Page images

of the Inner Temple, and not less than something of that sort. [Sir JOHN SHELseventy feet wide thence to Chatham Place, LEY: No.] Well, that they had been with all necessary approaches. The limi-settled with." That was the term his tations there referred to were contained in hon. Friend would use when he interfered Clauses 9 and 78, the first of which was to with a public improvement. They were the effect that a footway only should be a perfectly happy family along the whole made between Whitehall Stairs and West-line from Blackfriars to Westminster, with minster Bridge. The slight alteration he the exception of those persons living along proposed in the 8th clause would there- Whitehall. For his own part, he did not fore raise the question whether the car- believe that the Duke of Buccleuch himriage-way should or should not be con- self was dissatisfied. He believed that tinued up to Westminster Bridge. He any dissatisfaction in the committee-room would not enter into the question of traffic, arose from the cross-examination conductfor that had already been fully discussed. ed by his hon. Friend the Member for The hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Westminster. If any hon. Member read Shelley) had travelled into another blue- the evidence, including the questions put book besides the Report before the House, to the Duke of Buccleuch to make him and had found another of his mare's nests. dissatisfied, he would find that the disDesiring to quote Sir R. Mayne in favour satisfaction arose more from his hon. of one access only, he found that he was Friend the Member for Westminster than really in favour of two. The hon. Member from the Duke. The question before for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had them was, whether they would or would touched upon every conceivable subject not strike out of the clause the words save the one before the House. He had which had been so much objected to. If made no Motion, but everybody who lived they did so, that would be an expression along the line between Blackfriars and of opinion on the part of that House Westminster came under the lash. He against any alteration in the roadwaydid not even spare those who inhabited his against the substitution of a pathway for own nest. There was a proverb about a a roadway at Whitehall. What was the dirty bird, to which he would not further argument which throughout those proallude. The hon. Member attacked the ceedings had been adduced against makBenchers of the Inner Temple-the very ing a roadway there? The noble Lord nest in which he "lived, moved, and had (Lord Robert Cecil) thought he was reduchis being." He complained that the ing the argument to a reductio ad absurBenchers were to have the ground that dum when he put the case of their making would be reclaimed between their gardens the road for the purpose of enabling perand the proposed roadway. The Duke of sons in broughams and other carriages to Buccleuch would have precisely the same go down to the City quicker than they advantage; and if the Duke had acted in otherwise could. If they were prothe same manner, a great deal of unpleasant posing to make the embankment for discussion would have been avoided. His that purpose, there was something in hon. Friend found fault with the Bench- the noble Lord's point; but they must ers, and was delighted with the Duke. remember that the embankment was to ["No."] With whom then was he satis- be made whether there was to be a roadfied? Nobody could tell what he aimed way or not. They were to make it eighty at, what he desired, or with whom he feet wide; but then stepped in the prowas content. With regard to the whole vision that opposite Whitehall no one line from Blackfriars Bridge to West- was to use it except he went on foot. minster, there was not one dissentient With great respect for the Members who till they reached Whitehall. His hon. voted in the majority that carried that Friend the Member for Westminster (Sir stipulation, he must say that never had John Shelley) claimed credit for a de- such a conclusion been come to by any sire to advocate the interests of his con- other Committee in the world. When stituents. But what had the hon. and gal- the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) said that lant Member for Marlow (Colonel Knox) the Duke of Buccleuch offered to pay for told them? That not one of his hon. the embankment in front of his house, he Friend's constituents raised a voice in the must say that his Grace was not going to Committee. What did his hon. Friend do anything of the kind. The Duke had say to that? Why, that they were made an offer, he believed; but it was on "settled with," or "squared with," or condition that he was to have the whole

