"That copies of all Correspondence between question asked and answered which he the Treasury and the Office of Works, and the was not present to hear. He now came Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenue relating to the Thames Embankment, to a portion of the case which it was necesbe referred to the Committee, and also the plans sary should be understood, in order to clear relating thereto." an officer of that House-the Committee clerk as well as himself and the other The right hon. Gentleman renewed his members of the Committee, from any objections to that Resolution; and he charge of irregularity. There was a discus(Sir J. Shelley) gave as his reason for so sion on the subject in the House on Tuesdoing, that the subject had now shown day last, and he (Sir J. Shelley) incidentitself to be a question in dispute between ally alluded to the Resolution having been. two Departments-the Office of Woods passed in Committee. The right hon. and the Office of Works; and that as the Gentleman turned round in his seat and Treasury stood in the relation of umpires contradicted him. A right hon. Gentlein this matter, and it was their duty to man who spoke afterwards (Sir W. Jolliffe) protect public interests. As regards the said he had heard the right hon. GentleDepartments, he (Sir J. Shelley) did not man's contradiction with great surprise. think it just or right that the head of one He (Sir J. Shelley) naturally felt hurt that Department only should have the power of his veracity should be thus questioned, saying what should or should not be given. and felt that he must vindicate himself. The Committee were called upon to give He therefore induced the hon. and learned their votes, when every Member of the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. AyrCommittee, except the right hon. Gentle- ton) to go to the Speaker, and state that man, recorded his vote with the "Ayes;" under the circumstances it was his (Sir and under these circumstances the votes J. Shelley's) intention to put a notice upon were not taken down. That Resolution the paper of a Motion ordering the Comwas come to on the Friday, and the Com-mittee clerk to appear at the bar of the mittee did not meet till the Monday following. When the Resolution had been put, the right hon. Gentleman, instead of handing it to the Committee clerk, took it away with him. He (Sir John Shelley) thought it but just to a most excellent officer of the House-the Committee clerk -that the subject should be distinctly understood. The right hon. Gentleman, having taken the Resolution away with him, certainly had the whole of Friday and Saturday, and, if he had thought proper, a portion of the Sunday, to look over his papers. The Committee met on the Monday, and, after considerable discussion, concluded their Report. During the whole of that day, and until the proceedings appeared in print, he believed there was not one Member of the Committee who had the slightest idea that the Resolution carried on the Friday would not appear on the Minutes of the proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman made no statement to the Committee of not being able to find any papers relating to the Returns, nor-so far as he (Sir J. Shelley) was aware-did he make any observation on the subject. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could have made any observation of this kind without his (Sir J. Shelley's) knowledge, because it so happened-for his sins perhaps that during that investigation there was no House on the following Monday. He (Sir J. Shelley) then left the House for an hour or two; and on afterwards returning he met the right hon. Gentleman below the gangway. The House would observe the way in which he held up the paper. [Holding up a paper of which one part was folded over the other.] The right hon. Gentleman, holding the paper in this manner, said "I have found a copy of the Resolution you moved." The Resolution was in the right hon. Gentleman's own handwriting, and was follows:-- as Treasury and the Office of Works, and the Com"Copies of all correspondence between the missioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenue, relating to the works between Fife House and Westminster Bridge, and the plans relating thereto." On seeing that he exclaimed, with some irritation, that it was not a true copy of the Resolution, and that the words "between Fife House and Westminster Bridge" were not in the Resolution he put to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman then turned up a loose portion of the paper--thus-and said, "Oh yes! these were the words:-'relating to the works under the Thames Embankment Bill shall be referred to this Committee.'" He (Sir J. Shelley) said; he would have no copies of his Resolution, he would have the original, to prove to the House he had stated nothing but the fact. The right hon. Gentleman then said he had placed the Resolution in the hands of the Committee clerk. Accordingly, he (Sir J. Shelley) proceeded to find the Committee clerk, and then, in company with that gentleman and the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, went to the Speaker and placed before him the Resolution which he (Sir J. Shelley) had moved in Committee, and it was then found that the Resolution had been altered-a pen having been drawn