mittee, every step in the proceeding upon the subject appeared to him to have been marked by a weakness, if not something worse, the natural result of which was that the plan embodied in the Bill was unsatisfactory. He would not go at length into the historical part of the question, though it would be interesting to trace its progress since the first embankment was proposed soon after the fire of London. He would rather enter at once upon the question which the House was now called upon to decide, and he would ask them for a very few moments to consider what had been the course of proceeding with reference to the matter during the last two or three years. In 1844, a Commission was appointed, composed of men of very high standing in their respective positions, and he admitted at once that their labours resulted in a Report in favour of a roadway commencing at Scotland Yard, on a plan very similar to that embodied in the present Bill. From that time to 1856, when the Metropolitan Board were called into existence, very little was done; but soon after that board commenced operations, the question was raised by them as to the advisability of carrying out a portion of the main drainage of the metropolis by means of an embankment of the Thames, instead of passing along the Strand and Fleet Street. The Board were prepared at that time to take the matter in hand, but the Government thought it better that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the subject. The Committee of 1860 was accordingly appointed; its deliberations extended over some six weeks, and the whole tenor of the evidence taken was that an embankment carrying a roadway should be carried the whole way from Blackfriars to Westminster Bridge, and that Richmond Terrace and the adjoining neigbourhood would be more than compensated for any inconvenience that might arise from a road in front of their premises by the removal of the mud bank. Mr. Page and Mr. Pennethorne were almost the only persons who attended to enforce a view such as that expressed in the report before the House, and the Report of that Committee was not signed by seven members and voted against by four; but it was unanimous, and amongst those whose names were attached to it were the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire and the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley), who, however, then appeared to be of an opinion directly contrary to that which they held two years ago. When the Committee of 1860 had presented its Report, he, as a member of the Metropolitan Board, had moved that immediate action should be taken upon it, but the right hon. Gentleman below him had interposed, and said, that although the question had been fully considered by a Committee, it was desirable it should be considered by a Commission. A Commission had been accordingly appointed, and the whole scope of the evidence taken before it was also in favour of a roadway from Blackfriars to Westminster Bridge. The Metropolitan Board were thereupon about to commence proceedings in order to carry the plan into execution; but the First Commissioner of Works had again interfered, stating that he himself would become the promoter of the work, and further delay took place. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir W. Jolliffe) had admitted that the main point in reference to this question was whether or not the plan brought by the late Committee would be more convenient for the traffic than the plan as originally proposed by the Commision. They had been told by the right hon. Gentleman that private interests had nothing whatever to do with the decision at which the Committee arrived; but he wanted to know why the Committee wasted so much valuable time in receiving evidence upon that point, and that point alone; and why the right hon. Gentleman and other members from time to time put such leading questions to those who were called to give evidence as to the way in which private interests were affected. But they had other reasons for believing that private interests were not excluded from the deliberations of the Committee. Was the House aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Petersfield himself had actually proposed a Resolution, the first paragraph of which stated that the Committee came to their decision with the view to protect the interests of the lessees of the Crown property? SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read the whole of the Resolution. MR. DOULTON said, the point to which he was alluding was the fact that the right hon. Gentleman proposed a Resolution which was to form part of the Report, and that that Resolution conveyed upon the face of it the impression that private interests had at any rate some thing to do with the decision at which the Committee arrived. The Resolution was this "The Committee are of opinion that with a view to protect the interests of the Crown and its lessees, and also to avoid unnecessary outlay in the works, and also to afford the greatest amount of relief to the most crowded streets of the metropolis, &c." it would interfere with certain lines of tramway which he had laid down on Westminster Bridge, and which, in the opinion of many persons were abominable nuisances; and by Mr. Pennethorne himself, the author of the rival plan, whose evidence could not, with any show of reason, be called impartial. There was also the evidence of the right hon. Member for Stroud, who declared, that if it could be shown that the public interests demanded the extension of the roadway to Westminster Bridge, his opposition would be at once withdrawn; and he (Mr. Doulton) hoped the right hon. Gentleman had since read the evidence, which he thought could not fail to lead him to a different conclusion from that which he had stated to the Committee. The only evidence in support of the Report which could be considered for a moment as