« PreviousContinue »
their cost. And, no doubt, if the right selves landed in an immense deficit after bon. Gentleman had thought his scheme the works were completed. He had little could not stand on its own merits, and had confidence in the economical propensities been anxious to smooth away difficulties, of the First Commissioner of Works, rehe could not liave done a cleverer thing membering, as he did, how that right hon. than to employ that well-known Conserva- Gentleman at the beginning of this Session, tive firm in this case. Such a choice, having £30,000 of this fund in hand, had however, implied a reflection on the com- proposed to make a road with it across petency of the Liberal Parliamentary Kensington Gardens. Mr. Scott, the City agents. The right hon. Gentleman had - Chamberlain, had stated his belief, that if unintentionally he was sure-made an properly managed and invested at 4 per equivocation about this clause which he cent--a pretty high rate of interest—the would doubtless retract. He had said that fund which was to be set apart to defray it was a clause not imposing but only ap. the cost of the embankment, would reach propriating taxation; but be forget, that if nearly £1,600,000 at the end of ten years. he appropriated this fund to the Thames Now, even supposing that nothing was Embankment, taxes must be imposed for taken from it in the meanwhile, he other purposes which were equally neces- thought the Board would have considersary. 'By disposing of the proceeds of a able difficulty in raising the £1,000,000 tax the clause was therefore, though in- they were empowered to borrow. Now, he directly, a taxing clause. This was the had been given to understand a few days first time the House had been asked to ago, and he wished to inquire into the appropriate a tax in such loose language, truth of the report, that the money paid and lic trusted the right hon. Gentleman by the City Chamberlain to the Treasury, would show them what were the items to amounting to a large sum, was lying idle which the clause referred.
at the Bank of England. The solicitor to Colonel KNOX said, he thought the the Office of Works (Mr. Gardiner) was hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets a very able and excellent officer, and had could not have read the Select Com- had a great deal to do in originating the mittcc's Report, or he would not have Bills of the office. Mr. Gardiner received made the observations he had done. The a salary of £1,500 a year, and he could City Chamberlain's evidence afforded the not understand why Messrs. Baxter, Rose, information which the hon. Gentleman and Norton had been employed as solisought.
citors to the Bill. When the Committee Mr. W. WILLIAMS drew attention to first commenced their inquiry, the Metrothe question of the cost of the lower main politan Board of Works appeared, by soli
Ilo liad not observed any provision tors and counsel, as opponents, and it was in this Bill that the cost was to be defrayed only when the clause was passed which out of the £3,000,000 to be borrowed for gave to the Board the execution of the the purpose of making the sewers generally; works that they became co-promoters. ond' he thought that if it formed part of They were to be paid their expenses out the works of the new embankment, it of the fund; and he wished to know whewould be most unjust if it were to be paid ther that meant that they would be paid out of the tax upon coal and wine. the expenses of their opposition. Messrs.
LORD IJARRY VANE: It is not to be Marchant and Pead, Messrs. Smith, and 80 paid for.
Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton were all Sir JOHN SHELLEY said, he was to be paid; and whether he was personal or glad they had, at last, come to the im- not, he was bound to do his duty by calling portant question of expense, which had attention to the fact. He should like to hitherto been overlooked in these discus- hear that it was an error to suppose that sions. At present they knew no more as
the receipts from the coal and wine duties to what would be the expense of the pro
had been lying in the Bank without inposed embankment than what they were terest, instead of fructifying for the benefit told by the Committee, which was, that of the fund. after several items of expense had been
Mr. COWPER said, with respect to the cut off
, it would cost £500,000. Now, last point it was not within his cognizance. according to the evidence of the City The Treasury had been intrusted by law Chamberlain, it was clear, that if they had with the fund, and he was not acquainted taken the estimates offered in introducing with what had been done with regard to this Bill, they would have found them- it
. The hon. Baronet must put his quesMr. Ayrton
tion to some Member of the Treasury. The petition of the Metropolitan Board, if But with regard to the amount of the fund, in form against the Bill, was not hostile to it was in evidence that at the end of June the Bill ; and having received the greatest there would be £260,000 in hand, and support from that Board, he saw no reason that the present value of it exceeded why their expenses should not be paid out £1,500,000. This clause was to enable of this fund rather than out of a fund the Treasury, after paying all the charges, which had no relation whatever to the to transfer the surplus to the Metropolitan Thames Embankment. Board. As to the first item of charge, MR. AYRTON said, that the right hon. it was not correctly known. As to the Gentleman had not answered his questions, second, it was impossible to tell what would | What he wanted to know was, whether be the expenses of the Act until it had private solicitors liaving been employed, passed. It certainly would not have been the Department would have to pay its own a smaller sun if he had employed the solicitors as well, and next what was the solicitor of the Office of Works instead of meaning of the references to the London Messrs. Baxter. The serving of notices Bridge Approaches Fund ? and the other business connected with MR. COWPER said, that as the soli. this Bill could not be done by the pre-citor to the Board of Works was paid by seut strength of the Office of Works. salary, ine would receive nothing with reIn order that he might be enabled to gard to this Bill. As to the second quesdischarge those duties, it would have been tion, the Act of last year provided that any necessary for the solicitor of the Office surplus existing from the London Bridge of Works to increase his staff consider- Approaches Fund should be paid to tho ably, and to incur a much larger expense Treasury and become part of the Thames than the payment which he had hitherto Embankment Fund. What that surplus received.