through the words "works under the Thames Embankment," and "between Fife House and Westminster Bridge" substituted, in the handwriting of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Sir J. Shelley) then insisted upon the exact words of the Resolution so carried in Committee appearing on the Minutes of the proceedings, and the Speaker ordered the Committee clerk to see the printer and insist upon a fly leaf containing the Resolution being printed and delivered to Members on the following Monday. That was done, and hon. Members would find the Resolution in its proper place. But the fact still remained that the House was assembled to discuss the question; and though the plan to which the Resolution referred had been sent to hon. Members that morning, the correspondence was not before them. He was sorry to have to make that statement, but he felt bound to do so in order that the regularity of the proceedings before the Committee should be inquired into. No doubt a great responsibility rested with the Committee clerk, but he thought the House would agree with him that that gentleman was wholly free from blame in the matter. Considering the way the question had been prejudged out of doors, without waiting to see the circumstances upon which the decision of the Committee was based, he depended upon the House to do justice to those gentlemen whom they had intrusted with the inquiry, and who had considered the question with great care, sifting the evidence and being guided in their conclusions only by their sense of what was due to the public interest. MR. COWPER: Sir, I think the proceedings which have just taken place are exceedingly irregular. They are undoubtedly so in a Parliamentary sense. It is remarkable that I should be singled out, because I am the promoter of this Bill, for a series of malicious and un founded attacks. The other day the noble Lord, whom I see opposite (Lord Robert Montagu), was made a cat's-paw of to bring an accusation against me for a thing which turned out to be utterly trumpery and insignificant-that, after the Committee had concluded their Report, and after the House had ordered a blue-book to be printed, I gave to a friend a printed copy of what the House had itself ordered to be printed. Well, what charge could be more trumpery and insignificant? Who would have thought of bringing that matter before the House if they who did so had no ulterior and worse motive? And the House thought it trumpery. MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot impute motives. MR. COWPER: Sir, I beg pardon; I have no wish to speak about motives, except as throwing light on acts; and what I have said as to motives I beg to retract. I wish to speak only of acts. Upon inquiry, it turned out that somebody had done a thing not usual among gentlemen-had not respected the privacy of a document which fell into hands for which it was not intended. Well, I do not care upon whom the responsibility of that proceeding rests, whether upon the gentleman into whose hands the document fell, or upon the noble Lord opposite or any of his advisers; but this I say, that this attack, coming after the other, shows me that there is a great desire in some quarters that this Embankment Bill should not be considered upon its proper merits, and that the attention of the House should be diverted from the real point in question. It reminds me of the brief given to the defendant's counsel in a trial-"No case, abuse the plaintiff's attorney ;" and so it was said, Here there is no case, abuse the promoters of the Bill." Now, I say the hon. Baronet has given a colour to the transactions which he related which is not warranted, nor is it right. SIR JOHN SHELLEY: I hope my right hon. Friend will excuse me. I think I could corroborate what I said in two words. MR. COWPER: I say the hon. Baronet has given an unfair colouring to the facts to which he referred. The case was a very simple one. The counsel for the Duke of Buccleuch applied to have all the correspondence relating to the question at issue-the case before the Committee-whether the roadway should go in front of the House of the Duke of Buc of time, probably in the course of to-morrow. I believe I took away the original copy of the Resolution before the clerk had entered it, and I am accused of doing so instead of taking a copy. But I was not aware that the clerk had not made an entry of it; an entry was of little importance, for we all agreed that the correspondence should be produced; there was no objection, and the matter seemed of no importance. I made no opposition to the printing of the papers, and I am accused of a thing for which there is no foundation. [Mr. A. SMITH: But as to the alteration?] Oh! the alteration. My explanation of that is this:-After the notice had been drawn up there was a discussion in the Committee whether it would not be right not to extend the reference to the works of the whole Embankment, but to limit it to the works of that particular portion of the Embankment about which there was a dispute, and I remember saying to the members of the Committee, "I think you do not want to have the correspondence, if there is any, about the whole of the Embankment, but only about that portion of it which is between Whitehall, or Fife House and Westminster Bridge," and some of the