of an impartial character was the evidence of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath (Mr. Tite); and he was sure he was not misinterpreting that evidence when he said, that although the hon. Gentleman considered Mr. Pennethorne's the better plan, his chief opposition to the proposed road was that it afforded no proper commu Thames Embankment. Upon the other side they had the evidence, not of interested architects, nor of residents in the locality, but they had such men as Hawksley, Shaw, Bidder, Bazalgette, Cubitt, and others, expressing the opinion that the property in the neighbourhood would be benefited rather than injured by the con He would cheerfully admit that the right hon. Gentleman had other grounds than private interests for the Resolution, but from the first words of the Resolution he contended that he was justified in his statement that the right hon. Gentleman had other interests in view than the protection of the public. His impression was that the Committee scarcely saw the position into which they were getting; but when he was told that private interests had nothing whatever to do with the decision, he would put it to any one whether, if instead of the Duke of Buccleuch's mansion and Richmond Rerrace there had been a series of manufactories employing some thousands of hands in the way of the complete embankment, the same decision would have been come to? The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Committee came to their decision upon the evi-nication between Charing Cross and the dence before them, and he (Mr. Doulton) believed that there was in the Report a great deal of evidence to show that the embankment should commence at Scotland Yard. But he had always understood that evidence was to be valued according to its quality and not its quantity; and he should like to draw the attention of the House to what was the nature of the evi-struction of the road. The question, howdence upon which the Committee came to their conclusion. Very few, if any, of the witnesses who spoke against the plan proposed by the Royal Commission could be regarded as impartial. Evidence in favour of stopping at Scotland Yard was given by the architect of Montagu House, who stated that the embankment would place that edifice in a ditch; by the Duke of Buccleuch, who was candid enough to say, that even if it could be proved that the public interests demanded that the road should be carried as far as Westminster Bridge, he would still protect his private rights; by the Hon. Charles Gore, who spoke without reference to the public interests, but solely with reference to the interests of the Crown as a landowner; by Mr. Page, who propounded a plan of his own in 1844, and whose main objection to the plan of the Commission was that ever, was, which plan would afford the greatest amount of convenience to the public with reference to the traffic, and upon that point they had the evidence of Sir Richard Mayne. No more competent or impartial witness could be found than Sir Richard Mayne, who had no plan to propose, but whose only wish was to see that the greatest amount of accommodation was afforded to the public. Richard stated before the Committee, that if the roadway stopped short at Scotland Yard, it would give no adequate relief to the difficulties with which the police had to contend. Another question put to Sir Richard Mayne was— Sir funds forthcoming, do you think that that would "Supposing the powers be obtained and the at all dispense with the necessity of continuing the roadway up to the foot of Westminster Bridge?" And his answer was— "I think it would not in any way touch the traffic between Charing Cross and Bridge Street." What witnesses were called to rebut the evidence of Sir Richard Mayne? None. He was not cross-examined by counsel, and scarcely any member of the Committee put any questions to him. At all events, in no respect was his evidence shaken. If the Report had been arrived at in consequence of the evidence adduced, he had a right to ask where was the evidence on which it rested. Any person reading the evidence would only find the question enveloped in more confusion than before. But, putting aside the blue-book altogether, let hon. Members station themselves for a day at the corner of Bridge Street and they would see that twothirds of the traffic of Parliament Street passed over Westminster Bridge, or went to the Houses of Parliament. Then let hon. Members go to Charing Cross, and they would find that two-thirds of the traffic from Parliament Street turned to the right by the Duke of Northumberland's house, and only a small portion of it went westward. No person, after that, would say that the traffic would not be very much relieved by the construction of the proposed embankment from Scotland Yard to Westminster Bridge. Considering that the block of buildings at the south side of Bridge Street was some day to be removed, would the House come that night to a decision which would prevent the completion of the improvement there? It might, perhaps, be said, there was no advantage in these clear open spaces; but he hoped to see the day arrive when there would be a First Commissioner of Works who would not play such tricks as had been perpetrated in Trafalgar Square. If they thus sacrificed public convenience and utility, what would they gain? When there was such rivalry between the two sides of the House with reference to financial questions, perhaps the Committee came to their recommendation because their plan was cheaper than the other. The embankment was to be made to Westminster Bridge, but there was to be only a footway from Scotland Yard to Westminster Bridge. That footway, however, was to be eighty feet wide, and the Member who proposed that must certainly have had some other object in view. Such a footway would cost nearly as much as if the embankment had been made with a