Without neglecting his other was had not yet been decided, some items business it would be impossible for him to being disputed; but the Committee was exccute the business in connection with quite safe in enacting, that when the this Bill. In an important measure of this Treasury should decide what the surplus kind, and in the face of such an opposi- was, it should be added to the Thames Em. tion as it had to contend with, it appeared bankment Fund. to him (Mr. Cowper) the wisest course to In answer to Mr. W. WILLIAMS, employ Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Nor- MR. COWPER said, that the expense ton, those gentlemen being specially prac. of the low-level sewer was kept quite distised in this branch of business. He need tinct from those of the embankment, and scarcely say that he had not selected would not come out of the coal duties. them on account of their politics—a sub- The expense would be defrayed out of the ject which had never crossed his mind main drainage rate. at the time. The main reason which MR. DARBY GRIFFITH remarked influenced him in selecting this firm was, that the right hon. Gentleman the First that they had last year been employed Commissioner of Works had fallen into the in serving notices over the same extent hands of the inost expensive Parliamentary of land in connection with a proposed agents in London, as he knew Messrs. embankment between Westminster and Rose, Baxter, and Norton had charged for Blackfriars Bridges, and had therefore in lithographed circulars as if they were their office all the information required. manuscript.
anuscript. He had tested these charges With regard to the Parliamentary agents, by litigation leading to a reference to arbiMessrs. Marchant and Pead, did not act tration, and the result was a curtailment as solicitors, and he observed in the last of their charges. The noble Lord at the page of the evidence a statement that head of the Government had bribed a those gentlemen had done nothing as 80- Member out of his scat. ["Order !") licitors. The gentleman who appeared Well, what was lie to say ? The noble in the Law List as a solicitor was the Lord, with that tact which distinguished son of Mr. Marchant, and he had en- all lie did, offered an inducement to an gaged the father, who was a Parliamen hon. Member which resulted in his vacating tary agent, to do the business of a Par- his seat, and finding an opportunity for lianientary agent. The payment of the bestowing the sent on an official of his oirn expenses of the Metropolitan Board had Government. He bad intended to put been decided upon by the Committee, and a question to the noble Viscount on the he knew of no valid ground of objection. point; and only let him off for one reason, and that was, that having understood the small minority, and on one occasion in salary of the selected person to be £2,000, a minority of one. it came out that it was only £1,200, and lie MR. AYRTON said, he thought the thought it hardly desirable to disturb the metropolis had great reason to complain of repose of the noble Viscount for such a the Treasury, which had declared it would trifle.
not, directly, contribute anything towards MR. COWPER, in reference to the cx- the embankment. On one point there penses, remarked, that there was an under existed considerable misapprehension in standing between the parties concerned this House, and still more out of doors. that the bill of costs should be taxed by It was not remembered that, in so far as an officer of the House.
this embankment touched on Crown land, Sir JOHN SHELLEY said, Messrs. it was not competent for the Committee or Marchant and Pead, who appeared before for the House to deal with the question, the Committee as agents for the Bill, ac- except in the way indicated by the Crown; cording to the Law List, were solicitors and therefore the Committee were in the at Hertford.
dilemma of having to take the embankClause agreed to.
ment exactly as the right hon. Gentleman Clauses 47 to 54, inclusive, were also proposed it, or of putting a stop to it alagreed to.
together. They had therefore no alter.
