Let there be a Commission of fair, able, | roadway stopping at Whitehall, although and independent men, and he, for one, they had sanctioned, so far as a Commitwould not be afraid of the result. When tee could sanction, a footway to Westthe array of counsel before the Committee minster Bridge. Therefore all those who was complained of, he must say for him- were on foot would have the advantage of self that he was glad the private interests a footway through the whole line of route of the lessees were affected, because the from Blackfriars to Westminster Bridge; Committee would not otherwise have got and if any persons were aggrieved, it was out all the facts of the case. He did not the aristocrats and those who drove in know why the House should object to carriages and rode horses. As had been insert the words proposed by the right well observed by the hon. Member for hon. Gentleman, although he did not think Bath, when asked his opinion on the subthem necessary. He should not object to ject, cabs and omnibuses, which carried refer to the Commissioners the scheme of the great mass of the people, would never a roadway in front of the Houses of Parlia- proceed to Westminster Bridge by a road ment, although it appeared to him to be a from Whitehall Stairs along the Thames, monstrous scheme, and had been quite because they would always take the scouted by Mr. Tite. After all the obloquy nearest way, whether they were going to which had been cast upon the Committee, Birdcage Walk, Victoria Street, or Milhe believed that their plan would even- bank. As far, therefore, as the interests tually be adopted. of the public were concerned, it was not LORD HARRY VANE said, that as a true that they were disregarded by the member of the Committee he could say Committee. Again, when it was prothat they had attended most assiduously to posed to the Committee to sanction a road their duties, and that no Committee could to Westminster Bridge, there was nothing have entered upon an investigation within the Bill which would empower Parliaa more fixed determination to give a judidial opinion upon the matter referred to them. No doubt, some of the witnesses were partial on one side and some on the other; but he believed that the decision of the Committee was founded entirely on the evidence. The charge in the newspapers was, that the Committee acted under a base feeling of audacious observiency. He affirmed, on the contrary, that the Committee were actuated by no such feeling. They were bound to consider the question as it affected the interests of the Crown lessees as well as the interests of the Crown, not in order that the interests of the lessees should stand in the way of a great public improvement, but in order that justice might be done to them. The Bill was promoted by the Board of Works; and if the interests of the public had been alone in question, there would have been no cause for referring the matter to the Committee. The members of the Committee had paid no more attention to the interests of the Duke of Buccleuch than to those of any other person on the line. He repudiated with the utmost indignation the imputation that cither he or any other member of the Committee had been influenced by any such motives as those attributed to them by the hon. Member for Lambeth. The Committee were of opinion that the public interests would be better promoted by the

ment to buy up the houses at the north
side of Bridge Street, though the houses
on the south side were to be cleared away,
and that was a weak point in the Bill.
His own opinion at first was, that they
ought to sanction the original scheme; but
when they had Mr. Pennethorne's plan
before them-which, however, came under
the notice of the Committee only by de-
grees - and when they considered the
question of the traffic to Westminster
Bridge, it did appear that the pressure
would be so great as to cause extreme
inconvenience. He could not believe that
the hon. Member for Lambeth would per-
severe with his Motion; but if he did, he
trusted the House would reject it. He
very much doubted whether any other de-
cision than what had been come to would
be arrived at by any Committee to whom
the question might be again referred. The
Committee had not sanctioned Mr. Penne-
thorne's plan, because it was not regularly
before them; but his belief was, that some
such plan was the best.
into the inquiry with perfect impartiality,
and had come out of it with the same
feelings, and it was with great reluctance
that he had consented to the road being
stopped.

He had gone

MR. TITE said, the hon. Member for Lambeth had only done him strict justice in saying that his opinion was an unbiassed one. He had not the honour of knowing

He should

the Duke of Buccleuch, nor did he believe I would not be discreditable.
he had ever seen him till he heard him give
evidence before the Committee. He was as
anxious as his hon. Friend the Member
for Lambeth that the Thames Embankment
should be proceeded with, because it was
a necessary ingredient in the great metro-
politan drainage, in which they were all
interested; but, as it happened, the me-
tropolitan drainage did not at all interfere
with the question before the House. The
main sewer from Victoria Street came
down Parliament Street, and Whitehall
Yard, and emptied itself into the Thames
at that point; and therefore, if the em-
bankment took up the sewer there, every
purpose, so far as the sewer was con-
cerned, would be served. The line of
the embankment was determined by the
conformation of the Thames, and the ex-
act course which must be followed was
called Walker's line or Page's line, from
having been laid down by those engineers.
The question upon which his opinion had
been asked was, whether, if the new street
were to be turned off from Whitehall
Stairs and Whitehall Yard into Parlia-
ment Street, it would be more for the
public convenience; and his answer was,
that it would be better to do so than to
have all the traffic carried along the
Thames to Westminster Bridge. More-
over, it was admitted that the embank-
ment of the Thames should not be more
than four feet above high-water mark; so
that they would thus have an incline of
one in thirty from the road to the bridge.
[An hon. MEMBER: One in eighty.]
At all events, there would be a steep
incline. Any hon. Gentleman who went
upon Westminster Bridge, and looked at
the difference between the level of the
bridge and that of the wharves, would see
that there must be a considerable incline,
and one which he was certain, from his
experience in the City, that no heavy
traffic was likely to travel upon. If he
could conceive the possibility of conti-
nuing the road along the embankment in
front of these Houses, he might take a
different view of the question; but he
could not conceive such a possibility, be-
cause the terrace went as far into the
river as its conformation would admit
of, was in a line with the abutments of
the bridge itself, and with the line of the
proposed embankment below the bridge.
He did not believe they could by any
engineering contrivance carry a road in
front of the Houses in any manner that