roadway. But it was said the Crown lessees were to pay for it. But he found no such provision, no such security in the Bill. He certainly would not give up the ground to the Crown lessees simply for the payment of an extra rent. What did Mr. Pennethorne say when he expressed an opinion in favour of his own plan? He said"Provided always that you widen Parliament Street so as to admit the increased traffic;" and when pressed on that point, he said it might cost £200,000; but it was since found to be £300,000. So that if the provisions of the Bill were agreed to, they would get the minimum of convenience at the maximum of cost-paying a sum of nearly £300,000 for having a great project spoiled. The Committee had brought up a plan leaving both ends of the scheme referred to them untouched. He trusted the House would not conclude from the remarks which he had made that he at all desired to delay the work. The course which he had pursued elsewhere would negative any such supposition. He did not make his Motion for the purpose of delay, but he must emphatically say that if the only alternative before the House were a plan such as that embodied in the Bill, or further delay in reference to the matter, then he certainly should prefer delay rather than the adoption of a Bill which sacrificed every principle which those best acquainted with the matter thought ought to be the basis of this embankment, and which would be a perpetual memorial of the power of those in high places to trample over public rights. He therefore begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name. Amendment proposed, of the Question, in order to add the words "the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee," -instead thereof. To leave out from the word "That "to the end Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." MR. KER SEYMER said, he could hardly conceive that the House could gravely accede to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, and remit the Bill to the same Committee which had sat for a month on the subject, listened to the examination, crossexamination, and re-examination of witnesses, and come to a decision. If such a conclusion were arrived at, he should certainly respectfully request to be relieved from his duty as one of the Committee. The rule laid down with regard to private creditable to the person who wrote them, Bills was that they would not disturb the and to the newspaper that inserted them. decision arrived at by Committees upstairs. What said the noble Lord the Prime The members of those Committees gave Minister? The noble Lord was surprised unremitting attention to the subject they at the decision of the Committee, and he had to investigate. The House could supposed the noble Lord thought them compel their attendance, but not their wrong; but he said "Let the conclusion attention; and the reason why members of the Committee stand till the House gave such attention was that they knew decides upon it." What would the noble their decision, so far as the House of Com- Lord have done if he thought they had mons was concerned, would be final. In been actuated by base motives? He knew the case of a hybrid Bill the Committee was the noble Lord sufficiently well to say that only partially named by the Committee of he would have come down to that House Selection; but the members had attended and at once reversed the decision of the punctually and gave their attention as Committee. To judge of the conduct of fully as if it had been a private Bill. The the Committee a person must take into evidence had been published, but how few consideration their conduct as a whole. hon. Members had read it! Besides, there They had to deal with the plan as a whole. was a great portion of the most important They did not treat it very mercifully. kind of evidence-as, for instance, when a They cut off the head and they cut off the witness explained a plan to the Committee tail of it, and a part of the body had a -that could not be committed to short-narrow escape. Having agreed to recomhand or placed before hon. Members. He mend a street which they thought ought knew that the decision of the Committee caused surprise and regret in the minds of many hon. Members, but those hon. Members had acted in a fair and considerate manner. Some of them said to him, "We don't much like your decision; but we dare say you have some reason for it that we have not heard." He was sorry to say that such was not the course pursued by some writers in the public press. They at once jumped to a conclusion unfavourable to the Committee, without having before them the evidence on which the decision of the Committee had been arrived at. They at once came to the conclusion that the Committee had been guilty of a gross job. He was not very thin-skinned. He did not think they should enjoy their breakfast without some smart writing, but smart writing was often prejudiced writing. It was sometimes ignorant writing, and in the case under consideration it certainly was ignorant writing; for before the Report and cvidence were printed an influential journal said that Committee had committed a mean act. Now, hon. Members rather liked the style of that journal when applied to others, and therefore the Committee must not complain too much of what it said of them; but he must observe that to accuse the Committee of having committed "a mean act," and to follow up that accusation by speaking of the "audacity of their subserviency" was to exceed the bounds of fair criticism. He considered such statements simply dis not to be made, they appended to their recommendation the expression of a hope that it would not be made until the whole of the other portions of the works were completed, trusting that meanwhile a better mode of proceeding eastward might be discovered and adopted. They took a great deal of evidence, which went to show that the traffic would be encumbered by stopping the embankment at Blackfriars Bridge; but they had to stop there as far as the present works were concerned. It was not, however, the opinion of the Committee that the embankment should stop there. They did not like to give up the plan of carrying it down the river towards Queenhithe. They thought the plan a bad one, and they showed that they thought so by the manner in which they treated the Bill. Then, as regarded Whitehall, it ought not to be supposed that the Committee thought the rectangular street referred to in this debate would be the best one. They stopped at Whitehall, because they were of opinion that a better plan could be produced. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Doulton) had asked where was the disinterested evidence in favour of the recommendation of the Committee. His reply was that the map contained their case. If any hon. Member observed the bend of the river, and saw the course the traffic took, he might not arrive at the same conclusion as the Committee; but he would say that they had fair ground for the decision they came to, and that it was not as monstrous a one as to make hon. Members go out of their way to making of even a footpath in front of the impute to the Committee any dishonest Crown property, but have left it to the motives in the discharge of their duty. Board of Works to make the embankment The hon. Gentleman who had last spoken there at the expense of the revenue depassed very lightly over the evidence of rived from that property, which they Mr. Page. Now, he (Mr. Ker Seymer) would have been obliged to do in conseattached much importance to that evi- quence of the main drainage works. There dence. If any one understood the nature was another point on which he wished to of the requirements of the neighbour-say a word or two. It was not likely hood and the extent of the traffic over that the traffic on the river steamers would Westminster Bridge, it must be Mr. decrease if the embankment was continued Page, who built the new bridge. That to Westminster Bridge. How did the gentleman stated, that if traffic was House suppose passengers were to be acbrought up at right angles with West-commodated at Westminster Pier? They minster Bridge, very great inconvenience were to land in a dark tunnel under the would be caused to the traffic passing roadway. If they were beautifying the over that bridge. All the arrangements metropolis, the only persons who saw the of the roadways on the bridge itself were Thames were those who passed up and made for a direct line of traffic. Then, as down in steamboats. The Crown lessees to the Duke of Buccleuch, he did not con- would plant trees to secure their privacy, sider that, as a member of the Committee, so that instead of a fine garden down to he was to act as the agent of the noble the river there would be a dead wall and Duke. He went into the committee-room trees. The Committee had carefully conin entire ignorance of the facts of the sidered the estimate, and thought it would case, and determined to be guided by the be sufficient for the works they had sancevidence. It was asked, "Why did you tioned. But the estimate would certainly not cross-examine Sir Richard Mayne? not be sufficient for the original plan. He He did not know, when Sir Richard was believed that it would be found necessary before him, that there was anything to to re-enact for a further period, for the cross-examine him about. He thought purposes of the metropolitan improvement they had only to deal with the Chairman's and the embankment of the Thames, the plan, and it was only by degrees the case coal and wine dues. The best use to make came before the Committee. He did think of that fund would be to widen that imthat the Committee had some little ground portant point, King Street. The northern to complain of the right hon. Gentleman block of Houses in Parliament Street was their Chairman. He should be very sorry already condemned; and if they were taken to say anything hurtful to that right hon. | down and King Street was widened, there Gentleman, for he presided over them would be a noble access to the embankment with the greatest good temper; but he indicated by the plan of Mr. Pennethorne. did not think that right hon. Gentleman There had been on two occasions an inquiry appreciated the importance which the into the tolls of the metropolis. A ComCommittee attached to the alternative mittee on Metropolitan Communications, plan-[Mr. CoWPER: Hear, hear!]-be- in 1854, reported that all existing restriccause, when he was asked about the cor- tions and tolls on roads and bridges ought respondence, he said he had looked into to be, as far as possible, removed. In it, and it was not material. The right 1859 a Metropolitan Toll Commission rehon. Gentleman thought it was not mate- ported, that in order to relieve some of the rial because the second plan was not before most crowded thoroughfares, it would be the Committee; but if they had the cor- desirable to make Southwark and Waterloo respondence, it would have shown them bridges free. Let the House adopt that that the second plan ought to have been recommendation, and free Waterloo Bridge before them. He therefore thought the from toll, which now gave an unnatural right hon. Gentleman was arguing in a direction to the traffic. Let King Street vicious circle. The plan was at last pro- be widened, and then the House would see duced, but he very much doubted whether how much traffic would flow naturally to they had had the whole of the corre- Westminster Bridge by a Thames embankspondence on the subject. He wished to ment. Why, there would be none at all. refer to a point on which he believed he A Commission had been recommended, and differed from the majority of the Commit- he, too, said let a Commission be appointed, tee. He should not have proposed the but not a packed or prejudiced Commission. |