[DEBATE ON CLEANSING THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER.]
Lord TYRCONNEL made a motion for bringing in a bill for the better
cleansing and paving the streets of Westminster, and the liberties
thereof; in support of which motion he spoke to the following purpose:--
Sir, though the grievance which I am about to lay before the house is
not of the most formidable or dangerous kind, yet as it is such as grows
every day greater, and such as every day endangers the lives of
thousands, I hope it will not be thought useless or improper to propose
it to the consideration of this assembly, to offer my thoughts on the
methods by which it may be most easily removed, and to endeavour to
incite others to the same considerations.
It is impossible, sir, to come to this assembly, or to return from it
without observations on the present condition of the streets of
Westminster; observations forced upon every man, however inattentive, or
however engrossed by reflections of a different kind.
The warmest zeal for publick happiness, the most anxious vigilance
against general dangers, must, I believe, sometimes give way to objects
of immediate, though of less importance, nor will the most
publick-spirited senators deny, that they have often been in the streets
alarmed with obstructions, or shocked with nuisances.
The filth, sir, of some parts of the town, and the inequality and
ruggedness of others, cannot but in the eyes of foreigners disgrace our
nation, and incline them to imagine us a people, not only without
delicacy, but without government, a herd of barbarians, or a colony of
hottentots.
The most disgusting part of the character given by travellers, of the
most savage nations, is their neglect of cleanliness, of which, perhaps,
no part of the world affords more proofs, than the streets of the
British capital; a city famous for wealth, and commerce, and plenty, and
for every other kind of civility and politeness, but which abounds with
such heaps of filth, as a savage would look on with amazement.
If that be allowed which is generally believed, that putrefaction and
stench are the causes of pestilential distempers, the removal of this
grievance may be pressed from motives of far greater weight than those
of delicacy and pleasure; and I might solicit the timely care of this
assembly for the preservation of inuumerable multitudes, and intreat
those, who are watching against slight misfortunes, to unite their
endeavours with mine, to avert the greatest and most dreadful of
calamities.
Not to dwell, sir, upon dangers, which may, perhaps, be thought only
imaginary, I hope that it will be at least considered, how much the
present neglect of the pavement is detrimental to every carriage,
whether of trade, or pleasure, or convenience, and that those who have
allowed so much of their attention to petitions, relating to the roads
of the kingdom, the repair of some of which is almost every session
thought of importance sufficient to produce debates in this house, will
not think the streets of the capital alone unworthy of their regard.
That the present neglect of cleansing and paving the streets is such as
ought not to be borne, that the passenger is every where either
surprised and endangered by unexpected chasms, or offended or obstructed
by mountains of filth, is well known to every one that has passed a
single day in this great city; and that this grievance is without remedy
is a sufficient proof that no magistrate has, at present power to remove
it; for every man's private regard to his own ease and safety, would
incite him to exert his authority on this occasion.
I humbly propose, therefore, that a bill may be brought into the house,
to enable his majesty's justices of peace for the liberties of
Westminster, to inspect the publick ways of this city, and punish the
neglect of cleansing and paving them; or that a new officer be
appointed, and vested with full authority for the same purpose.
Mr. SANDYS spoke next, to this effect:--Sir, I believe the grievance, so
much complained of by the right honourable member, is not difficult to
be removed without a new act of the legislature, being, perhaps, more
properly to be imputed to the negligence of the justices, than a defect
of their authority; for they have already sufficient power to regulate
this disorder: and I may be allowed to hope, sir, that they do not want
leisure to observe it, for their number is so great, that if we suppose
them to be wholly engaged by the common business of their office, a
foreigner would have occasion of reproaching us with defects more
important than want of delicacy, and might justly censure us as a people
corrupt beyond the common rate of human wickedness, a nation divided
only into two classes, magistrates and criminals.
But they, in reality, abound so much among us, that most of them are
only nominal magistrates, vested with authority which they never exert,
or exert to bad purposes, and which it were well if they were obliged to
employ in the real service of their country, by superintending the
paviers and the scavengers.
For this reason it is unnecessary to erect a new officer, as an
inspector of our streets, since every office that is not necessary is
pernicious. Were the consequences of this grievance such as they have
been represented, I should, perhaps, willingly erect a new office,
though I should not be surprised to hear the wisest man declare rather
for a pestilence than an increase of officers.
As I neither think the grievance insupportable, nor the methods proposed
for removing it necessary or proper, I declare myself against the
motion.
Lord GAGE spoke in the following manner:--Sir, as the grievance cannot
be denied to be real, and the motion, therefore, may reasonably be
imagined to have been made without any other intention than of
benefiting the publick by an useful law, I cannot discover any
sufficient reason for a rejection so peremptory and contemptuous.
That every man is disgusted, and almost every man daily endangered in
our streets, has not been denied; nor will any man, I suppose, question
what, if he has not yet experienced it, he may, perhaps, be fully
convinced of, in his next visit or excursion.
Those evils, which every man feels, though slight, are worthy of the
attention of the legislature; and that danger that threatens multitudes,
though distant, ought to be averted: for a small disorder, like a small
expense, when it extends to multitudes, becomes a national affair.
But though this motion may, perhaps, be liable to some objections, there
is, certainly, no such absurdity to be found in it, as may justify us in
rejecting it without examination; to reject a motion when it is first
offered, is a proof of prejudice, next to that of rejecting it unheard;
it is to determine a question, before it is discussed, or can be fully
understood.
Mr. SANDYS replied, in substance as follows:--Sir, I cannot but differ
very widely in opinion from the right honourable member that spoke last,
with regard to the propriety of opposing a motion when it is first made;
a practice, which I can by no means think inconsistent with either
decency or prudence, and which would, perhaps, be of use to the publick,
if it was more frequent.
When any motion is made, it is subjected to the consideration of this
assembly, and every member is at full liberty to examine and discuss it.
If it appears to deserve farther attention, it may be admitted, but if
the subject be either improper or unseasonable, or the measures proposed
injudicious or dangerous, it is then to be rejected; and if it is at
last to be rejected, it is apparent that no time ought to be thrown away
upon it.
The hours, and days, and weeks, that have been improfitably spent upon
bills which after all our endeavours could not be passed; the delays of
real benefits to the publick, which have been produced by long pursuits
of shadowy advantages, have inclined me to a more expeditious method of
proceeding, and determined me speedily to reject what I cannot hope to
amend.
[The question being put, passed in the negative, 142 against 109.]