« PreviousContinue »
had the authority of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) for a proposition which every one would admit, that the owner of lands had no right to compensation for a view which might be interfered with. The Middle and Inner Temple were in possession of the land up to a certain point, and the land beyond that was vested in the Conservators of the Thames. The ratepayers' fund was to pay the conservators for that land, and thus the Thames Embankment fund became the owner of it by purchase. Being so, it had a right to do with the land what it pleased. They had been told that the extraordinary concession proposed by the Bill was made because the Temples, being powerful, might by opposing the Bill have prevented it from passing; but the House would not accept such a statement as a reason for doing what was wrong. The concession was also justified on the ground that the Temples would keep the reclaimed portions of land as gardens for the public; but he found that the Bill stated that the reclaimed land not required for the roadway was for ever hereafter to be the exclusive property of the Inner and Middle Temples. As it had been said that these Societies always let the public into their gardens, he went on Sunday, between the morning and afternoon services, when the sun was shining, to the Inner Temple garden. This garden was placed in the midst of a denselypopulated neighbourhood, living in the squalid misery of courts and alleys, where almost every chamber contained a separate family; and one would suppose that under these circumstances the children of the families in the neighbourhood would have been found recreating themselves in the garden; but only about six persons were there. The gardener informed him that no one was allowed to come into the garden without a Bencher's order. This proved that the words in the Bill were not mere words of form, but were words of reality. The hon. Member then moved the addition of the clause.
"Provided, That in case the Trustees of the Society of the Inner Temple or the Trustees of the Society of the Middle Temple shall not admit the public to use for the purpose of recreation the land by this Act vested in such Trustees, subject to such restrictions and regulations as the said Societies respectively, with the sanction of the Crown, may appoint in that behalf, then
the said land vested in such Trustees respectively shall be and thenceforth continue vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works, as land
within the provisions of the twenty-eighth Sec
tion of this Act,"
brought up, and read 1o.
MR. LOCKE thought that the hon. Member's clause was a matter of very small dimensions. The public were not to be admitted to these bits of land except under such restrictions as the Inner and Middle Temple should impose, subject to the consent of the Crown; but it was not likely that the Crown would interfere at all in the business. The hon. Gentleman was told by the gardener of the Inner Temple that he could not admit persons without orders. It should be borne in mind, however, that these orders were given by the Benchers to all persons who chose to ask for them, and on summer evenings the whole public were let into the garden without any orders whatever. The Temples maintained the gardens at their own expense, and he had never before heard any complaint made as to restrictions on the entrance of the public.
MR. HARVEY LEWIS hoped that the whole of the Temple Gardens were to be included in the clause. They were about to have valuable river front, and he thought it would be a great improvement to the Bill if Parliament were to impose such regulations on the Benchers as would prevent their shutting up the gardens from the public.
MR. MONTAGUE SMITH said, it was a mistake to suppose that a valuable river front was about to be given to the Benchers of the Temple. In fact their river front was being taken away from them. They were merely to receive some strips of land for which they could not The gar obtain one farthing of rent. dens had always been kept in order at the expense of the Societies, and certainly were considered to contribute to the adornment of London. When it was said that they were the private property of the Benchers, the fact was that nobody in London used the gardens so little as the Benchers, who were nearly always absent. But the Benchers were not so fastidious as had been described; they admitted on summer evenings to the gardens those dirty children from poor neighbourhoods of whom the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Ayrton) spoke so contemptuously the other night as being likely to play about on the embankment between Whitehall and Westminster Bridge, to the annoyance of the neigh
bourhood. Mr. Thackeray, who had witnessed these gardens the other night filled with some 400 poor children, had expressed his pleasure to him (Mr. M. Smith); and said it did his heart good to see it. There was no churlishness on the part of the Benchers respecting admission; then why, he asked, should they be interfered with in their rights of ownership which they had exercised now for centuries? There were no private gardens in London to which the public were so freely admitted as the Temple Gardens, and the attempt to interfere with the Societies in the management of their own property was most ungracious.
recent occasion by the hon. Member for
MR. COWPER, while sympathizing
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The Committee divided: - Ayes 18; Noes 139 Majority 121.