road to himself. That was his proposition; but, as there was to be a footpath, the public were to pay for it. His hon. Friend the Member for Westminster cheered the noble Lord when he talked of the coal duties being put on; but his Friend did not hesitate to sanction the taking of money from the pockets of the ratepayers to make a roadway, and then to vote that the ratepayers should not ride along the road they had paid for. He should like to ask his hon. Friend and the other six members who composed the majority on the Committee, how they would explain to their constituents that they would not only impose the coal duties, but, in addition to doing so, would throw away the money when they had raised it. ["Oh, oh !"] Yes; for they would expend it in making an embankment along which they would not allow any one who did not go on foot. Such a proposition was enough to surprise any one, and it was equally surprising to find that his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster cheered with all his heart and soul everything that was said against the interests of his constituents. The noble Lord said that the Duke was entitled to compensation. [Lord ROBERT CECIL: That the lessees were entitled to it.] Well, that the lessees were entitled to compensation. What other kind of compensation were they entitled to than that which had been given to all other persons living along the line of the embankment. The Crown would not build houses before the premises of those persons. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets, asked why should not they utilize the ground; and then went on to accuse them of a design to make the embankment a place where little boys would play as they did in Trafalgar Square. In fact, his hon. Friend described the most frightful state of things that it would be possible to see on the face of the earth; and said they ought to make the place beautiful. They could not build on the embankment. They could not block out the light of the persons living along the line. The arrangement that had been made with the Societies of both the Temples, and with other proprietors along the river was that the ground between their houses and the embankment should be appropriated to them, and that they were not to build on it, but to preserve it as ornamental ground. That was the arrangement made with the two learned societies. His hon. Friend said that they Mr. Locke

could not be prevented from building on their own property; but did not his hon. Friend know that the buildings in King's Bench Walk and other portions of the Temple were already down to the water's edge. They could not be carried further. The arguments of hon. Gentlemen really destroyed one another. One said, “Nothing will go along the embankment;" but if no carriages used it, there would be no interference with the amenity of private mansions, while, if the embankment were so used, a great public benefit would result. The instruction to the Committee having been to make a roadway along the whole embankment, he contended, that as they had deviated from that plan, the House might properly take the subject into consideration, and the Committee should not suppose that any disrespect was thereby intended towards them.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 33, to leave out the words "subject to the limitations hereinafter contained."

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE said, it was a mistake to put aside the traffic question, and to set up the Duke of Buccleuch instead. The Duke of Buccleuch had nothing to do with the matter; and the traffic question was the whole question. The point to be considered was, "How are you to free the traffic along Bridge Street?" If they had a road which branched off at the foot of Westminster Bridge, to accommodate the traffic between east and west, a great deal more traffic must necessarily be carried into Bridge Street than was there already, and they would therefore only aggravate the evil which they desired to cure. That was the point upon which the Committee had to decide, and which the Committee did decide by refusing to bring that traffic into an already overcrowded street, where the lives of Members of Parliament were so much risked. There was another question of great importance. One of the disadvantages of the low embankment was that it would stop all the conveyance of heavy goods to the wharves on that side of the river, so that the road traffic would be increased considerably. Mr. M'Neil, the manager of a wharf near Blackfriars Bridge, said that by thus putting a stop to the conveyance of goods by barges his firm would have to make arrangements for the carriage of all their goods by cars, instead of by the river, and the street traffic would thus be enormously increased. Such would be the case with coals, and that was one

of the considerations which guided the jectionable an angle into Parliament Committee, and which would, he hoped, Street. What ought to be done was this be well weighed by the House. -to take down the block of houses in King Street as far as the new Government offices, to widen King Street, and then by means of the embankment and a road from the Horse Guards, which would convey the traffic from Victoria Street and relieve Parliament Street, they would improve the crossing at the corner of Bridge Street, which was intolerable.

