Page images
PDF
EPUB

in the case of their constituents ? For his harmonious plan, and should not be left own part, he must confess that after the to the fancies of individuals. The noble speeches which he had heard that evening Lord had spoken as if the First Commishis distrust in "men of taste was greater sioner of Works would bave the power of than ever, inasmuch as it was gravely con preparing the plans for these houses. That tended that the question before the Com- was not so; the clause simply directed that mittee was not to be regarded as one of the plans and elevations should be sent money. He knew how terribly the London to him, and he would have the power of poor suffered in winter from the want of vetoing them within a month. He did coal, the price of which was greatly en- not think the individual opinion of any hanced to them by this duty. During the First Commissioner of Works would be last winter the poor were paying at the paramount in the matter, for they had rate of 35s. per ton for coal, when the daily experience of the fact that that highest price in the market was 24s.; and Minister was responsible to that House in he could not therefore agree to inflict a regard to such proceedings. Practically, burden on every poor man's hearth in order therefore, this veto would be given to that to enable a First Commissioner of Works House. The First Commissioner of Works to indulge in his architectural caprices. would take the advice of competent archi

MR. COWPER thought the noble Lord's tects, and the mere fact of the existence of anxious appeal on behalf of economy was the veto would probably insure that the particularly misplaced, inasmuch as that whole block of houses should be erected question was not in any degree involved in on some general plan. The noble Lord this clause. He did not himself propose the seemed to forget that one great advantage clause, but he listened most attentively to of our constitutional system was, that it the debate in Select Committee upon it, left no power or authority in the country and he felt that the arguments of the without a check. Municipal corporations hon. Member for Dorsetshire were con- could not raise a loan without the sanction clusive for inserting the clause in the Bill. of the Treasury ; and he did not think it The object of the clause was to secure would be any disparagement of the Metrosome unity of design and harmonious ar-politan Board of Works that it should be rangement in the buildings that were here subject to this veto. If he were to study after to face the Thames. Those who his own individual convenience as First compared London with the more spiendid Commissioner of Works, he should be inContinental capitals would see that the clined to follow the laissez faire policy of great defect of our streets—especially of our the noble Lord (Lord John Manners), who older streets—was that they were not built in 1858 surrendered the control which the on any general plan, but were left to the law then gave him over the main drainage individual caprice of the owners of separate of the metropolis. It was certainly no houses. A small house, for example, was agreeable or pleasant thing for a person found standing between two very tall ones, who filled the office of First Commissioner or a stuccoed house between two brick to be intrusted with any power or duty

They were not in a style which which was likely to bring him in collision any variety could render picturesque, and with any Members who represented the their irregularities prevented the broad metropolis. If he thought that such a architectural effect which plain houses power would bring him in direct collision might produce when symmetrically ar- with the hon. Members for Westminster ranged on a general plan. This clause and the Tower IIamlets, who were always was intended to remedy that defect, and ready to oppose and obstruct any scheme would not make buildings any more ex. introduced by the Government for the benepensive. The embankment, which was to fit and improvement of the metropolis, he be 100 feet wide, would be one of the certainly would not for a moment desire to great features of London. On the one possess that power, and especially when he side of the proposed quay would lie the remembered how during the last few days river which was the pride of England, the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. and on the other there would be a consi- Shelley) bad seized upon every careless derable extent of ornamental ground, and word or trifling act of liis in order to found in sone parts rows of houscs, in ter- upon it some accusation against him. He races or streets. He thought it essential utterly disregarded, of course, all attacks to the general architectural effect that made upon him in the discharge of his those houses should be erected on soine public duty; and in supporting this clause,

ones.

[ocr errors]

as First Commissioner, he did so becausc , tion, and that the nation took a pride in he believed it would be beneficial to thc tlic beauty and magnificence of the metro. metropolis. Its only object, he repeated, polis. If so, let the nation contribute towas to secure a better architectural effect wards the expense, instead of calling upon to what he belicved would be the grand the consumers of coal to pay the entire est and most magnificent thoroughfare in cost of this national object. He should London. When the noble Lord (Lord R. give his hearty support to the Amendment Cecil) spoke about the chance of the coal of the noble Lord tax being increased, he would remind him MR. HARVEY LEWIS said, he should that the tax was already granted for ten oppose the clause, believing that it would years, and that the only question to be entail a very serious expense for all time determined was how the money should be on parties desirous of building on the river disposed of. If the money were not spent frontage; and he thought the noble Lord on this improvement, it would be on others; (Lord John Manners) deserved the gratibut he thought that it could not be better tude of the metropolis for the course expended than in the way proposed. which he liad taken in proposing the

