LORD HARRY VANE said, he could confirm what had been stated by the noble Lord.

THAMES EMBANKMENT BILL.

[BILL NO. 162.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

weeks to these imputations and threats. in the public journals, and therefore he thought that there were grounds for an appeal on their part to that House. The Members of the Committee were, as individuals, weak and powerless in themselves; but if the House should think the honour of any of its Members attacked, it might direct such steps as it deemed necessary to be taken. He was content to leave the matter with the House; and if SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE said, the the House thought that no further notice House would not be surprised if, after what should be taken of it, he was perfectly had occurred, the members of the Com- satisfied. He could assure the House that mittee which had sat on that subject were whatever accusations might be made against anxious to take an opportunity of offering him, they would never find him guilty of some observations on their conduct, which subserviency in the performance of his had been so seriously impugned. And if it duty, as a Member of that House, to atwere previously necessary to say anything tacks made in the public journals against on the subject, the remarks which had just him, by those who knew when they made been made by the right hon. Gentleman them that they were untrue. His object (Mr. Cowper) made explanation on their the other night in trespassing on the House, part still more necessary. He wished first, when he was not in order, was merely to however, to confirm one part of the right dispose of the case of The Times; and now hon. Gentleman's statement with regard to that he had disposed of it, he would take a the alterations in the Resolution. There brief review of the duties cast on the Comcertainly had been a conversation in which mittee. A great work, of the highest imhe (Sir W. Jolliffe) took part; and what he portance to the metropolis, was submitted said was, that all they wanted was what to the consideration of the Committee; and referred to the Crown property, and what that work was essentially connected with ever related to the different plans which the important undertaking of disinfecting they had before them. Now, the alterna- the Thames by carrying the sewage beyond tive plans were not submitted to Parliament the limits of the metropolis. The Comby the promoters of the Bill-very much mittee had to consider the question of the to his surprise-and it was on that account embankment of the Thames, which would that he thought that so much of the cor- constitute a great improvement to London, respondence as related to those plans was and by which the west end of the town essential to the proper understanding of would have its noble river turned into a the subject. The Committee had certainly matter of ornamentation, instead of being some claims for forbearance from the a source of detriment. The public traffic House, after what they had undergone was also to be promoted to the utmost exfor the last two or three weeks, and they tent. The Committee did not undertake were entitled to take the first legitimate these duties without having their hands opportunity to appeal to the House for its tied in many essential points by Parliament. protection against animadversions on the One of the most essential points which conduct they had pursued in a public capa- frustrated the endeavours of the Committee city. The duty the Committee had to to make the embankment as useful to the perform was a duty towards that House, public as possible was the necessity of and the basest motives had been attributed carrying it on a low level, as that condition to them, for they had been accused of frustrated entirely the establishment of the subserviency to private interests, instead best means of communication. The level of doing their duty to the public. They was much lower than that of Trafalgar had been charged with various acts for Square, the Strand, and Fleet Street, and which there was not the slightest founda- it was impossible to get any useful comtion in truth; and he defied any man to munications with those thoroughfares. The show that anything occurred in the Com- low level being adopted, it must be carried mittee which could lead to the slightest on until a point where there was an ascent suspicion that the Committee were subser- in no very graceful manner at Wellington vient to private interests. The Committee Street. If vehicles were proceeding from had submitted in silence for two or three Blackfriars to Lambeth, they certainly VOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.]

2 X

would not go by the Thames Embank- offices might be built. Those, he subment, as the distance would be shorter mitted, were considerations which must across Blackfriars Bridge; and really have weighed with any rational man in dealand truly the efficiency of this measure ing with the subject; and although the was defeated by the low-level embankment, Committee had been taunted with not for which Parliament alone was responsible, asking this or that question, he thought the as the railway bridges which it had sanc- House would have no difficulty in doing tioned rendered that description of level them the justice to admit that they could necessary. He thought the Committee only ask questions as the case developed had a right to complain of the defective itself, while many more questions might manner in which the Parliamentary papers have been put to persons examined in the were placed before the House. The Com- early part of the investigation, had they mittee sat in a room for weeks with a known what would at a subsequent stage plan, called Pennethorne's plan, pinned have been elicited. He should now rest to the wall; but in the Parliamentary satisfied with the short statement which papers now on the table another plan he had made to the House, feeling assured appeared to be substituted for it, and any void in it would be filled up by others included the taking down of two blocks of who might speak after him, and that houses in Parliament Street, at a cost of hon. Members would do him the justice no less than £300,000. That, however, to believe he was actuated by no other was not Mr. Pennethorne's plan, which motives in coming to the conclusion at only included the block of houses in front which he arrived in the Committee than of the Government offices, likely in any a regard for the benefit of the public. case to be pulled down, and the widening of King Street from the point at which the new offices would be built to Great George Street. That might be done, perhaps, at no expense, as the construction of a better description of houses than the present mean tenements might produce an income almost equivalent to the expense. The question before the Committee was, which would be the most convenient point to the public for the road to diverge at, and leave the Thames Embankment-whether at Westminster Bridge or Whitehall Stairs. He had already said that the traffic from the City to Lambeth would naturally go over Blackfriars Bridge, and would not come near Westminster. If the road were carried to Westminster Bridge, and had then to ascend by an incline plane, the heavy traffic would avoid it as much as possible, and moreover the whole beauty of the work would be destroyed; and the Committee decided, considering that the main body of traffic going westward would turn down Victoria Street or Birdcage Walk, that in that case the traffic might diverge from the embankment to King Street with great convenience to the public. By taking the course which they had done the Committee had, he might add, saved the expense of the Embankment so far as the Crown property was concerned. They saved also one of the best houses on the property-that in which Lord Carington at present resided, and therefore kept intact a space which might accrue, and on which, at a very moderate cost to the country, all its public