SIR JOSEPH PAXTON said, that as the originator of the scheme and as one of the Committee who strongly advocated the embankment from Blackfriars to Westminster, he should give his cordial support to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. With regard to the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman) upon the constitution of the VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, having Committee of 1860, he had endeavoured, given notice of an Amendment on this with the assistance of the First Commis- subject, and as my hon. and learned sioner, to make it as impartial a Committee Friend has stated that the present Amendas possible, and one that should fully re- ment, although it relates to another clause, present all the interests concerned; and, really involves a decision on the 9th remembering the character and position of clause, I am anxious to state the conmen like the noble Lord (Lord J. Man- siderations by which my vote will be goners) and the right hon. Baronet (Sir J.verned. Sir, my natural desire in dealing Pakington), he thought these criticisms with the 9th clause has been to make the might have been spared. He was very same Motion as that of which my hon. sorry that it was not possible to carry the and learned Friend has given notice, and high-level embankment which had been to move that that clause be wholly exsuggested; but he was astonished that the punged. I entirely agree, that if the arhon. Baronet (Sir J. Shelley) and his hon. rangement which this clause professed to Friend (Mr. Tite) and those who before establish were carried out, it would, in never raised an objection about delivering the words of my hon. Friend (Sir Joseph the traffic at right angles on to the bridges, Paxton), really make our legislation the should now have such great objections to laughing-stock of Europe. The first obthe present proposal. All the principal jection, which was urged and debated at plans submitted to the Committee of 1860 great length last night, was the injury contemplated the crossing of all the bridges that it was proposed to do to the Crown by embankment at right angles, and lessees. That objection is now abandonthat was also the case with the bridges ed. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] Then, if and thoroughfares of every capital in that objection is still maintained, and if Europe. He thought the Committee on the question is one between the interests the Bill had acted with precipitation, for of private individuals and those of the as soon as the right hon. Gentleman the public, I shall be against sacrificing the Member for Stroud had given his evidence, interests of the public. But the great a Resolution was moved by the right hon. argument that has been used to night is, Gentleman (Sir W. Jolliffe), that the em- that this road is not wanted for the sake bankment ought to stop at Whitehall of traffic, and that it would be an injury Stairs. [Sir W. JOLLIFFE: Not the em- to the traffic to have two roads instead of bankment.] No, the roadway. The Com- one. What is desired is, that in the emmittee affirmed that Resolution, because bankment there should be a roadway they were satisfied by an alternative plan eighty feet wide to Westminster Bridge; of Mr. Pennethorne's. He (Sir J. Paxton), but when you come to Whitehall Stairs, however, moved an Amendment, that as your driver is to be stopped and told, the promoters of the Bill had had no opportunity of giving evidence on Mr. Pennethorne's plan, it would be premature to conclude that the roadway ought to stop at Whitehall Stairs. That Amendment was negatived; but he believed that if Mr. Pennethorne's scheme were carried out, the embankment would be the laughing-stock of Europe. He could hardly have conceived that Mr. Pennethorne could have proposed to bring a road at so obVOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.]

This is a very fine road, and free from obstacles, but you cannot go any further. You must stop, because we mean to spend £300,000 or £400,000 in addition; we mean to pull down a number of houses, and make another road to deliver you into the small and inconvenient crossing through Bridge Street, which is already insufficient for the traffic." That appears to me to be the most absurd reasoning, and my first impulse was to move the 3 B

The Committee divided:-
Noes 149: Majority 40.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.

omission of that clause; but when I saw the great struggle made by private interests before the Committee, I considered that at this period of the Session there might be a risk of losing the Bill this year if we attempted the cure of this great and fundamental defect. It seemed to me, that as this clause was ingeniously prepared by the Committee, under pretence of delaying the decision of Parliament, it affirmed the permanent exclusion of the public, and that by putting in the Amendment which I contemplated, leaving the

matter to the future decision of Parlia-
ment, the defect might be for the present
cured, and that the Bill so passing would
leave it open to Parliament to do next
year what I trust and hope Parliament
will do next year-namely, to throw that
part of the road open between Whitehall
Stairs and Westminster Bridge as well as
the other. That course appeared to me
to be the best, because there was no chance

or possibility of that part of the road being
made before next year; and therefore, if
Parliament were next year to rescind the
restriction, no inconvenience would be
sustained by the public. That being the
case, as far as I am concerned, I adhere
to my proposal; and as my hon. and
learned Friend has fairly stated that his
object in striking
words is to
lay the foundation for afterwards striking

out the 9th clause, and as my Amendment
implies the maintenance of that clause,
I could not consistently with my an:
nouncement vote for this Amendment, I
shall vote, therefore, to retain these words.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Viscount Palmerston

Clause 9 (Footway only to be made between Whitehall Stairs and Westminster Bridge). MR. LOCKE said: I move that this clause be omitted.


decision which the Committee has just
come to upon the Motion of my hon. and
learned Friend, of course I do not intend
I shall not,
to propose my Amendment.
therefore, resist the Motion to omit the

Clause put and negatived.
Clauses 10 to 20 agreed to.

Ayes 109;

Clause 21 (Certain works to be first approved by the Conservators).

MR. GARNETT said, he would propose the addition of the following proviso, consent of the Charing Cross Railway "Provided that, except with the previous Company in writing under their common seal, no stairs, hard, quay, wharf, pier, or landing-place, shall be made within 200 yards of that company's steamboat pier or landing-place at Hungerford."