native except to take the course which Clause 55 (as to Street between White had been actually pursued. On the part hall Place and Wellington Street). of the metropolitan taxpayers, he thought
SiR JOHN SHELLEY said, that this they had a right to complain of the hard clause had reference to the street between terms which were put upon them by the Whitehall Place and Wellington Street. Government. Certainly the inhabitants He wished it to be understood that there owed nothing to the Government and the was a strong feeling in the Committee that Chief Commissioner for his interference the street was a downright mistake, and with the embankment, because he was that its creation would give rise to endless convinced, that if the Metropolitan Board claims for compensation. The evidence had been allowed to propose it, they would before them was, that the street ran in a have got better ternis from the Treasury, wrong direction, and he hoped the matter and would have saved £300,000 in thic would be discussed in another place. execution of the work, while the public
MR. COW PER could not agree that the would have got all that they legitiniately Committee considered the street a mistake. desired, and all that would be ultimately If the matter had been discussed, he
necessary. The Government, howerer, thought the reasons in favour of it would said, “The inhabitants of London shall have satisfied the Committee that they enbank the Thames, and shall pay the would have been quite right in passing it. Crown for any supposed interest it may
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses have in that part of the river.” It was 56 to 71, inclusive.
true that some of the land in front of the Clause 72 (Disposal of Reclaimed Land Crown estates was absolutely vested in the in which Crown interested).
Crown ; but then it was only a dirty bank, SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, this clause and surely, if the inhabitants paid the cost and Clause 77 would enable the Crown to of an embankment there, and thus made lease tho land reclaimed from the fore- the Crown land more valuable, the Crown shores, and charge its tenants what it on its part ought to contribute something. thought fit. The foreshores were at pre
He felt sure, that if the matter had been sent useless, but the metropolitan rate-fairly put before the noble Viscount, and payers were going to render them of great he had been told that the inhabitants were value; and inasmuch as all persons, from the about to spend £1,500,000 upon this em. highest in rank to the lowest wharfinger, bankment, he would have released the had been called upon to make sacrifices in rights of the Crown in this foreshore, as order to carry out this great improvement, the contribution which the Crown nade in he thought the Crown, instead of taking consideration of the great improvement to the utilized land for its own advantage, the Crown estato through this alteration. should join in making a sacrifice for the Instead of this, everything had been excommon good. He had expressed this acted. They were now compelled to take opinion several times, and had divided the Bill exactly as it was tendered to them the Committee, although always in a regarding the Crown estates.
Mr. Darby Griffith
MR. COWPER said, that no money was SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, he bad to be paid to the Crown for the foreshore always considered that there had been in front of the Crown property. The bar. sharp practice in this mattter-that after gain which had been made was this :-As all discussion had closed, at the last moto the land between Whitehall Stairs and ment, they should be told that the Crown Richmond Terrace, the Crown gave up its had a veto. He regretted that the Crown right to embank this shore for its own should have been mixed up in this matter profit, together with all claims to the land in this manner; but it was a fact, that which was required for the roadway, and the only individual in the metropolis who all claim to compensation for damage would make no sacrifice for this great done ; and in return it would get . no metropolitan improvement was what was money, but only the reclaimed land. IIc commonly called the Crown, but really it was advised that this was a fair ar- amounted to nothing more than the efforts rangement, and better terms would not of one or two offices who were anxious to have been obtained in any other way. As support their dignity and importance. He regarded the foreshore not in front of had divided the Select Committee twice Crown property, the Board of Conserv- unsuccessfully against these clauses, and ancy were to have their rights valued, the only reason why he refrained from and one-third of the amount would go to dividing the Committee on the present the Crown. That also, he believed, was occasion was, because he understood that a perfectly fair arrangement.
a kind of understanding existed upstairs, LORD HARRY VANE said, that when that unless these clauses were passed, these clauses were proposed in the Com- the consent of the Crown would be mittee, they were thought to be rather withheld from the Bill. [Mr. CowPER : sharp practice. The feeling of the Com- Yes.] He should be sorry to imperil a mittee was, that all parties being called useful measure by such a course; for he upon for some sacrifice, the Crown might believed that a great work was about to be well forego its claims to the fores!orc. made, but badly made. He had always But, on the contrary, these claims were felt that it was a great object to make the put forward in the most marked manner.
Thames Embankment, in order to conThat there was to be no money payment
struct the low-level sewer without injury in respect of the foreslore in front of the and ruin to many persons in the Strand Crown estates made very little difference. and Fleet Street; and therefore, although The Committee had certainly thought that he thought the scheme badly devised and it would have been better if the extreme badly engineered, he would not undertake rights of the Crown bad not been so hardly the responsibility of preventing its compressed; but they could not help them- pletion. selves in the matter, and had no resource
SIR MORTON PETO said, that the but to accept these clauses.
feelings of the Committee had been accuMR. AUGUSTUS SMITH rose to rately described by the noble Lord (Lord
protest against the assertion that the Crown Harry Vane), but they were told by the liad a right to embank the river in front of Chairman that any alteration of the clauses its own property without an Act of Par- would be fatal to the Bill.
