tleman was to leave that block of build-
ings standing. Parliament Street was to
be unimproved, and the crossing at Bridge
Street was to be made worse than ever,
because the traffic at Westminster Bridge
was to be met by a new line of traffic
running at right angles with it from the
embankment; and whereas two police-
men were now needed to keep the traffic
in order at Bridge Street, four would here-
after be needed, besides two policemen at
Westminster Bridge, to prevent the con-
fusion which would inevitably occur there.
But that was not all. The Commission
took evidence as to no less than twenty-
two lines of railway which were to run
along the roadway and to have a terminus
about Westminster Bridge. Every one
knew that railway stations increased and
created traffic, and yet one of the means of
relieving the pressure at Westminster
Bridge which the Committee gravely in-
quired into was to create a terminus with-
in fifty yards of it. The objection made
to taking away the block of buildings was
that it would be expensive. The Office
of Works put it at £300,000, and Mr. Pen-
nethorne estimated it at half that sum;
but considering that the Bill was to au-
thorize a total expenditure of £2,000,000,
surely £300,000 was not too much for a
project which would be one of the most
important improvements in the metropo-
lis. Mr. Gore was prepared for that, and
was prepared to remedy it; again, not
by any plan of his own, but by an ar-
rangement which he found in his office
under a minute of Lord Bessborough, and
sanctioned, if not originated, by the late
Sir Robert Peel. He told the lessees at
that meeting, that as by Mr. Penne-
thorne's plan the roadway could not be
carried along the whole of the proposed
embankment, he was prepared to recom-
mend that the Crown should pay for the
embankment and remunerate itself by an
increased charge on the lessees. That
work had been estimated at £90,000, the
compensation to the lessees might be as
much more, or say half as much more,
and that sum
of from £100,000 to
Mr. Horsman

of buildings which stopped up Parliament | £200,000 was to be applied either to
Street, even at an increased expense, would pulling down that block of buildings
at once produce the desired improvement. which obstructed Parliament Street, to
When the New Foreign Office was built, embanking the south side of the Thames,
the street so widened, with the Abbey, or to some other of those metropolitan
the Houses of Parliament, and the Foreign improvements which were now stand-
Office combined, would present one of the ing still for want of funds.
It was
finest architectural effects in the metro- no boon to the lessees to be allowed to
polis. But the plan of the right hon. Gen-pay for the embankment. They did not
desire it, and it was not an original plan
of Mr. Gore; but they were perfectly
ready, as they had stated throughout, to
follow out any arrangement which might
be proposed by the Crown, and which
upon the fullest investigation should be
pronounced to be for the public advantage.
Mr. Gore proposed to effect a great saving
by laying a burden on the lessees. The
lessees did not seek it, but they were per-
fectly willing to submit to that burden.
That was the alternative plan submitted
to the Commission by Mr. Pennethorne,
which had been so carefully kept from the
knowledge of the House. It was received
by the Commission as ungraciously as
possible. They heard Mr. Pennethorne,
bowed him out, and never recalled him;
and although fifty-nine other projectors
were examined before the Committee, and
some of them recalled more than once,
the same courtesy was never extended
to him. The plans and estimates of the
fifty-nine projectors appeared in the ap-
pendix to the Report, but Mr. Penne-
thorne's plan was not placed there, and no
mention was made of it. There could be
no other reason for that than that the Com-
mission had entered on their duties with
a foregone conclusion, and would enter-
tain nothing which militated against it.
Mr. Gore's plan was not original, neither
was Mr. Pennethorne's. The plan of a
roadway stopping at Whitehall Stairs
was also found in the office, as recom-
mended by the Royal Commission of
1844. It was curious to look at the
names of the persons on that Commission,
and to contrast the notions which Govern-
ment and the public entertained in those
days of the composition of a Royal Com-
mission with those which seemed now to
prevail. On that Commission were Lord
Lincoln, Lord Colborne, Mr. Herries, Sir
Robert Inglis, Mr. Gally Knight, Sir Charles
Lemon, Mr. Milne, Mr. Gore, Sir Charles
Barry, and Sir Robert Smirke. Every ele-
ment of inquiry was carefully included in
that list. The Government was represented
by Ministers of the Crown, the public by
Members of Parliament, the office by Mr.

