« PreviousContinue »
something of that sort. [Sir JOHN SHELLEY: No.] Well, that they had been "settled with." That was the term his hon. Friend would use when he interfered with a public improvement. They were a perfectly happy family along the whole
of the Inner Temple, and not less than seventy feet wide thence to Chatham Place, with all necessary approaches. The limitations there referred to were contained in Clauses 9 and 78, the first of which was to the effect that a footway only should be made between Whitehall Stairs and West-line from Blackfriars to Westminster, with minster Bridge. The slight alteration he proposed in the 8th clause would therefore raise the question whether the carriage-way should or should not be continued up to Westminster Bridge. He would not enter into the question of traffic, for that had already been fully discussed. The hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had travelled into another bluebook besides the Report before the House, and had found another of his mare's nests. Desiring to quote Sir R. Mayne in favour of one access only, he found that he was really in favour of two. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had touched upon every conceivable subject save the one before the House. He had made no Motion, but everybody who lived along the line between Blackfriars and Westminster came under the lash. He did not even spare those who inhabited his own nest. There was a proverb about a dirty bird, to which he would not further allude. The hon. Member attacked the Benchers of the Inner Temple-the very nest in which he "lived, moved, and had his being." He complained that the Benchers were to have the ground that would be reclaimed between their gardens and the proposed roadway. The Duke of Buccleuch would have precisely the same advantage; and if the Duke had acted in the same manner, a great deal of unpleasant discussion would have been avoided. His hon. Friend found fault with the Benchers, and was delighted with the Duke. ["No."] With whom then was he satisfied? Nobody could tell what he aimed at, what he desired, or with whom he was content. With regard to the whole line from Blackfriars Bridge to Westminster, there was not one dissentient till they reached Whitehall. His hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley) claimed credit for a desire to advocate the interests of his constituents. But what had the hon. and gallant Member for Marlow (Colonel Knox) told them? That not one of his hon. Friend's constituents raised a voice in the Committee. What did his hon. Friend say to that? Why, that they were "settled with," or "squared with," or
the exception of those persons living along Whitehall. For his own part, he did not believe that the Duke of Buccleuch himself was dissatisfied. He believed that any dissatisfaction in the committee-room arose from the cross-examination conducted by his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster. If any hon. Member read the evidence, including the questions put to the Duke of Buccleuch to make him dissatisfied, he would find that the dissatisfaction arose more from his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster than from the Duke. The question before them was, whether they would or would not strike out of the clause the words which had been so much objected to. If they did so, that would be an expression of opinion on the part of that House against any alteration in the roadwayagainst the substitution of a pathway for a roadway at Whitehall. What was the argument which throughout those proceedings had been adduced against making a roadway there? The noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) thought he was reducing the argument to a reductio ad absurdum when he put the case of their making the road for the purpose of enabling persons in broughams and other carriages to go down to the City quicker than they otherwise could. If they were proposing to make the embankment for that purpose, there was something in the noble Lord's point; but they must remember that the embankment was to be made whether there was to be a roadway or not. They were to make it eighty feet wide; but then stepped in the provision that opposite Whitehall no one was to use it except he went on foot. With great respect for the Members who voted in the majority that carried that stipulation, he must say that never had such a conclusion been come to by any other Committee in the world. When the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) said that the Duke of Buccleuch offered to pay for the embankment in front of his house, he must say that his Grace was not going to do anything of the kind. The Duke had made an offer, he believed; but it was on condition that he was to have the whole
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."
road to himself. That was his proposition;
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
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.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, having given notice of an Amendment on this subject, and as my hon. and learned Friend has stated that the present Amendment, although it relates to another clause, really involves a decision on the 9th clause, I am anxious to state the considerations by which my vote will be go
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 Committee of 1860, he had endeavoured, with the assistance of the First Commissioner, to make it as impartial a Committee as possible, and one that should fully represent all the interests concerned; and, remembering the character and position of men like the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) and the right hon. Baronet (Sir J.verned. Sir, my natural desire in dealing Pakington), he thought these criticisms might have been spared. He was very sorry that it was not possible to carry the high-level embankment which had been suggested; but he was astonished that the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Shelley) and his hon. Friend (Mr. Tite) and those who before never raised an objection about delivering the traffic at right angles on to the bridges, should now have such great objections to the present proposal. All the principal plans submitted to the Committee of 1860 contemplated the crossing of all the bridges by o embankment at right angles, and that was also the case with the bridges and thoroughfares of every capital in Europe. He thought the Committee on the Bill had acted with precipitation, for as soon as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud had given his evidence, a Resolution was moved by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Jolliffe), that the embankment ought to stop at Whitehall Stairs. [Sir W. JOLLIFFE: Not the embankment.] No, the roadway. The Committee affirmed that Resolution, because they were satisfied by an alternative plan of Mr. Pennethorne's. He (Sir J. Paxton), however, moved an Amendment, that as 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 ob
VOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.]
with the 9th clause has been to make the same Motion as that of which my hon. and learned Friend has given notice, and to move that that clause be wholly expunged. I entirely agree, that if the arrangement which this clause professed to establish were carried out, it would, in the words of my hon. Friend (Sir Joseph Paxton), really make our legislation the laughing-stock of Europe. The first objection, which was urged and debated at great length last night, was the injury that it was proposed to do to the Crown lessees. That objection is now abandoned. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] Then, if that objection is still maintained, and if the question is one between the interests of private individuals and those of the public, I shall be against sacrificing the interests of the public. But the great argument that has been used to night is, that this road is not wanted for the sake of traffic, and that it would be an injury to the traffic to have two roads instead of one. What is desired is, that in the embankment there should be a roadway eighty feet wide to Westminster Bridge; but when you come to Whitehall Stairs, your driver is to be stopped and told, "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: - Ayes 109; Noes 149: Majority 40.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 (Footway only to be made between Whitehall Stairs and Westminster Bridge).
MR. LOCKE said: I move that this clause be omitted.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: After the
omission of that clause; but when I saw
decision which the Committee has just come to upon the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend, of course I do not intend to propose my Amendment. I shall not, therefore, resist the Motion to omit the
Clause put and negatived.
Clause 21 (Certain works to be first approved by the Conservators).
MR. GARNETT said, he would propose the addition of the following proviso, "Provided that, except with the previous consent of the Charing Cross Railway 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. COWPER said, he agreed with the object of the Amendment; but he thought, 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.
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 out these 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. 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). Clause 28 (Reclaimed Land to be dedition. He did not think the course which MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH said, he the noble Lord was taking was the right one. 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.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
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.
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.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress."
The Committee divided:-Ayes 24; Noes 120 Majority 96.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 32 and 33.
Committee report Progress; to sit again. on Monday next.
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."
otherwise' stand part of the Bill.” Question put, "That the words 'or
The House divided:-Ayes 37; Noes 43: Majority 6.
Another Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 29, to leave out "ten," and insert twenty," instead thereof.
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 31 (As to Inner and Middle
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.
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.
Question proposed, "That ten' stand. part of the Bill."
Debate arising; Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided:-Ayes 15; Noes 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.
House adjourned at a quarter before
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Monday, July 7, 1862.
MINUTES.-PUBLIC BILLS.-1 Windsor Castle