send them, and the result would be that we should soon be reduced to famine prices. Even supposing there were no quarantine, seeing that the greatest number of foreign arrivals took place in the earlier part of the week, while the latter part of the week was devoted to slaughtering, they must have accommodation sufficient for one week's consumption. He assumed that an acre of ground would be required, as lairage for 300 cattle or 1,000 sheep. Therefore, for 2,500 cattle and 10,000 sheep fully 18 acres were required; while, if they considered the area requisite for roads, slaughterhouses, offices, shops, and the arrangements of a market generally, fully another 18 acres ought to be provided; so that with our present consumption we could not do with less than 40 acres. And if that were so it would be most unwise to select any site not capable of extension to twice that quantity, looking to the enormous in- crease of the foreign cattle trade which had occurred of late years. For instance, while in 1860 the importations amounted only to 104,000 head of cattle and 320,000 sheep, in 1865 they had risen to 284,000 of the former and 910,000 of the latter. In his opinion the authorities of the City of London had taken a short - sighted view of the matter; he was convinced that nothing less than an ample and efficiently constructed market would answer, and that if there was any failure to fulfil the object of the Legislature, owing to a too limited space being provided, the work would have to be done over again. He hoped the Board of Trade would take up this question, which could be more satisfactorily dealt with there than if its adjustment fell into the hands of interested parties who would not be likely to consult the public interest.