Gore and Mr. Milne; and as in those days it was felt that in all matters of metropolitan improvement taste should be combined with utility, there were placed on that Commission gentlemen such as Lord Cockburn and Sir Robert Inglis, and they were assisted by the professional experience of Sir Robert Smirke and Sir Charles Barry. Such names as these were calculated to inspire confidence in the public, and were not to be compared with the homogeneous batch of paid functionaries by which the President of the Board of Works had indicated his idea of how a Royal Commission should be constituted. Against the gentlemen on the last Commission, neither he nor any one else could have anything to say individually; but if an impartial inquiry was desired, the right hon. Gentleman might just as well have gazetted seven junior clerks in his own office. In the autumn of last year both these plans, the plan of the Commission and Mr. Gore's plan, were submitted by the two offices of Woods and Works to the Treasury. On the 13th of February the Treasury wrote thus to the President of the Board of Works

"The question at issue between the departments of Woods and Works turns upon the degree of importance which may be attached to the plan for continuing the public roadway along the whole line of the proposed embankment, or to the alternative plan of commencing the public road from a point below the Crown property at Whitehall."

In those words the Treasury stated the real question at issue. It was not, as the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner, for his own purposes, had unfairly represented it, a question between the public and the lessees, but between two departments of the Government, one

which it would not be proper for them to anti-
cipate the judgment of Parliament.
Their Lordships are of opinion that Her Majesty
should be advised to leave free power to Parlia-
ment to decide on the question at issue regarding
the line of roadway to be adopted."
The Treasury therefore obviously ex-
pected that both plans would be submitted
to Parliament, and referred to the Com-
mittee; so that the public, and not the
right hon. Gentieman, might be the judges
in this matter. Had not the public as
much faith in Mr. Gore as in his right
hon. Friend? It was evident that the
Government had, because it declined to
judge between them. And now he hoped
the House would ask why the alternative
plan of Mr. Pennethorne was entirely sup-
pressed, and why they were forced either
to take the plan embodied in the Bill or
none at all. The subsequent proceedings.
increased in interest. It was known that
a correspondence on the subject had taken
place, and accordingly notice of motion
was given for its production. The First
Commissioner declined to produce it, and
gave as his reason that it was too volumi-
nous. That was to say, upon a project
which was to cost £2,000,000, and on
which a blue-book was about to be pub-
lished, that correspondence, forming, per-
haps, the most important part of the case,
was not worth the expense of a few pounds
to print. Then came the Committee,
which the First Commissioner wished to
nominate himself. The right hon. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Bouverie) objected, requiring
that the Committee should be judicial,
and that, as so many private interests were
involved, it should be nominated by the
Committee of Selection. At last a com-
promise was effected, the First Commis-
sioner nominating seven members, while

of them presided over by the First Com-five were nominated by the Committee of missioner, new in his office, representing Selection. Hitherto the Crown lessecs only the Government of the day, with its had been neutral, but now they were comnecessities and its devices; the other under pelled to come more prominently forward. the charge of a public servant of great On a Bill of that nature the Crown had experience, representing the interests both no power of appearing before the Comof the public and the Crown, and by his mittee, because it had a power of veto duty under obligation to defend both from before the third reading in the Lords. the mischievous assaults of a temporary Nor had the general public any power of official who might be bidding for the sup- appearing by petition or otherwise. Howport of Parliamentary followers or influ- ever pernicious the Bill might be, and ential journalists. These two rival plans however injurious to public rights, the of rival functionaries were submitted to public had no means of petitioning or apthe Treasury, and what did they say about pearing against it, except through some them? The Treasury declined to adjudi- private individual, whose interests were cate between them, aud, in the same letter affected. The Crown lessees were therefrom which he had already quoted, said-fore compelled to appear, representing the "My Lords feel that these are questions upon Crown and the public as well as them