SIR JOHN SHELLEY: Sir, I trust the Committee will permit me to make a few observations on a personal matter. When the proceedings in Committee of the House had once commenced, I thought it right to refrain from intruding myself on the attention of the Committee, because I desired that certain irritable feelings which had been excited in the previous discussions should be allowed to cool down. But there are some things which a man cannot allow to be said, without endeavouring to set himself right with his friends and society. It is a common saying, that an Englishman's word is as good as his bond. The Committee will recollect, that upon being called upon on a
lution, I hope no time will be lost in
tends to Hungerford market and other matters not now before the Committee." I then said, "I have heard enough of Hungerford market, and, as far as I am concerned, all I want is the correspondence relating to the Crown property." The right hon. Gentleman thereupon said, "Oh, very well, we will alter the Resolution." I objected to that, saying, "Neither you nor I can make any alteration without the consent of the Committee, and I object to any interference with the Resolution until the question has been regularly put to the Committee." I then went back to my place, and as far as I was concerned that was all the conversation that took place. I told the right hon. Baronet the Member for Petersfield (Sir William Jolliffe), who sat next to me, and other members of the Committee what had occurred. As to what passed between the Chairman and the noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord H. Vane) I know
nothing; but the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire (Lord Robert Montagu) has told me that he well remembers my protesting against any alteration being made in the Resolution. I can only say I believed, as I think every member of the Committee believed, that the Resolution as carried in the Committee would appear on the Minutes of Proceedings; but, as I stated in the House a few evenings ago, the Resolution as carried by me in the Committee did not appear in the Minutes, and the copy presented to me by the right hon. Gentleman was not in the words in which I proposed my Resolution. I never did consent to the alteration made in it by the Chairman; and I think it most important it should be clearly understood that the Chairman of a Committee may not take away a Resolution in his pocket, and, without bringing it back again, allow the Committee to disperse; and then, when a member of the Committeee makes an objection to the Resolution as carried not appearing in the proceedings, stand up, and because he had some conversation with individual members of the Committee, charge the member who complains with not telling the truth. Emphatically, in the face of this House, I say I did not consent to the alteration. I believed the Resolution would appear in the Minutes as I had proposed it; and when I told the House that the other night, I told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied, I think the proper course for him would be to call the Committee clerk to the bar. Before I made my statement I conversed with the clerk on the subject; and if called to the bar, he will confirm every word I said. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to say anything further; but I ask the House to believe that I did not state what was untrue.
MR. COWPER: I suppose one word is required from me, and I wish to explain that when I stated the accusation of the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) was not a true accusation, but was founded altogether on a mistake, what I understood him to charge me with was, that I had altered his Resolution surreptitiously, and on my own account, and not in my capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee, endeavouring to give effect to what I believed to be the unanimous wish of the Committee. I said I thought it not fair -I believe I used stronger language-I
thought it not becoming of him to take ad-
MR. DARBY GRIFFITH rose to a
THE CHAIRMAN: The question was as to whether a certain clause should stand part of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman
said "No." I listened to hear whether it then stood. He thought they ought he was supported by any other voice; but to be careful as to the appropriation
I failed to find any negative but that of the hon. Gentleman. I repeated the question a second and a third time with the same result; and although it is true that a second voice is not necessary in Committee, a second teller is necessary in case of a division. Therefore I thought it unnecessary to trouble the Committee with a division when there did not appear to be a second teller.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, he was glad to find the Chairman concurred with him that it was a privilege in Committee that a single Member might raise the question on a clause by calling for a division. If that was so, though no second voice was heard, tellers might subsequently appear. In his case, there were, in point of fact, tellers, and one hon. Member raised his voice with him. He did so rather feebly, no doubt, but perhaps his lungs were delicate.
