§ The House resolved itself into a committee on this bill. On the clause for granting 150,000l. from the Consolidated Fund, by instalments, for the building of a new bridge,
Mr. Humeobjected to the grant, unless an arrangement were made to secure the repayment of it to the public. If the government had more money, than it wanted, it ought to remit it to the nation in taxes. He believed that the city of London did not want a new bridge, and that it was a gross job. Every purpose of a new bridge might be answered by increasing the water-way of the old one, which he understood might be effected for 100,000l.
Mr. H. Sumnersaid, that if the new bridge were a job, he was the author of it, but he altogether denied that it was a Job.
§ The hon. member then entered into variety of details, for the purpose of convincing the committee, that the present London-bridge was a nuisance to the city and ought to be taken down. He considered the sum now proposed a moderate one, and should therefore give the resolution his cordial support.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerconfessed that he had originally been reluctant to make this grant to the city of London, without seeing means provided for its repayment. He considered that the building of London-bridge was not so much a local as a national object. A plan had been suggested for repaying the money by a toll, but this would have been liable to so much public inconvenience, that he had not thought it expedient to resort to this mode of repayment. After having given the subject much consideration, he had ultimately, though not without reluctance, come to the conclusion, that he was justified in acceding to the grant.
§ The House divided: For the clause 81, For the Amendment 12.
| List of the Minority. | |
| Astell, W. | Lockhart, J. J. |
| Calvert, C. | Monck, J. B. |
| Cradock, col. | Newnham, J. W. |
| Clinton, sir H. | Powlett, hon. W. |
| Dawkins, H. | Wells, J. |
| Hey gate, W. | TELLER.M |
| Lambton, J. G. | Hume, W. |