« PreviousContinue »
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
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 Westm ster 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 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 thoy 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
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
say to that?
road to himself. That was his proposition; could not be prevented from building on but, as there was to be a footpath, the their own property; but did not his hon. public were to pay for it. His hon. Friend know that the buildings in King's Friend the Member for Westminster Bench Walk and other portions of the cheered the noble Lord when he talked of Temple were already down to the water's the coal duties being put on; but his edge. They could not be carried further. Friend did not hesitate to sanction the The arguments of hon. Gentlemen really taking of money from the pockets of the destroyed one another. One said, “Noratepayers to make a roadway, and then thing will go along the embankment;" to vote that the ratepayers should not ride but if no carriages used it, there would be along the road they had paid for. He no interference with the amenity of private should like to ask his hon. Friend and the mansions, while, if the embankment were other six members who composed the ma- so used, a great public benefit would rejority on the Committee, how they would sult. The instruction to the Committee explain to their constituents that they having been to make a roadway along the would not only impose the coal duties, whole embankment, he contended, that but, in addition to doing so, would throw as they had deviated from that plan, the away the money when they had raised it. House might properly take the subject ["Oh, oh!”] Yes; for they would ex- into consideration, and the Committee pend it in making an embankment along should not suppose that any disrespect which they would not allow any one who was thereby intended towards them. did not go on foot. Such a proposition Amendment proposed, in page 7, line was enough to surprise any one, and it 33, to leave out the words “ subject to was equally surprising to find that his the limitations hereinafter contained.” hon. Friend the Member for Westminster SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE said, it was cheered with all his heart and soul every- a mistake to put aside the traffic question, thing that was said against the interests and to set up the Duke of Buccleuch inof his constituents. The noble Lord said stead. The Duke of Buccleuch had nothat the Duke was entitled to compensation. thing to do with the matter; and the traffic [Lord ROBERT CECIL: That the lessees question was the whole question. The were entitled to it.] Well, that the les point to be considered was, "How are you sees were entitled to compensation. What to free the traffic along Bridge Street ?" other kind of compensation were they en- If they had a road which branched off at titled to than that which had been given the foot of Westminster Bridge, to accomto all other persons living along the line of modate the traffic between east and west, the embankment. The Crown would not a great deal more traffic must necessarily build houses before the premises of those be carried into Bridge Street than was persons. His hon. Friend the Member there already, and they would therefore for the Tower Hamlets, asked why should only aggravate the evil which they desired not they utilize the ground; and then to cure. That was the point upon which went on to accuse them of a design to the Committee had to decide, and which make the embankment a place where the Committee did decide by refusing to little boys would play as they did in Tra- bring that traffic into an already overfalgar Square. In fact, his hon. Friend crowded street, where the lives of Memdescribed the most frightful state of things bers of Parliament were so much risked. that it would be possible to see on the There was another question of great imface of the earth; and said they ought to portance.
One of the disadvantages of make the place beautiful. They could not the low embankment was that it would build on the embankment. They could stop all the conveyance of heavy goods to not block out the light of the persons the wharves on that side of the river, so living along the line. The arrangement that the road traffic would be increased that had been made with the Societies of considerably. Mr. M`Neil, the manaboth the Temples, and with other proprie- ger of a wharf near Blackfriars Bridge, tors along the river was that the ground said that by thus putting a stop to the between their houses and the embankment conveyance of goods by barges his firm should be appropriated to them, and that would have to make arrangements for the they were not to build on it, but to pre- carriage of all their goods by cars, instead serve it as ornamental ground. That was of by the river, and the street traffic would the arrangement made
with the two learned thus be enormously increased. Such would societies. His hon. Friend said that they 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 SIR JOSEPH PAXTON said, that as King Street as far as the new Government the originator of the scheme and as one offices, to widen King Street, and then by of the Committee who strongly advocated means of the embankment and a road from the embankment from Blackfriars to West- the Horse Guards, which would convey minster, he should give his cordial sup- the traffic from Victoria Street and relieve port to the proposal of the hon. and learned Parliament Street, they would improve Gentleman. With regard to the remarks the crossing at the corner of Bridge Street, made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. which was intolerable. 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 '20 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 op- “ This is a very fine road, and free from portunity of giving evidence on Mr. Pen- obstacles, but you cannot go any further. nethorne's plan, it would be premature to You must stop, because we mean to spend conclude that the roadway ought to stop £300,000 or £400,000 in addition, we at Whitehall Stairs. That Amendment mean to pull down a number of houses, was negatived; but he believed that if and make another road to deliver you Mr. Pennethorne's scheme were carried into the small and inconvenient crossing out, the embankment would be the laugh-through Bridge Street, which is already ing-stock of Europe. He could hardly insufficient for the traffic.” That appears have conceived that Mr. Pennethorne could to me to be the most absurd reasoning, have proposed to bring a road at so ob- and my first impulse was to move the VOL. CLXVII. (THIRD SERIES.]
omission of that clause; but when I saw The Committee divided :— Ayes 109; the great struggle made by private inter- Noes 149 : Majority 40. ests before the Committee, I considered
Clause, as amended, agreed to. that at this period of the Session there might be a risk of losing the Bill this year tween Whitehall Stairs and Westminster
Clause 9 (Footway only to be made beif we attempted the cure of this great and fundamental defect. It seemed to me,
Bridge). that as this clause was ingeniously pre- clause be omitted.
