§ Mr. Whitbreadhaving presented a Petition from the inhabitants of St. James, Clerkenwell, contributing to the sewers rates, in favour of the Bill, which was ordered to lie on the table, moved the second reading, which was opposed by Mr. Mellish.
Mr. Byngspoke against the Bill. He admitted that great abuses had prevailed, and that the commissioners had improperly appointed Mr. Henley to be clerk and treasurer; but he contended, that the commissioners were competent to correct these abuses.
§ Mr. Whitbread, in reply, stated, that the Bill was a child of the member for Middlesex, but that he had deserted his offspring. He (Mr. Whitbread) had taken 812 up the Bill as an inhabitant of St. Luke, who was much aggrieved by the rates, and, as one of the constituents of the hon. member opposite (Mr. Mellish), he called upon him for redress. He trusted, from what the hon. members has said, that the House would support the Bill; as his hon. friend, and the other member for Middlesex, had both admitted that great abuses had existed under the preceding commission; that the same person had held the office of clerk and treasurer, and had thus done away a useful check; that although higher and more frequent rates than had ever been known before had been levied, a debt of 22,000l. had been incurred; and that contributors to the rates had been denied access to their accounts. The hon. members opposed the Bill on the ground that these abuses had existed under the former commission. He (Mr. Whitbread) had no doubt that the present commissioners were all honourable men; and that, although most of them had been on the former commission, they had set about rectifying some of the abuses, especially after the aggrieved inhabitants had determined to apply to the legislature. He had heard that accounts had been made out; but, he must complain, in an unsatisfactory manner, as explanation respecting the 22,000l. had been refused, on the ground that the present commissioners were not answerable for the acts of their predecessors. He (Mr. Whitbread) did not call upon the House to retrieve the past, but to prevent future abuses. Under the law, as it now stood, preceding commissioners had committed abuses, and future commissioners would have the same power. For several years past, a rate of one shilling in the pound had been levied; which, on a rental of upwards of one million, had raised fifty thousand pounds; a sum equivalent to what had formerly been sufficient for the rate of several years. Less work had been done, and more money expended. I had been said, that all amendments should apply to the sewers laws in general. It might be better if those laws were to undergo a revision; but if, in 1788, it had been found proper to pass an Act for the Holborn and Finsbury district, there could be no objection to amend that Act in the present year. He had heard that 500l. had been expended in tavern dinners. It was not fit that a public body should incur such expences as they would not have done in their individual capacity.
§ The House then divided; when there were 49 for the Bill, and 18 against it. Majority for the second reading, 31.