SIR HENEY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he represented a constituency (West Essex) which was deeply interested in the efficient carrying out of the Act of last Session. After the part which the Vice President of the Council had taken in the passing of that measure, his constituents were quite prepared to leave the matter in the right hon. Gentleman's hands; but their attention having been called to a meeting of the Common Council held in January last, at which the subject of the Foreign Market was brought under the notice of the Common Council by the Markets Committee, they felt that some attempt was going to be made to represent before the Privy Council as eligible a site which really was not adequate to the wants of the trade. They were led to believe that the Markets Committee did not look at the matter with that gravity which they, as home producers, liked to see—because they felt that the time had arrived when they ought to be released from those restrictions which had so long harassed the home trade—and they hoped that the Vice President would not sanction any scheme which would not provide for a sufficient market. The two chief points were—first, that the site should be of sufficient acreage; and, secondly, that the wharf accommodation should be sufficient for the disembarcation of the cattle. With regard to the proposed site and the wharfage accommodation it afforded, he was told that the actual wharfage front was not over 800 feet. Now, all the authorities appeared to agree that a very much larger extent of wharfage was necessary, and that 600 feet at least was absolutely required. From accounts which had been placed in his hands it appeared that a large number of vessels laden with cattle arrived by the same tide, and consequently required to discharge their cargoes almost at the same time. The navigation also from Gravesend to Deadman's Dock was very difficult, so that very frequently vessels were obliged to remain at Gravesend for two hours before the tide enabled them to go up the river. On some days 11 vessels required to discharge their cargoes within four hours, and that could not be done conveniently at the wharfage front available at Deadman's Dock. The hon. Member having read at some length extracts from letters of persons largely connected with the cattle trade, pressing the necessity for large accommodation for landing imported cattle, proceeded to contrast the facilities of access presented by the northern on the southern sites, saying that if a southern site were selected there would be great delay in the transmission of the meat. It had been said, with regard to the sites on the northern side of the river, that the railway accommodation would be deficient; but it could hardly be considered so after the passing of the Act empowering the Great Eastern Railway to complete their junction to the Metropolitan Meat Market. In conclusion, he wished to impress on the Vice President of the Council the wish of the farmers and of the home trade in his part of the country that if possible the Government should exercise their veto with regard to the site, so as to procure for them a really efficient market for the foreign trade.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he did not complain of the length at which his hon. Friend (Mr. Samuda) had dwelt upon this question, because he was well aware of its extreme importance and of the responsibility which rested on the Department he represented. At the same time, he must express his opinion that his hon. Friend over - estimated the amount of responsibility which attached to the Privy Council. Hon. Members who had taken part in the discussion previous to the passing of the Act of last year would bear him out when he stated that it was not intended that the choice of the market should rest with the Government. It was, however, intended that the Government should have a veto with regard to any site that might be proposed; but as the City authorities had to construct and maintain the market, it was for them to choose a place or a certain number of places, and to obtain the opinion of the Privy Council as to whether any of these places was a suitable one. The present position of affairs was as follows:—Some time ago the Markets Committee waited upon his noble Friend Earl de Grey and himself, and stated that they had thoroughly examined eight sites, plans of which were submitted to the opinion of the Privy Council. They appeared to prefer Deadman's Dock, because it was the nearest of all to the Royal Exchange, its distance being 3¾ miles, while the site near Victoria Dock was 4½ miles; and it was clear it was best situated as regards the present railway accommodation. His noble Friend and himself felt that, as far as mere situation went, there was no objection to that site. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) consequently instructed the Secretary of the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council to write to the Corporation, that they saw no reason to object to the site at Deptford, provided the area would be sufficiently large to meet the requirements of the trade, and that there would also be adequate wharfage accommodation. It was for the City to ascertain what extent of market they would require, and having ascertained that, to furnish the City with that market. It was easy to judge what extent of market room was required from the aggregate of the imports in past times, and this seemed to be the only preliminary point the Corporation had to determine. There could be no doubt that a large market would be required; but he understood that the area at Deadman's Dock would contain 18 acres. It had been very properly stated that sufficient wharfage accommodation would be necessary, and on this point he would observe that it would be quite possible, by throwing out piers and jetties, if the Thames Conservancy would sanction it, to provide the necessary wharfage accommodation on the site suggested. This would, no doubt, involve considerable expenditure; but that also was a point for the Corporation to decide. The Markets Committee, he be- lieved, had not finally decided upon its Report; but it had all the necessary information and calculations before it, and the House might rest assured that both the Corporation, on the one hand, and the Government on the other, were well aware that a bonâ fide market would have to be made. It could hardly be supposed that the City authorities would attempt to make a market which the Government could not approve; because it would be a serious expense to them if, after they had incurred all the expense, the market were disapproved as inadequate to the requirements. The Markets Committee was composed of excellent men of business, who knew exactly what was required of them. He was glad of this discussion, as it would remove an impression that the Corporation did not intend to make the market. He was not aware of any reason for the supposition. It had been stated that the imports were diminishing; but it was not wise to judge by the results of a month or two. The imports last year were double the amount of the year before. He believed in the necessity for separating the foreign from the home market, and he had no doubt that such an arrangement would prove advantageous both to the trade and to agriculturists. The Privy Council, while declining to select the site, were determined that the market to be provided should fully meet all the requirements of the case.

MR. LOCKE

said, that he had served on the Foreign Cattle Market Committee two years ago; and he was sure from what had just been stated that after due consideration a proper market would be built. The fact that the Corporation had selected a site at Deptford, which was on the opposite side of the river, showed that they had sound reasons for their choice. As he represented a borough (Southwark) on the same side of the water, he might perhaps be allowed to say a few words in favour of this selection. Of course hon. Members knew that all these foreign animals had skins, which must be carried away. The regular receptacle for such skins was the borough of Southwark, where the principal tanners in England carried on their business—the most famous borough in the world for tanning. It was stated before the Parliamentary Committee that it would be very convenient to the tanning trade to have the market near Southwark, so that there might be no necessity for carrying the skins through the crowded thoroughfares of the City. It would be absurd, in his opinion, to listen to the advice of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda), who on this occasion rather represented Whitechapel, and place the market in the neighbourhood of the Isle of Dogs, in a village deserted by mankind, and, above all, avoided by tanners. After being distinctly informed as to the space required the Corporation had come to the conclusion that Deptford was the best place.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

observed, that the hon. Member was under a misapprehension. The Corporation had not come to any conclusion, for the Markets Committee had not yet sent in their first Report.