MR. LOCKE said : I move that this pared by the Committee, under pretence
Viscount PALMERSTON: After the of delaying the decision of Parliament, it affirmed the permanent exclusion of the decision which the Committee has just public, and that by putting in the Amend come to upon the Motion of my hon. and ment which I contemplated, leaving the learned Friend, of course I do not intend matter to the future decision of Parlia- to propose my. Amendment. I shall not, ment, the defect might be for the present therefore, resist the Motion to omit the
clause. cured, and that the Bill so passing would leave it open to Parliament to do next
Clause put and negatived. year what I trust and hope Parliament
Clauses 10 to 20 agreed to. will do next year--namely, to throw that
Clause 21 (Certain works to be first part of the road open between Whitehall
approved by the Conservators). Stairs and Westminster Bridge as well as MR. GARNETT said, he would propose the other. That course appeared to me the addition of the following proviso, to be the best, because there was no chance or possibility of that part of the road being consent of the Charing Cross Railway
“Provided that, except with the previous made before next year; and therefore, if
Company in writing under their common Parliament were next year to rescind the
seal, no stairs, hard, quay, wharf, pier, or restriction, no inconvenience would be sustained by the public. That being the landing-place, shall be made within 200 case, as far as I am concerned, I adhere yards of that company's steamboat pier to my proposal; and as my 'hon. and or landing-place at Hungerford.”
MR. COWPER said, he agreed with the learned Friend has fairly stated that his object in striking out these words is to object of the Amendment ; but he thought, lay the foundation for afterwards striking with the Thames Conservancy Act.
as it was framed, that it would interfere out the 9th clause, and as my Amendment
MR. GARNETT said, that under the implies the maintenance of that clause, circumstances, he would withdraw the I could not consistently with my an.
Amendment, and renew it in an amended nouncement vote for this Amendment, I
the Report. shall vote, therefore, to retain these words. Mr. LOCKE said, it appeared, if he were
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 22
to 27. 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 the noble Lord was taking was the right would propose, as an Amendment, the
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH said, he one. What the noble Lord meant by omission of words, for the purpose of envoting for the retention of the words was that at some future time the footway was claimed from the Thames should, without
suring that all the portions of land reto be turned into a roadway; but why not exception, be dedicated to the use of the determine to turn it into a roadway at public as places of recreation or ornamenonce? Why let the Bill go up to the
tal grounds. other House saying, “Some day or other, when it is convenient to us, this footway the Amendment would be to prevent cer
MR. COWPER said, that the effect of shall become a roadway?" He did not tain portions of the reclaimed land from know that the other House would like the being employed for building purposes in Bill any better with such an introduction. aid of the Thames Embankment Fund. After due consideration, therefore, he felt The Amendment would also interfere with it his duty to divide the House.
other arrangements made with the view of Question put, “That the words pro- saving the coal duties from heavy charges posed to be left out stand part of the for compensation. He thought, however, Clause."
that the discussion on the subject might Viscount Palmerston
be more conveniently raised on a subsc- Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses
32 and 33. Amendment negatired.
House resumed. Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 29.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Clause 30 (No House to be erected in on Monday next. front of the Gardens of the Inner and Middle Temple). MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH said, he
POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL. would move that the Chairman should (BILL NO. 180.] CONSIDERATION. report progress. The clause involved the Order for Consideration read. question as to the appropriation of the
LORD NAAS said, he would more the land reclaimed from the river to public omission in Clause 8 of the words “or purposes, which was too important to be otherwise,” concerning which there had discussed after one in the morning. been so much discussion on a former oc
Mr. COWPER said, he hoped the hon. casion. Gentleman would not press his Motion, as the subject matter had been amply dis. Amendment proposed, in line 30, to cussed in the Committee upstairs.
leave out the words " or otherwise.”
Question put, “That the words' Motion made, and Question put, “That
or the Chairman do report Progress.”
otherwise' stand part of the Bill."
The IIouse divided :-Ayes 37; Nocs The Committee divided :-Ayes 24; 43: Majority 6. Noes 120 : Majority 96.
Another Amendment proposed, in page MR. STANHOPE said, he should move 7, line 29, to leave out " ten," and insert that the Chairman should leave the Chair. “twenty," instead thereof. Sir GEORGE LEWIS observed, that
Question proposed, " That “ten' stand the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, if
part of the Bill." ried, would have the effect of putting an
Debate arising; Motion made, and Quesend to the Bill.
" That the Debate be now adSir WILLIAM JOLLIFFE said, it was impossible to proceed with the Bill at so
journed." late an hour-twenty minutes past one
The House divided :-Ayes 15; Noes o'clock. He thought, however, that the 65: Majority 50. unopposed clauses might be agreed to.
Question put, " That 'ten' stand part Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
of the Bill.'' Clause agreed to.
The House divided :-Ayes 35; Noes
43: Vajority 8. Clause 31 (As to Inner and Middle Temple).
Question, " That'twenty' be there inMR. AYRTON complained that the serted,” put, and agreed to. clause gave the garden, which it was pro
Bill to be read 3° on Monday next. vided should be made on the embankment
Ilouse adjourned at a quarter before opposite the Temple, exclusively to the
Three o'clock, till Monday next: 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 HOUSE OF LORDS, arrangement. The Temple Gardens were now practically public gardens.
Monday, July 7, 1862. MR. HENNESSY said, his chambers Minutes.]—Public Bills.--1* Windsor Castle looked upon the Temple Gardens, and he
(Bakehouse); Chancery Regulation (Ireland). could inform the House that those grounds 3a Courts of the Church of Scotland. were crowded every night with children Royal Assent.--Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Act and others. The Benchers, in fact, were
Continuance ; Sandhurst Vesting; Consolithe only persons in London who gave free
dated Fund (£10,000,000); Portsdown Fair
Discontinuance ; Public-houses (Scotland) Acts admission to their gardens.