MR. CRAWFORD bad listened with omission of the clause. regret to the right hon. Gentleman's at. LORD HARRY VANE said, he should tempt to reintroduce personalities which support the clause, for he thought the by this time lie had hoped might have reasons assigned in Committee by the been buried and forgotten. and which were hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Ker unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman's Seymer) and the right hon, Gentleman position. He (Mr. Crawford) had voted the First Commissioner perfectly satisfacagainst the hon. Member (Mr. Ker Seymer) {tory. The clause was, in the first in. in Committee, and he had since heard no- stance, submitted to the counsel who thing to induce him to alter his opinion ; watched the case on the part of the Meon the contrary, lie had lieard a great deal tropolitan Board in the Select Commit. in the speech of the First Commissioner tec, and they did not object to it, but of Works to induce him to vote for the left the matter entirely in the hands of Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Jolin the Committee. He should be sorry to Manners). The clause proposed that no diminish the power of local self-governground plan or elevation of the buildings ment by removing from the Metropolitan to be erected should be adopted which lad Board any duty that properly belonged to not for one month previous been submitted them ; but the present case was one of for the approval of the First Commissioner an exceptional character, and it would be of Works. The clause did not say what a thousand pities if the opportunity should was to be dune if the First Commissioner be lost of rendering the embankment an ordisapproved of the plan ; and he believed, nament to the metropolis

, and preventing that even if no disapproval were commu• the frontage of the river being destroyed nicated to the parties proposing to con- and disgraced by some monstrous erection struct these buildings, they would incur or other. The clause could not be proa certain amount of risk if they proceeded ductive of any greatly-increased expense, to build after the month had expired. The because the greater portion of the reclause, too, he apprehended, would have claimed land would be appropriated to a continuous operation ; so that, for all public purposes, and would not be built time to come, whether these buildings upon. remained as frontages or not, no person

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE thought owning land on the ground so reclaimed this was a most unconstitutional clause, would have the power to build without for it gave a power to a Government the approval of the First Commissioner of Department which had never been deleWorks. It was even proposed in Com- gated by the House on any previous ocmittee to give the First Commissioner the casion. He could not give his assent to same power in regard to the new street the views which had been expressed by in the City of London ; so that no one the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Comwould have been able to build a new shop missioner of Works on what the right or warehouse in the new street without lion. Gentleman called the architectural coming to the First Commissioner for his beautics of the plan. Questions would consent. Fortunately, that proviso had be constantly asked in the House about been abandoned in the Committee. They the shape of every chimney that might were told that this was a national ques. be built if the First Commissioner were

Mr. Corper

to be made the arbiter. He hoped the one great mass, and to make them look Committee would reject the clause. like one great palace. I think, therefore,

MR. TITE said, the Metropolitan Board there should be some controlling authority had not regarded the clause as one imply- to secure that the buildings upon this tering any reflection on them, but simply as race should not be one high and one low, a matter of business.

They thought the but that they should be of sone uniformity arrangement which it would sanction a of character. It sems to me that this very undesirable one, but they were ad- clause would secure unity of plan and convised not to oppose it. His own opinion sistency of purpose. The Metropolitan was, that the less interference with the Board of Works, in letting the ground, free action of individual speculators, the would probably require some security for better for obtaining the full value of the uniformity of design ; but they might omit land ; but, speaking from an architectural to do so, and this clause just interposes point of view, he thought the double re- the veto of the First Commissioner for the sponsibility the best. The Corporation of time being, in order to insure that the mass London, after clearing the approaches to of buildings should be of a certain uniform London Bridge, put themselves into the plan, so as to contribute to the general hands of Sir Robert Smirke ; but the good effect. I think, therefore, that the consequence was, that in the buildings Committee would do well to retain the which were subsequently erected there clause. was too great sameness. They afterwards LORD JOHN MANNERS said, the change their plan, allowing each person to noble Lord wanted to secure unity of dewhom the land was parcelled out to choose sign and consistency of purpose. Some his own architect, but reserving to them. Gentlemen might consider unity of design selves a veto, and the result was that good, and others bad ; but, whether good fine specimen of street architecture that or bad, tliey were more likely to get it was to be seen in Cannon Street. In the if they permitted one board, which was to new strect in the Borough the Metropolitan commence and carry out the work, to deBoard of Works were following precisely cide, than if they permitted a fluctuating the same plan. Here, however, was to be officer, such as the First Commissioner of a double control, which experience should Works, who was here to-day and away toliave taught them to regard with jealousy. morrow, to interfere. They all knew tho However, he should leave the question in differences of taste in different Commis.. the hands of the Committee.

