HC Deb 27 May 1835 vol 28 cc186-7

Sir Samuel Whalley moved the second reading of the St. Pancras Paving Bill.

Lord Stormont

opposed the second reading of the Bill, on the ground, that it was intended to amalgamate the several distinct Boards of the parish into one Board, and thereby to saddle the exorbitant debts of some of the districts upon the rest. The parish was divided into nineteen districts, but so much opposition was anticipated from two of them, that the promoters of the Bill had thought proper to omit them. He concluded by moving, "That the Bill be read a second time this day six months."

Mr. Tooke

having opposed the Bill during the last Session, he now saw no reason to alter his opinion. The public would gain nothing from the proposed change, for the power of the Committee would fall into the hands of the Vestry, very few of whom attended. He had presented several petitions from inhabitants, and more had been presented from bond-holders, who were of opinion, that their claims would be prejudiced, by having a fluctuating body like the Vestry substituted for the respectable trustees. He, therefore, with pleasure seconded the Motion of the noble Lord.

Mr. Hume

would ask, whether it was fit that seventeen Boards should exist with 500 members, while the parish had a respectable Vestry of 100 individuals elected by open poll? It would give a greater security to the bond-holders than they had now. He trusted that the House would let the Bill pass the second reading, and in the Committee every disposition would be shown to afford the best security to every individual.

Mr. Wilks

said, that, though at the risk of the censure of his hon. Friend, he was Prepared to give a vote against the Bill, as he had done Before, and he trusted that the House would, as they had done before, throw out the Bill. Parliament had no fight to abolish the security of any individual who had lent his money upon the full security of the rates, bridges, &c., which they now had.

Sir Samuel Whalley

said, that by the Bill, the Vestry were enjoined to raise a particular rate for the payment of the interest and capital of the debt, so that the House would see at once, that the security was not in the least impaired. The last Bill was thrown out because it was opposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), who said, "except the Foundling Estates, and I will vote for the second reading," they had now excepted those estates, in justice, not to him only, but to the case itself, for they were situated in two different parishes.

Sir Robert Inglis

said, the case was not one of party politics at all, and he trusted that the day would never come when local Bills would be so decided. Though St. Pancras Was called a parish, it was not to be confounded with those small parishes common in other parts. It covered a very large extent of ground, and contained both town and country parts—then was it fair that those country parts should be under the same regulation as the town ones. He trusted that the Bill would be thrown out by as large a majority as had taken that course last year.

Mr. Fox Maule

hoped the Bill would pass. He would vote for the second reading, on account of his abhorrence of any public business being done by self-elected bodies.

Mr. Byng

would vote for the second reading, as he thought it would be much to the advantage of the parish, by abolishing a great number of useless Boards.

Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwer rose, amidst loud cries of "Divide, divide." He said, he would support the second reading of the Bill, and he was sure if the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had been in his place, it would have had his support.

The House divided on the original Motion: Ayes 113; Noes 115—Majority 2.