Members agreed with me, and said, "Put in Whitehall Stairs or Fife House." I heard no objection, and took it as a unanimous decision. It was cleuch and the other Crown lessees, or in another direction. I at once said that all the correspondence which had passed should be granted. It appears, however, that there was some other correspondence of which I was not cognizant-not belonging to my department, but which the Committee were desirous to have. A Motion was accordingly made in Committee for all the correspondence relating to the works. My impression was that the Committee wanted correspondence similar to what had been already granted, relating to the ques tion at issue that of alternative roads. Therefore I said, "I will give it you;" and at the close of the sitting I took away the original Motion with me in order to send it to the other offices, so that I might get the information for the Committee as rapidly as possible, because, as it was very near the close of the proceedings of the Committee, there would not have been time to get all the correspondence in the ordinary way by the Committee clerk writing an official letter to the office. So, instead of leaving the clerk to write, I took the Resolution home with me, in order to get the correspondence in time. I looked at the correspond ence in my own office, but I could find nothing which I thought came within the order of reference. I then sent the Resolution to other departments; but before Monday, when the Committee terminated its proceedings, no further correspondence a matter of indifference to me. I would was furnished. When the hon. Baronet feel obliged to any Member of the Comthe Member for Westminster (Sir John mittee to confirm my statement, if it is Shelley) brought the subject before the correct, that the Committee agreed that House, he proceeded to give notice of a the words should be altered. Not expectMotion different in terms from the Resolu- ing such a statement as the hon. Baronet tion agreed to by the Committee, and which has made to-night, I wrote the alteration had reference only to works. But the with my own hand. I did not suspect hon. Baronet put a notice on the paper for anything, and therefore, unfortunately, I correspondence relating to the Bill and the am open to his false accusation. [“Oh, Report of the Commission; and when I con- (oh!"] I did not mean to say anything tradicted him, it was, because he asserted, uncivil; but the statement of the hon. as I thought, that he had given notice of Baronet was not founded on fact. the same Motion as had been passed in Com- LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, he mittee. I contradicted him flatly, because begged to confirm the statement which he had made a mistake, and I thought had been just made by the right hon. he would be glad to be set right. I Gentleman. It was said in the Committee, entirely concurred in the Motion being made in the House, as it had been agreed to by the Committee. I never made a single objection to it at any time, and I cannot see what blame is to be attached to me in that matter. The papers have not yet been delivered by the printer. I suppose they are in the printer's hands, and will be delivered in the ordinary course that if all the papers were produced, there would be a great deal in them relating to Hungerford Market and other places which they did not care to see, and that they wanted merely the correspondence which related to part of the Embankment. The alteration was therefore suggested after the Resolution was passed, and the Committee assented to it. LORD HARRY VANE said, he could confirm what had been stated by the noble Lord. THAMES EMBANKMENT BILL. [BILL NO. 162.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE said, the House would not be surprised if, after what had occurred, the members of the Committee which had sat on that subject were anxious to take an opportunity of offering some observations on their conduct, which had been so seriously impugned. And if it were previously necessary to say anything on the subject, the remarks which had just been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) made explanation on their part still more necessary. He wished first, however, to confirm one part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement with regard to the alterations in the Resolution. There certainly had been a conversation in which he (Sir W. Jolliffe) took part; and what he said was, that all they wanted was what referred to the Crown property, and what ever related to the different plans which they had before them. Now, the alternative plans were not submitted to Parliament by the promoters of the Bill-very much to his surprise-and it was on that account that he thought that so much of the correspondence as related to those plans was essential to the proper understanding of the subject. The Committee had certainly some claims for forbearance from the House, after what they had undergone for the last two or three weeks, and they were entitled to take the first legitimate opportunity to appeal to the House for its protection against animadversions on the conduct they had pursued in a public capacity. The duty the Committee had to perform was a duty towards that House, and the basest motives had been attributed to them, for they