sioners of Works, and yet the noble Lord Viscount PALMERSTON: This ques. would look for uniformity of design in tion does not appear to me very im- leaving the decision to such officials. The portant, nor one in which the Government buildings in the Regent's Park were not iakes a great interest. If there is any one erected by a great municipal corporation, interested in its decision, it is my right who were to be interfered with at every lion. Friend the First Commissioner of the turn by the executive Government of the Board of Works, who I think, would natu- day, but by one Government Department, rally incline to repudiate the responsibility who had nobody to interfere with it. They which the clause would throw upon him. called in one of the great architects of the It is, however, a question of public interest day, and the great scheme of building was that there should be some controlling carried into effect. If, therefore, the Comauthority, in order to secure uniformity of mittee desired uniformity of plan, let them design in a block of buildings to be placed reject the clause and leave the responsiin so conspicuous a position as the new bility to the Metropolitan Board. cmbankment would be. We have seen

Question put, " That the Clausc stand the advantage of this in the Regent's part of the Bill." Park. Many people may not approve the The Committee divided :- Ayes 162 ; different styles of architecture to be seen Noes 145: Majority 17. there ; that is a matter of taste. Some of it is Gothic, some Grecian, and some

Clause agreed to. neither Gothic nor Grecian ; but still those Clause 35 (Board may grant Building blocks of building are to some extent uni- Leases of Ground not wanted for purposes form, and produce a good effect. It was of this Act). really an original thought of Mr. Naslı, MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH said, this and very creditable to him, to combine a clause was objectionable, inasmuch as there number of separate private dwellings into was no limit placed in reference to the buildings to be erected upon the reclaimed tee were informed that, even at low water, land, and he thought the Metropolitan the bed of the river would be covered up Board of Works should have power in all to the embankment. cases to interfere. With that view he

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. would move an addition to the clause of

Clause agreed to. the words, “nor on such part of the reclaimed land as shall be within 200 feet of Clauses 36 to 41 also agreed to. the embankment wall.” He was afraid that Somerset House, Waterloo Bridge,

Clause 42 (Prohibition against Use of and other structures would be greatly al. Locomotives along the Streets). tered in their general appearance by the SiR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE objected proposed embankment along this majestic to the clause as unnecessary and inesperiver, unless this restrictive power were dient. Why should they prohibit the use given to the Metropolitan Board of of the greatest improvement of the ageWorks. He wished to know how the steam-on this new roadway? Why they embankment was to be laid out, and should be specially excepted he could not whether the landing-places and stairs understand, and it seemed to him retrowere to be arranged without interfering grade legislation. He begged therefore with the navigation and the general plan to move that the clause be expunged. of the embankment.

Sir JOSEPH PAXTON thought it MR. COWPER said, it was desirable absurd to make an exception as regarded that all the land which was available for this embankment. If they had a general the recreation of the public along the em- law for the metropolis prohibiting steam bankment should be dedicated to that locomotives to use the common roads, well purpose. Clause 28 made a provision with and good. that view in regard to the space between

Sir JOHN SHELLEY thonght it was Cecil Street and Northumberland Street ; very dangerous to allow locomotires to but he did not think the land east of Cecil move along in crowded streets, and ad. Street could with advantage be so appro- vocated the maintenance of the clause. priated. Where the reclaimed land amount. Sir GEORGE LEWIS observed, there ed only to a narrow strip, the space must was now a general measure applicable to he devoted to building purposes : his hon. all towns as to those engines, the Home Friend's Amendment would prevent that. Secretary having power to prohibit steam The Thames Conservancy Board were in locomotives travelling particular streets. vested with authority to construct and He thought it best not to disturb the geimprove all the landing places and stairs neral law, but to leave it applicable to this on the river, and the plan which he be as to other roads, the Secretary of State lieved would be adopted in front of the having power to interfere if the public embankment would be floating stages, safety required it. which rise and fall with the flow of the Clause struck out. tide. MR. AUGUSTUS SMITU complained

Clauses 43 to 45 were agreed to. of the constant encroachments that had Clause 46 (Appropriation of Thames been made upon the bed of the river ; Embankment and Metropolis Improvement and they were now about to take steps Fund). which would have the effect of further MR. AYRTON asked for some explana. contracting its width by one-third. He tion as to the amount of the funds which doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman were available for the purposes of this Bill was aware of the extent to which the na- and the charges upon vigation would be impeded by this plan. Mr. COWPER replied, that the funds He wished to know whether at low water available were derived from the surplus the river would come to the base of the of the London Bridge Approaches Fund, embankment ?