MR. LOCKE said, it appeared, if he were to go to a division, the noble Lord on the Treasury bench would not vote with him, and that placed him in an awkward posi-cated to Use of Public).



He did not think the course which the noble Lord was taking was the right What the noble Lord meant by voting for the retention of the words was that at some future time the footway was to be turned into a roadway; but why not determine to turn it into a roadway at once? Why let the Bill go up to the other House saying, "Some day or other, when it is convenient to us, this footway shall become a roadway?" He did not know that the other House would like the Bill any better with such an introduction. After due consideration, therefore, he felt it his duty to divide the House.

object of the Amendment; but he thought,
MR. COWPER said, he agreed with the
with the Thames Conservancy Act.
as it was framed, that it would interfere

MR. GARNETT said, that under the circumstances, he would withdraw the Amendment, and renew it in an amended form upon the Report.

Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 22 to 27.

Clause 28 (Reclaimed Land to be dedi

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH said, he would propose, as an Amendment, the omission of words, for the purpose of enclaimed from the Thames should, without suring that all the portions of land reexception, be dedicated to the use of the public as places of recreation or ornamental grounds.

the Amendment would be to prevent cerMR. COWPER said, that the effect of tain portions of the reclaimed land from being employed for building purposes in aid of the Thames Embankment Fund. The Amendment would also interfere with other arrangements made with the view of saving the coal duties from heavy charges for compensation. He thought, however, that the discussion on the subject might

be more conveniently raised on a subscquent clause.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 29.

Clause 30 (No House to be erected in front of the Gardens of the Inner and Middle Temple).

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH said, he would move that the Chairman should report progress. The clause involved the question as to the appropriation of the land reclaimed from the river to public purposes, which was too important to be discussed after one in the morning.

MR. COWPER said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion, as the subject matter had been amply discussed in the Committee upstairs.

MR. STANHOPE said, he should move that the Chairman should leave the Chair.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS observed, that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, if carried, would have the effect of putting an end to the Bill.

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE said, it was impossible to proceed with the Bill at so late an hour-twenty minutes past one o'clock. He thought, however, that the unopposed clauses might be agreed to.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Clause agreed to.

Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 32 and 33.

Clause 31 (As to Inner and Middle Temple).

MR. AYRTON complained that the clause gave the garden, which it was provided should be made on the embankment opposite the Temple, exclusively to the Benchers. He thought the public ought to have the use of the garden, as it would be formed at the public expense.

MR. COWPER said, that on the Temple waiving their right to compensation the reclaimed ground was to be made over to them, and he thought that was a very fair arrangement. The Temple Gardens were now practically public gardens.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again. on Monday next.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress."

The Committee divided:-Ayes 24; 43: Majority 6. Noes 120 Majority 96.

MR. HENNESSY said, his chambers looked upon the Temple Gardens, and he could inform the House that those grounds were crowded every night with children and others. The Benchers, in fact, were the only persons in London who gave free admission to their gardens.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL. [BILL NO. 180.] CONSIDERATION. Order for Consideration read.

LORD NAAS said, he would move the omission in Clause 8 of the words " or otherwise," concerning which there had been so much discussion on a former occasion.

Amendment proposed, in line 30, to leave out the words " or otherwise."

Question put, "That the words 'or otherwise' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:-Ayes 37; Noes

Another Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 29, to leave out "ten," and insert "twenty," instead thereof.


Question proposed, "That ten' stand part of the Bill.”

Debate arising; Motion made, and Question put, 66 That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided:-Ayes 15; Nocs 65: Majority 50.

Question put, "That 'ten' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:-Ayes 35; Noes 43: Majority 8.


Question, "That twenty' be there inserted," put, and agreed to."

Bill to be read 3° on Monday next.

Ilouse adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock, till Monday next.

Monday, July 7, 1862.

MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS.-1 Windsor Castle
(Bakehouse); Chancery Regulation (Ireland).
3 Courts of the Church of Scotland.
Royal Assent.-Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Act
Continuance; Sandhurst Vesting; Consoli-
dated Fund (£10,000,000); Portsdown Fair
Discontinuance; Public-houses (Scotland) Acts

« PreviousContinue »