MR. LOCKE

said, the Corporation had, at any rate, made special reference to Deptford, not, perhaps, as being the most salubrious spot, for that was unnecessary, but as the most convenient site for a market. He hoped they would adhere to this opinion.

MR. C. S. READ

remarked that thanks were due to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets for bringing forward this subject, although the agricultural interest had full confidence in the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council. It would be in the recollection of the House that by the Act of last year a monopoly was given to the Corporation of London on the condition that they opened the market in the course of throe years. It was not to be supposed for a moment that the Corporation would resign their monopoly, and thus give up their chance of doubling the tolls on the home stock, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had a pretty tight rein over them, and it was to be hoped he would not fail to use it with firmness. Still the home producers wished to protect the trade from the inconvenience which would arise from the establishment of a small market in some out-of-the-way place down the river. The hon. Member for Southwark said that the site need not be salubrious; but the neighbourhood of large sewers was not the best place for a dead meat market. The necessity for providing not only for the present scheduled stock, but for the contingencies of an outbreak of disease amongst foreign cattle and sheep must not be forgotten.

MR. A. JOHNSTON

said, he thought it would not escape the observation of his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) that of those who had spoken in the debate the independent opinion was entirely in favour of a market on the northern bank of the Thames. He (Mr. Johnston) might be considered interested. His hon. Friend the Member for South-wark might be considered interested; but the hon. Members for West Essex and South Norfork were not so in any degree, and their opinion was entitled to very great weight for that reason. Now his hon. Friend the Member for South-wark (Mr. Locke) had said that the Corporation probably had some very good reason for selecting Deadman's Dock. No doubt they had. The only question was, what the reason was. Now, it had been said, he knew not with what truth, that the object in fixing on such an out-of-the-way site was to concentrate the whole of the meat trade at Smith-field. The Deptford site was so inaccessible to the general public, that the meat would have to be brought to Smithfield before they could come and buy it, and in that case the Corporation would get two sets of tolls instead of one, possibly a legitimate object for them, but not one on which the public, or his right hon. Friend, who had the public interest to protect, could look with very great favour. His hon. Friend opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had told the House truly that he represented a most important grazing district. So did he (Mr. Johnston), but he represented more than that: he represented as well an immense and rapidly growing population in the midst of which was situated one of the market sites of which his hon. Friend (Mr. Samuda) had spoken with favour. A gentleman, perhaps better qualified than anyone else to judge, unconnected with that district, had assured him of his own accord that there was no suburb of London so interesting and important in its future. That district would in itself be a grand customer for any market; but it was connected by road and rail, as he would presently show, with all the north and centre of the metropolis. His right hon. Friend had said that the Deptford site was the nearest to the Exchange of any of those which had been offered to the Corporation; but he had admitted that the access to it was tortuous and narrow. "But," he said, it has better railway accommodation." Well, supposing it had, and its advantage in this respect would be of short duration. What was railway accommodation? Why, his hon. Friend (Mr. Samuda) had shown clearly enough that for this purpose, and for these short distances, it ought not to weigh an iota against good access for vans by road. Now he (Mr. Johnston) did not hesitate to say that the Victoria Dock site had the best access of that kind that any site could possibly have. A wide avenue—he would call it a "noble avenue" were it not for the meanness of the building on either side of it—led from the "iron bridge" to the very heart of the metropolis. It was little known because of two great obstruction—its tolls, and the imperfect finish of its west end—but both these obstacles were about, he hoped, to disappear, and then, as he had said, no suburb would have finer communication. Now, the only argument good for anything, as it appeared to him, which his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark had used, was that which referred to leather. Well, they all knew there was nothing like it; but his hon. Friend had forgotten how easily these skins might be boated up and across the river to some handy little wharf—Deadman's Dock itself, perhaps—it was just about large enough for a hide market—and there handed over to the tanners of Bermondsey. He would not trouble the House with any further remarks. He trusted—nay, he knew—that his right hon. Friend would give the matter his most earnest attention—would weigh the arguments which had been brought forward in the debate, and protect the interests of the public which were committed to his care.

Back to