like to see a continuous road two miles
in extent along the bank of the river,
which would certainly be a magnificent
promenade, but he did not know how it
could be done. Believing sincerely that
Mr. Pennethorne's plan would give a
more convenient approach than one across
the avenue of Westminster Bridge, he
had honestly expressed that opinion be-
fore the Committee, and he adhered to it.
He entreated the House not to interfere
with the progress of the Thames Embank-
ment at all events. Let the question
under discussion remain an open one if
they pleased, until they saw what could
really be done with the whole matter.
And when it was said that the Committee
moved for by the hon. Member for Coven-
try was committed on this subject of an
access to Westminster Bridge, he begged
to observe that that was a mistake. The
members of that Committee all conceded
the desirableness of an embankment of
the Thames, and that the embankment
should not be occupied by wharves or
buildings, but should be an open quay,
with a road along it, that road to be con-
nected with existing thoroughfares; but
that they were committed as to where it
should begin or end he denied altogether.
He could not help thinking that the Select
Committee whose Report was under dis-
cussion had come to a right conclusion
when they adopted a footway. A foot-
way of eighty feet wide would, in fact,
be a road, and there would be no difficulty
in carrying that into effect. He therefore
begged his hon. Friend not to interrupt
an important work by an indirect and
incidental question; and he trusted that
the House would adopt the course re-
commended by the noble Lord at the
head of Her Majesty's Government in
the Amendment of which he had given
notice.

MR. LOCKE said, he could not attribute to his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), that he was influenced to adopt a course because it was favourable to the interest of a noble duke. His hon. Friend, however, had declared himself in favour of a road throughout the length of the embankment, and the length of that embankment was to be from Blackfriars Bridge to Westminster Bridge. It was a remarkable thing, that if there were one question in that Committee upon which all its members were agreed, it was that there should be an embankment between

his particular office. So the public were erroneous conclusions on the matter when to go to the wall. The public were per- they found that not a word was said fectly satisfied without the interposition against a particular portion of the proposed of Mr. Pennethorne. As Sir Richard embankment until the Duke of Buccleuch Mayne well observed, it was the narrowest and his right hon. Friend the Member for part of a street that regulated the traffic Stroud appeared upon the stage. He did of the whole of it. What did Mr. Penne- not mean to say that those Gentlemen thorne propose? That instead of having exercised any influence on the Members two roads the public should have only one. of the Committee. They could certainly That was the great public benefactor from exercise no influence over him, and he the Woods. Never since he (Mr. Locke) therefore felt perfectly satisfied they would was returned to that House, in 1857, had have no influence with anybody else. he seen the House in such a condition as it Everybody in the House, he felt assured, was in that night. A question of the utmost gave the Committee credit for being actuimportance to the inhabitants of the metro- ated by the purest motives in the decision polis had been confused by the introduction to which they came; but some of themof a multitude of subjects with which it the hon. Baronet the Member for Westhad nothing to do. The simple question minster among the number-had put was, first, whether two roads were better things into the Duke of Buccleuch's head than one; and, next, whether a road in which probably he would otherwise have addition to the existing one could by any never thought of. He, in fact, asked the possibility cause any inconvenience. Was noble Duke whether the carriages passing there any evidence that an additional road by the proposed route would not be so diswould cause any inconvenience? He had agreeable to him as to lead him to plant not heard a single word to prove that it trees in the front of his house, and thus would. There was no evidence to prove entirely block out the people passing along that traffic along the embankments would the embankment from obtaining a view of cause any inconvenience to the traffic that beautiful structure. Now, if the passing along Westminster Bridge. An noble Duke did plant those trees and did hon. Gentleman opposite had said that shut out the view of his magnificent resithere was no public bridge in this country dence, he, for his own part, should be which was approached by a road at right rather pleased than otherwise. The style angles. He (Mr. Locke) deeply regretted of the architecture was not at all that that such was the fact. In that respect which he admired, but that was, of course, our bridges were unlike those of any other all a matter of taste. At all events, he country. Ireland, which was a pattern to thought it would be a very good thing, so us in many things, was a good pattern to far as foreigners were concerned, that the us with regard to bridges. To all the building should be withdrawn from the bridges in Dublin there were streets run- public view, because it would only furning at right angles. He would particu-nish them with another reason for calling larly instance Carlisle Bridge, which led us "Western Chinese," and saying that into Sackville Street. The approaches to all we could do in the way of architecture our bridges were incomprehensible to a was to copy an old, worn out, and abanforeigner; and when there was an oppor-doned style. Again, if trees were planted tunity of greatly ornamenting the metro- by the noble Duke as suggested, everypolis and benefiting its inhabitants by the proposed embankment, they ought to reform their system. It was said that there was no cross-examination in the Committee as to whether or not there would be a block of traffic at the north end of Westminster Bridge in consequence of the proposed embankment, until the appearance of the advocates of the Duke of Buccleuch and others. He entirely deprecated such imputations as had been cast out of doors upon Members of that House, be they seated on a Committee or anywhere else. He was not, at the same time, astonished that outsiders should form