selves they did not, as had been stated, | hon. Member for Coventry had been the proput themselves voluntarily forward; the jector of the old scheme, and that the hon. rules of Parliament forced them to appear, Member for Finsbury took a lively interest that being the only way to secure a hear- in it also. Having given that sketch of ing and get justice done to the public. the proceedings upon this question for the Accordingly, they appeared by petition, last three years, he would next appeal to and the first act of their counsel was once the House and to the First Commissioner, more to ask for the correspondence which in what respect had the Duke of Buccleuch they said was absolutely necessary to the committed any offence against the public proper conduct of the inquiry. The answer interest? On the part of the public, and given by the Chairman was, not that the for the satisfaction of the public, they had correspondence was too voluminous, but a right to an answer. His right hon. that it was not relevant to the inquiry, Friend had heard those charges; he knew and would only divert the minds of the they had been widely disseminated; he Committee from the true subject before had admitted that he had been in correthem. Could any one understand how spondence with the parties who were such an answer could be given by any making them, and therefore they had a gentleman capable, as his right hon. Friend right to know from him-did he believe was, of knowing what was the relevancy these charges to be true, or did he not of correspondence to an inquiry? How know them to be entirely false? He asked ever, the Committee, like the House of the question, not as a matter of courtesy, Commons, ignorant of the nature of the but on behalf of the public as a matter of correspondence, were again satisfied by the strict right. Was it not evident that the assurance given, and the correspondence Duke of Buccleuch did not take the iniwas not moved for. In the course of tiative either in supporting or in opposing Mr. Gore's examination, however, it was any plan? Two plans were presented to elicited that he had sent in a report to the him, emanating from two Government Treasury, and then it could no longer be departments. The First Commissioner of withheld. The report was given in; but Works was opposed by the First Comit was not until the Committee had sat for missioner of Woods, and the First Comseveral days that they had ever heard of missioner of Woods was attempted to be Mr. Pennethorne's plan or of Mr. Gore's snuffed out by the First Commissioner of report. It was not till the Committee had Works. In that civil war, for which the come to their main conclusion, and had Duke of Buccleuch furnished the ground almost finished their Report, that they be- of battle, he was compelled to take a part. came aware of the real nature of the cor- He had no alternative. He preferred respondence and of the expectation of the the plan which he felt was best for the Treasury that the alternative plan would public interest, and the Committee of the be laid before Parliament. No sooner did House of Commons, after a careful, lathe Committee hear the conclusive evi- borious, and conscientious inquiry, endence of Mr. Pennethorne, and peruse the dorsed his judgment. But it was said the report of Mr. Gore, than, without waiting Duke of Buccleuch was too strong for his to hear the counsel on the same side, they right hon. Friend and the Committee; he came at once to a resolution in favour of overbore them by the exercise of undue Mr. Pennethorne's plan by a majority of influence. Let the House contrast the seven to four. He saw the names of the proceedings of the First Commissioner Committee commented on a good deal out with those of the Duke of Buccleuch, and of doors. In the majority were Sir John then say on which side was the undue Shelley, Lord Robert Montagu, Mr. Craw-influence. The First Commissioner had ford, Lord Harry Vane, Mr. Ker Seymer, for three years been working assiduously Mr. Garnett, and Sir William Jolliffe; and at his project-first, through the Comin the minority were Sir Morton Peto, Sir mittee of 1860-a favourable Committee, Joseph Paxton, Colonel Knox, and Mr. Pol-nominated by himself; then, through a lard-Urquhart. He would not say anything Royal Commission in 1861-a favourable to hurt the feelings of any of his hon. Friends; Commission, nominated by himself; and but certainly, if the Committee of Selection that year by a Bill prepared under his had had the nomination of the Committee, own direction. He had enjoyed the adthe names of Sir Morton Peto and Sir Joseph vantage of the most eminent counsel, a Paxton would not have appeared upon it, large choice of witnesses, unusual facilities because he had always understood that the (of which he had not been slow to avail

Mr. Horsman

himself) for producing or suppressing evidence, absolute command of public money for his expenses, the whole influence of the Government, the support of one popular and powerful organ of the 'press, and lastly the nomination of the Committee with himself as Chairman. Now, contrast with that the conduct and position of the Duke of Buccleuch. For two years, while the right hon. Gentleman was active, he was passive. At the outset he might, if he had chosen, have invited the Crown lessees to meet and organize an opposition to the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. He might, through his friends in that House, have given a very different complexion to the Committee of 1860. He might have secured the appointment of at least one independent Member upon the Commission of 1861. He might have opposed the second reading of the Bill, on the ground that Mr. Pennethorne's plan was burked. He might have insisted on an earlier production of the correspondence. He might have obtained support for the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), that the Committee of that year should not be nominated by the First Commissioner, with himself as Chairman. The Duke of Buccleuch did none of these things. He made no stir. He used no political or personal influence of any kind whatever. When the Committee of that House was named-a Committee which was no respecter of persons, before whom the peasant and the peer met as equals then the noble Duke presented himself in the same attitude as the poorest inhabitant of Westminster who could afford to fee counsel. The Duke of Buccleuch petitioned, as an humble petitioner, for that justice which, in this land of liberty, was as open to the poor as to the rich, and was not open to the poor to the exclusion of the rich. He appealed for justice before a tribunal nominated and presided over by his opponent, and therefore not unduly favourable to him, and he got a verdict so favourable to himself, and so condemnatory to his opponents, that they were compelled to resort to practices hitherto unknown in the history of Parliament to cover their confusion it? Who had instigated it? Who was and defeat; and, not content with assail-responsible for it? But what must that ing and insulting the petitioners against cause be which required to be propped by the Bill, they insulted the House of Com- such means? He had made a statement mons itself, by charging its Committee of what was done by the Duke of Bucwith the new crime of cringing servility cleuch in regard to the Bill. He had done to a duke. There was not a man of edu- so as a public man, speaking to those who cation and understanding in that House, were engaged in conducting a public inor a man out of it, who did not know that quiry; but he should not feel that he had