the amount of which was not ascertain. Sir JOSEPH PAXTON replied, that ed. To carry out the construction of though the water would come up to the the embankment about £1,000,000 would embankment, the landing-stages would be required from the coal and other duhave to be carried out some distance beties, and these would probably furnish fore vessels could come alongside at low a surplus of £500,000 more than would water.

be requisite. All the funds were paid COLONEL KNOX said, that the Commit- to the Treasury, and must be transfer

Mr. Augustus Smith

it.

red by their authority to the Board of | agents for a number of years, and had Works.

been in communication with them in conMR. AYRTON thought they should nection with Bills for railways and for the have a more detailed explanation. First river Lea. One of the members of that the fund was to be liable for the charges firm was born and bred at Hertford ; upon the London Bridge approaches fund. the other was not resident at Hertford. Next, payment was to be provided from Did the hon. Gentleman mean to say that the same source of all costs of obtaining because one member of a firm of Parliathe Act. How was this to be considered ? mentary agents happened to be connected Was the fund to be debited with the with the borough he represented, he should charges incurred by the right hon. Gen- be debarred from employing the services of tleman's department in connection with that firm ? He could only presume that the Act. He understood that the right the hon. Gentleman meant to have a malihon. Gentlemau had not employed the offi- cious hit at him because one of the Parliacers of his department in preparing the mentary ngents employed for the Bill was Act, but two firms of solicitors, Messrs. connected with the borough he had the Baxter, Rose, and Norton, and Messrs. honour to represent. Any menuber of the Marchant and Pead, of Hertford. Were Select Committee would bear him out in both those firms to be paid out of this stating that Messrs. Marchant and Pead fund; and, if so, was the Department to be the Parliamentary agents referred to) had paid out of it also for the assistance they discharged their duties satisfactorily and had rendered ? In the next clause refe efficiently. With respect to the clause unrence was made to so much of the Thames der discussion, it only gave authority to cmbankment fund as might remain after the Treasury to pay the Thames Embank. deducting those charges. What was that ment and Metropolitan Improvement fund sum ? He thought they ought to have in to the Metropolitan Board of Works. It such a case a detailed statement of the was beside the question to consider what fund, and of the charges upon it.

these sums The important point MR. COWPER said, he had not thought was, that whatever they might be, they it necessary to make a statement, because should be paid by the Treasury to the he was not asking the House to vote the board. money. The clause simply stated how the MR. AYRTON said, the right hon. Genfunds in the hands of the Treasury by the tleman afforded so much amusement to the Act of last year were to be appropriated. House of his own accord that it was unMr. Scott, the Chamberlain of the City of necessary for him to interfere with a view London, had been examined before the of keeping up the entertainment. But he Committee, and gave such details as they must contradict the right hon. Gentleman required, and the hon. Gentleman would on a matter of fact, inasmuch as the Law find in his evidence all the information List, the accepted authority on such points, he asked for. The Committee consider- stated that Messrs. Marchant and Pead ed the question of the amounts provided were in partnership as attorneys at Hertand to be expended ; but this clause did ford. [Mr. Cowper: It does not so apnot refer to those details. With regard pear upon the evidence.] He was award to the general object of the clause :- First of that. There was some equivocation the expenses incidental to the obtain on tliis point in the evidence. Those ing of the Act were, as usual in such gentlemen might also practise as Parliaa case, to be paid. The hon. Meni ber mentary agents in London. No doubt the could not, he thought, have read the evi- right hon. Gentleman had had relations dence given before the Committee, or he with them before, and might have had good would have seen that he was entirely mis grounds, in his own opinion, for selecting taken in supposing that two sets of solici. them again on this occasion. All lie wanted tors had been employed. The persons to know was whether the ratepayers would employed were the solicitors and the Par- be saddled with anything more than the liamentary agents; and when the hon. charges of these two sets of professional Gentleman said that a solicitor had come Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, from Hertford to act as Parliamentary were certainly Parliamentary agents of agent, he begged to inform him that the great skill, as many lion. Members on the firm in question had been Parliamentary Liberal side of the House, who had, unagents for several years. He had known fortunately, lost their seats through the them as highly respectable Parliamentary exertions of those gentlemen, knew to

were,

nien.

« PreviousContinue »