body would understand them and admire them, too, whereas, with regard to architecture, the greatest possible variety of opinions always prevailed. The Duke of Buccleuch therefore would not do so absurd a thing as block out his own view for the purpose of concealing what nobody cared to see. The reason which Mr. Pennethorne gave for his plan was, that some day or other the country might think fit to lay out £30,000 more in pulling down more houses in Parliament Street. But if those houses were pulled down, the embankment of the Thames would not be made better or worse. Mr. Pennethorne said there

He would positively state that what the
right hon. Gentleman had said in his de-
fence was correct, and that the alteration
made in the Resolution was the modification
agreed to by the whole Committee.
did not think that they would gain any-
thing by assenting to the Motion of the
hon. Member for Lambeth.

He

SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, that he regretted that personal matters should have been introduced into this question. He should himself enter into the discussion without reference to any matters of that kind, believing that the Members of the Select Committee might laugh to scorn all the attacks which had been made upon them in the public journals. There were two kinds of vulgarity of mind. One was shown by the man who was ready to truckle and bow and scrape to great personages; but the other and more detestable was evinced by him who sought to gain a little fleeting popularity by attacking a gentleman because he happened to be a Duke. In his judgment, of all the cowards upon earth, the man who had not the moral courage to stand up for that which he believed to be right lest he should be thought to be truckling to a great personage was the least worthy to mingle in the society of gentlemen. He had no hesitation in declaring that the Committee came to their decision upon public grounds alone; and, as far as he was concerned, he could conscientiously declare that he never adopted a Resolution which, upon mature consideration, he believed to be a more righteous one.

ought to be a roadway from Charing Cross to the embankment. So there ought; but could not that roadway co-exist with an embankment from Whitehall to Westminster Bridge? All the arguments that had been brought against the embankment amounted to this, that because something else had not been done, therefore this could not be done. There was no sense in such arguments. Let the proposed embankment be made. As for the other improvements which had been suggested by the opponents of the embankment, we could wait patiently for them. But he trusted that the House would not lose that opportunity of ornamenting and greatly benefiting the metropolis by the proposed embankment. MR. POLLARD-URQUHART said, that as one of the four Members who had voted in the minority on the Committee, he wished to express his regret that such imputations as had been made out of doors-imputations implying flun. keyism and subserviency to a great ducal interest should have been cast upon those of his colleagues who happened to differ from him in opinion. Such imputations he should, if it were not unparliamentary to do so, characterize as arrant humbug; and he might further observe, that although he dissented from the majority on the Committee, many good reasons had been advanced to show that the plan of Mr. Pennethorne would greatly relieve the traffic of the metropolis. But even though that was the case, the advantages of the plan were not so great as to induce him to come to the conclusion that The Committee had taken it would be desirable to forego in its a vast amount of evidence, and had come favour so great an improvement to the to a decision by a large majority; and the metropolis as the construction of a road- farther the subject was inquired into the way from Blackfriars to Westminster more they would be found to be justified Bridge. He had heard it stated, indeed, in that decision, and the less persons out that inconvenience would be likely to re- of doors would be prepared to take for sult from having the traffic along that gospel everything that had been said by roadway run perpendicular to that along the press before the evidence was in the the bridge; but those who used that hands of the public. He had always been argument seemed to forget that the road-a strong advocate for some plan for Thames way was to have a curve at the junc-embankment, but from first to last he had tion, and that in Paris, Florence, Vienna, looked upon the scheme which had been and many other continental towns, road- placed before the Committee as a miseraways ran in a similar manner at right ble abortion. It was based on no reliable angles with the bridges. Moreover, the estimates. No instructions had even been road would have a curved or bell en- given for estimates until the Bill had been trance to the bridge, and the point of referred to the Committee. Even before junction would be at a place where there the Royal Commission the estimate prowas now, or soon would be, plenty of duced was a mere verbal one, given by room. He regretted that such personal Mr. Hunt, the surveyor of the Board of attacks had been made upon the right Works-a mere surmise or rough calculahon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner. tion that the scheme could be carried out