there was not a Member of the Committee who would condescend for a moment to ask whether the persons before him were peers or paupers. And now, had not the House begun to perceive why the Duke of Buccleuch's name had been brought so prominently before them, when he was only one of a body of lessees, whose property was as valuable to them as his was to him; and who were ready to avowor any one of them ought to be ashamed if they did not avow-that they were as deserving of obloquy and odium as he was? The reason was very obvious. If the Bill had been defeated by the opposition of a body of unknown or obscure individuals, it would have been said to have fallen on its own merits; but by selecting a duke whose new mansion stood conspicuously open to the remark-at least, suggesting the idea-that its owner must be in opposition to the people, by exaggerating his power and blackening his character, a new and false issue was raised, and a cry got up against ducal influence. It was made a question of public rights against aristocratic usurpation. Extraneous matter was brought in, and new and false versions of old stories were got up, with the view of exciting a prejudice against the noble Duke. Thus, one candid writer reminded the public of a tow-path at Richmond, in order to fix on the noble Duke a responsibility that attached to his grandfather. Another denounced the monopoly of a harbour at Granton, which the Duke had been so wicked as to make on his own property, and out of his own funds, and to which the public had flocked in such numbers as to show that it was a great public benefit. That harbour had cost more than £250,000, which sum might, indeed, return to his Grace's heirs, but was lost to him. They had raked up an old story about Montagu House, to show that the Duke of Buccleuch sold his political influence for a new lease of a house. Ought political and personal matters to be imported into the matter? Was it not disgraceful that they should have been imported into it? Who had done

discharged his duty fearlessly and honestly | Commission and the Committee were oneif he did not go one step further. He side. The Treasury, taking a fair and would state what he knew from personal impartial view of the question, said that knowledge of the character and conduct the House should have the alternative of the Duke of Buccleuch since his Grace plan before them. The House and the came before the world. That character Committee called for the correspondence. and that conduct ought to have protected Neither the one nor the other got it. him from those insults. It did so happen This being so, he could not but think that during a long political struggle he that the right hon. Gentleman had acted had ample opportunities of observing the unfairly towards the House, disingeDuke of Buccleuch's conduct. He did nuously towards the Committee, and inso with certainly no prejudice in fa-juriously to the public interests. vour of his Grace, who, during the time to which he referred, was on the unpopular side. He was bound to state the conviction forced on his mind during the heat of that political warfare-a conviction which, within the last twenty years, he had frequently given expression to in private when the character of great landed proprietors was the subject of conversation. He had formed a high standard of the duties that devolved upon great proprietors, and he now for the first time in public declared what he had often stated in private-that the present Duke of Buccleuch approached as near to that standard as any man living. Bringing an active energy to whatever he undertook, and undertaking what he believed would be generally beneficial, spirited as he was rich, and the unostentatious promoter of good works, an earnest but highminded politician, a man combining active business habits with a love of all manly sports, his private life without a stain, his public character without a blothe did in his heart believe that the Duke of Buccleuch presented to his countrymen, as near as any man living, an example of all that could render one of the richest in the land an ornament to the peerage and an honour to the country. Had the Duke of Buccleuch had fair play? Had the House of Commons had fair play? Had the Committee had fair play when the correspondence had not been laid before them? It was only after they had been kept in the dark as to the real character of the question they had to judge, that they allowed themselves to be surprised into the resolution which brought upon them all those charges of weakness and vacillation which could never have been made if the case had been properly brought before the Committee. The First Commissioner threw himself into the matter before he was warm in his office. He determined that on privacy and endeavoured to stop so the public should have no voice. The great, so urgent a public convenience as

Mr. Horsman

MR. COWPER said, he did not think this an occasion on which he could permit himself to follow the right hon. Gentleman through the personalities on which he had spent so much time, and he altogether declined to enter into any discussion on the private character of the Duke of Buccleuch, which was not, he was happy to say, the question before the House. He begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had no right to call him an opponent of the Duke of Buccleuch. He could not follow the right hon. Gentleman in the soaring flights of imagination and fancy in which he had panegyrized that noble Duke, but he had the greatest respect for him. He believed him to be a good landlord and highspirited gentleman, and an honest and straightforward man. He thought his Grace's evidence before the Committee did him credit. He made no disguises; he said he came to stand up for his rights. But when he was put forward as a man who had been ill-treated-when an hon. Member thought it chivalrous and courageous to come to the assistance of that ill-treated Duke-he must take the liberty of expressing his opinion that the noble Duke got ample justice at the hands of the Committee. If the evidence was sifted, and the divisions were examined, they would be found not to betoken the slightest want of indulgence towards his Grace. He had never attacked the noble Duke; but he said now he was very sorry his Grace should be put in such a position that his interests were in opposition to those of the public. He was sorry his Grace had not adopted the course which he thought he should have taken had he been placed in a similar position. He thought that under such circumstances he should have submitted to the little inconvenience of a public road near his house rather than have insisted