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee, to set forth in detail in the Schedule to the Bill,
under the head of each station, the name of the
works in each district to which it is proposed to apply the sums to be granted by the Bill; the total estimated cost of each work, and the amount proposed to be applied to it before August 1, 1863,")
said, that he forbore from moving his Amendment, because he had been informed by the Speaker that he should not be in order in doing so. At the same time, he was anxious to make an appeal to the Government to make some alteration before hon. Members discussed the Bill in Committee. He wished to know how the sum of £1,200,000, lately granted, was to be expended, and to have a detailed account appended to the schedule. By this means they might discuss the Bill better than in the general form in which
of the money they voted. There was a difference of opinion as to certain of these works, and it was considered more desirable to carry out some of them than others. The question was, whether they had then the means of giving effect to their opinion upon the details of the Bill-whether they could reduce the expenditure upon certain fortifications, whether at Portsdown or at Plymouth. If they did so, according to the ordinary rules of appropriation they would effect nothing by reducing this Vote, because it seemed to him that the Government could use the money promiscuously for any purpose mentioned in the schedule of the Bill. If the House were to express its opinion against any particular part of the Bill, he took it for granted that the Government would take care not to proceed with that portion of the works, but there was nothing in the form of the Bill to prevent their doing so in spite of a decision of the House. They were very much in danger of passing Bills like this year after year; and if the House were to rest merely upon an honourable understanding with the Government, without a very strict appropriation clause, there was no saying to what extent the power might be used by the Government. Of the £2,000,000 granted two years ago certain sums had been set down in the schedule for particular stations, and they been spent upon these stations, and he had now returns of how the money had found that at several of these places there had been considerable excess. He knew that £350,000 of that was to be spent upon works already sanctioned by Parlia ment, and not set forth in detail in the schedule; but he found that at Portsmouth more than £120,000 would have been spent in excess by the end of this month beyond what was sanctioned by the schedule; while at Plymouth, £68,500; at Portland, £112,000; on the Medway, £40,000; and at Dover, £66,000, more than was sanctioned by the schedule, had been expended; and the expenditure at all the military stations had been £440,000 more than was granted by Parliament. Deducting even the £350,000, there was an excess of expenditure of £90,000. How had that money been obtained? Why, £150,000 had been obtained for a central arsenal, which had not yet been fixed upon, and that money had been
tory, and he should be ready to adopt the course he proposed if he saw how it could be reconciled with the ordinary practice of the House with regard to appropriations. He was quite ready to follow the precedent of a Committee of Supply. The course proposed by the hon. Baronet was somewhat stricter. What the hon. Baronet proposed was to insert every item, whercas the Appropriation Act only adopted the total of a Vote. What the Appropriation Act required was that the money spent should not exceed the total of the Vote; but within that Vote the separate items, although, no doubt, the Department observed each as strictly as it could, were not enforced on it by law. But in the making of contracts-for instance, when an Estimate for a barrack was contained in the Army Estimates, the whole amount being £80,000, and the annual Vote being £20,000-the invariable practice was to make the contract for the entire sun. That practice was followed with reference to these forts. If, for example, the whole amount allotted to Portsmouth was stated in the Bill at a certain sum, and the contractor for one part of the works became bankrupt, or an interruption occurred to the works from some other cause, it might be convenient and economical to the public that the sum intended for that work should be spent on some other work within the same schedule. If he were to adopt the proposition of the hon. Baronet, and make the Return a part of the Bill, it would become an appropriation of every item in that Return, which would be much stricter than the practice ever followed in Com
spent on works at Portsmouth and elsewhere. What he asked was, that the House should not go into this matter blindfold. He did not wish to express any particular opinion upon the fortifications mentioned in the Bill; but it was important that they should keep the matter in their own hands, so that they might be assured that the money would be applied to the purposes for which it was voted. He proposed, when they came to the appropriation clause in the Bill, to move a proviso, limiting the power of the Government with regard to the application of these monies. If the Government would allow them to go into Committee pro formá, they might then discuss the matter, and decide which works should be sanctioned and which not. If not, he must at a future time propose the Amendment which stood in his name, which would render necessary the alteration of the schedule; and if there was any probability of his Motion being carried, the Government would see that time might be saved by adopting his proposal. He felt sure the Government would treat the House with perfect fairness, for in the whole of this business the Government had acted in that spirit: they had always freely shown what they had spent, and what they proposed to spend. The plan had been originally sanctioned by a willing majority of the House, and he thought the Government had no course but to persevere in the plan. All he desired was to put the matter in such a shape that they might deal with it practically. He should content himself, on the present occasion, with earnestly asking the Government to adopt the course which he had sug-mittee of Supply. He should be quite gested.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS admitted that there was a difference of opinion as to some of these forts; and the Government had found it their duty to object to many of the opinions that had been expressed. But on one subject he thought they were all agreed that whatever might be the decision of the House, it should be founded on clear data; that there should be no misunderstanding as to the proposals of the Government; and that when once there was a decision of the House, embodied in an Act of Parliament, it should be strictly observed by the executive Government. He was therefore quite prepared to take any course which should correspond with that principle. The hon. Baronet had stated with fairness that the information the Government had given was satisfacVOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.
ready to enter into an engagement with the House that he would not, in the case of any one fort, exceed the total amount stated in the Return which was upon the table ; and if that could be engrafted upon the schedule, he should make no objection; but beyond that he was afraid that it would be difficult to go without unnecessarily tying the hands of the War Department. should be quite willing to make any arrangement which would carry into effect the general principle that the Government should not take any advantage of the House, or enter beyond their expectations and intentions upon any of the works included in the list.
MR. LINDSAY said, that when the noble Viscount at the head of the Government brought this subject before the House two years ago, he alleged as the reason