had been accused of subserviency to private interests, instead of doing their duty to the public. They had been charged with various acts for which there was not the slightest foundation in truth; and he defied any man to show that anything occurred in the Committee which could lead to the slightest suspicion that the Committee were subservient to private interests. The Committee had submitted in silence for two or three VOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.] weeks to these imputations and threats 2 X would not go by the Thames Embank-offices might be built. Those, he subment, as the distance would be shorter mitted, were considerations which must across Blackfriars Bridge; and really have weighed with any rational man in dealand truly the efficiency of this measure ing with the subject; and although the was defeated by the low-level embankment, Committee had been taunted with not for which Parliament alone was responsible, asking this or that question, he thought the as the railway bridges which it had sanc- House would have no difficulty in doing tioned rendered that description of level them the justice to admit that they could necessary. He thought the Committee only ask questions as the case developed had a right to complain of the defective itself, while many more questions might manner in which the Parliamentary papers have been put to persons examined in the were placed before the House. The Com- early part of the investigation, had they mittee sat in a room for weeks with a known what would at a subsequent stage plan, called Pennethorne's plan, pinned have been elicited. He should now rest to the wall; but in the Parliamentary satisfied with the short statement which papers now on the table another plan he had made to the House, feeling assured appeared to be substituted for it, and any void in it would be filled up by others included the taking down of two blocks of who might speak after him, and that houses in Parliament Street, at a cost of hon. Members would do him the justice no less than £300,000. That, however, to believe he was actuated by no other was not Mr. Pennethorne's plan, which motives in coming to the conclusion at only included the block of houses in front which he arrived in the Committee than of the Government offices, likely in any a regard for the benefit of the public. case to be pulled down, and the widening of King Street from the point at which the new offices would be built to Great George Street. That might be done, perhaps, at no expense, as the construction of a better description of houses than the present mean tenements might produce an income almost equivalent to the expense. The question before the Committee was, which would be the most convenient point to the public for the road to diverge at, and leave the Thames Embankment-whether at Westminster Bridge or Whitehall Stairs. He had already said that the traffic from the City to Lambeth would naturally go over Blackfriars Bridge, and would not come near Westminster. If the road were carried to Westminster Bridge, and had then to ascend by an incline plane, the heavy traffic would avoid it as much as possible, and moreover the whole beauty of the work would be destroyed; and the Committee decided, considering that the main body of traffic going westward would turn down Victoria Street or Birdcage Walk, that in that case the traffic might diverge from the embankment to King Street with great convenience to the public. By taking the course which they had done the Committee had, he might add, saved the expense of the Embankment so far as the Crown property was concerned. They saved also one of the best houses on the property-that in which Lord Carington at present resided, and therefore kept intact a space which might accrue, and on which, at a very moderate cost to the country, all its public MR. DOULTON said, he thought it must be a matter of great and general regret that the construction of a Thames embankment, which was purely a public question, should have been invested with considerations of so purely personal a character as almost to preclude the House from giving to it that calm deliberation which its importance demanded. In addressing himself to the subject, therefore, he would not follow the example set him by the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire (Lord R. Montagu), who had too evidently attempted to divert the House from the real issue by means of personal allegations. Nor was it his intention to follow the remarks which had been made that night, which tended to show that there had really been some small differences in the Committee upon the question. He regretted that he should be called upon to oppose a Bill founded upon the Report of a Committee, and he approached the question with some misgivings and some fear lest, by the course he proposed to take, he should in any way contribute to the delay which had attended all previous proceedings in regard to this subject. Nor had he much hope that the result of their deliberations on that occasion would lead to a more satisfactory issue, for from the time when the question was first referred to the Royal Commission, whether he had regard to the suspicious arrangements made in connection with the Commission, or whether he had regard to the timidity of the Com |