He ngreed lianient to empower it to do so.
that the Crown should not be placed in of opinion that all that had been recovered this invidious position. Mr. Gore, doubtfrom the Thames ought to belong to the less, was desirous of protecting the interpublic.
ests of the Crown in the department over MR. DARBY GRIFFITH thought the which he presided, but there were interests exaggerated pretensions on behalf of one which could not be estimated by any money clement of the Constitution were offensive
value. to the House of Commons. Few
LORD JOHN MANNERS said, that
persons could be aware of the trickery that had having rend the correspondence that had been practised, or would believe that, after taken place between the Departments, he a Committee had made a careful investiga- could not see that Mr. Gore had donc any. tion, at the last moment the Crown, or thing more than follow out the instructions some one in its name, should bring for- of his superiors at the Treasury. It had ward clauses and make their adoption in been said that this was an unusual interperative. Such a course was offensive to ference on the part of the Crown ; but that House, and placed the name of the nothing could be more common than the Crown in an odious light.
announcement in that House of the con.
sent of the Crown to Bills which, if such | the Committee had refused the great esconsent were not given, could not be penditure which would be required to passed. There was nothing new in the purchase the Company's interest in their exercise of that right, and he did not premises, it was only right that they know that the Treasury had exercised it should bave preserved to them the means now in any manner inconsistent with the of carrying on their business. claims of the public.
Mn. LOCKE said, some years back the The Chairman liaving put the Question, House of Commons had an opportunity “ That the Clause stand part of the Bill,” of getting rid of those Works, but they Mr. DARBY GRIPfith only declared himcame to the determination that the Comself in the negative : Whereon the Chair- pany should be allowed to carry them on man declared the Clause agreed to.
where they were. If the House paid for
the removal of the Works out of the ConClause agreed to; as were likewise solidated Fund, it would be a very good Clauses 73 10 76, inclusive.
thing to have them removed.
LORD HARRY VANE said, the Select Clause 77 (Crown Lessces to have Committee had made the fairest arrangeOption of taking Lease of reclaimed Land ment with the Company which it was adjacent to their Properties for Terms of possible to make, and the Company, on their Leases).
the whole, thought themselves rather hardly MR. DARBY GRIFFITH complained dealt with. that the Icssees along the river were to MR. WYLD said, they were going to be charged for the land reclaimed from put the Gas Company in a better position the river and added to their premises, ihan they were before, and the Gas Com. though the lessecs only require the land pany should pay for it. they already possess.
MR. COWPĚR observed, that the Gas Clause agreed to.
Company did not think they would obtain
any advantage from the change, and would Clause 78 (Limit of Width of Footway rather be left as they are. on Crown Land).
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses MR. LOCKE said, that the omission 84 and 85. of this clause followed, as a matter of course, the omission of Clause 9, and MR. AYRTON rose to move a new ho therefore proposed that it should be clause. He said the other day, he obomitted.
jected to the provision by which the Clause negatired.
Societies of the Inner and Middle Temple
were to be allowed to appropriate to their Clauses 79 to 82 agreed to.
cxclusive use the land which was to be
reclaimed in front of their gardens, exClause 83 (Viaduct in front of City cept only so much of it as the roadway Gas Works).
would require. These Societies had preMR. WYLD thought the clause objec- ferred a claim greater than any other tionable, because it would perpetuate a person-far greater than that of the gross nuisance in the centre of the City Crown, becausc the Crown was acknor. of London. It would sanction the con ledged to have a right to enbank in front tinuance of the gas works near Blackfriars of its lands. But thc Societies had no inBridge. If the proposed vinduct was to terest in the foreshore, except as far as a be constructed, it would be a great con- landing-place was concerned, and a landingvenience to the gas company, and they place was to be reconstructed for them by ought to pay for the improvement. an express clause in the Bill. The rate.
Mr. COWPER said, that in a sanitary payers of the metropolis were to be compoint of view it would be desirable to get pelled to make an embankment in front of rid of the Gas Works, but it would be ihe gardens, but the Temple was to conrather hard to throw on the coal duties tribute nothing, and yet was to receive all the burden of the compensation which the surplus land. Noblemen and gentlemen the Gas Company would have a right had made demands, but those demands to expect if they were called upon to re- were within the limit of their rights ; and if more their works. It was that consi- they received any land, they were to pay deration whiclı influenced the Committee for it the full value. But these Societies in adopting the clausc. Since, therefore, had no right to the land whatever. He
Lord John Manners