MR. DOULTON said, he thought it must be a matter of great and general regret that the construction of a Thames embankment, which was purely a public question, should have been invested with considerations of so purely personal a character as almost to preclude the House from giving to it that calm deliberation which its importance demanded. In addressing himself to the subject, therefore, he would not follow the example set him by the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire (Lord R. Montagu), who had too evidently attempted to divert the House from the real issue by means of personal allegations. Nor was it his intention to follow the remarks which had been made that night, which tended to show that there had really been some small differences in the Committee upon the question. He regretted that he should be called upon to oppose a Bill founded upon the Report of a Committee, and he approached the question with some misgivings and some fear lest, by the course he proposed to take, he should in any way contribute to the delay which had attended all previous proceedings in regard to this subject. Nor had he much hope that the result of their deliberations on that occasion would lead to a more satisfactory issue, for from the time when the question was first referred to the Royal Commission, whether he had regard to the suspicious arrangements made in connection with the Commission, or whether he had regard to the timidity of the Com

mittee, every step in the proceeding upon | be of an opinion directly contrary to that the subject appeared to him to have been which they held two years ago. When the marked by a weakness, if not something Committee of 1860 had presented its Reworse, the natural result of which was port, he, as a member of the Metropolitan that the plan embodied in the Bill was Board, had moved that immediate action unsatisfactory. He would not go at length should be taken upon it, but the right hon. into the historical part of the question, Gentleman below him had interposed, and though it would be interesting to trace its said, that although the question had been progress since the first embankment was fully considered by a Committee, it was proposed soon after the fire of London. desirable it should be considered by a He would rather enter at once upon the Commission. A Commission had been acquestion which the House was now called cordingly appointed, and the whole scope upon to decide, and he would ask them of the evidence taken before it was also in for a very few moments to consider what favour of a roadway from Blackfriars to had been the course of proceeding with Westminster Bridge. The Metropolitan reference to the matter during the last two Board were thereupon about to commence or three years. In 1844, a Commission proceedings in order to carry the plan into was appointed, composed of men of very execution; but the First Commissioner of high standing in their respective positions, Works had again interfered, stating that and he admitted at once that their labours he himself would become the promoter of resulted in a Report in favour of a roadway the work, and further delay took place. commencing at Scotland Yard, on a plan The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir W. very similar to that embodied in the Jolliffe) had admitted that the main point present Bill. From that time to 1856, in reference to this question was whether when the Metropolitan Board were called or not the plan brought by the late Cominto existence, very little was done; but mittee would be more convenient for the soon after that board commenced opera- traffic than the plan as originally proposed tions, the question was raised by them as by the Commision. They had been told to the advisability of carrying out a por- by the right hon. Gentleman that private tion of the main drainage of the metro- interests had nothing whatever to do with polis by means of an embankment of the the decision at which the Committee arThames, instead of passing along the rived; but he wanted to know why the Strand and Fleet Street. The Board were Committee wasted so much valuable time prepared at that time to take the matter in receiving evidence upon that point, and in hand, but the Government thought it that point alone; and why the right hon. better that a Committee should be ap- Gentleman and other members from time pointed to inquire into the subject. The to time put such leading questions to Committee of 1860 was accordingly ap- those who were called to give evidence as pointed; its deliberations extended over to the way in which private interests were some six weeks, and the whole tenor of affected. But they had other reasons for the evidence taken was that an embank- believing that private interests were not ment carrying a roadway should be carried excluded from the deliberations of the the whole way from Blackfriars to West- Committee. Was the House aware that minster Bridge, and that Richmond Ter- the right hon. Gentleman the Member for race and the adjoining neigbourhood would Petersfield himself had actually proposed be more than compensated for any incon- a Resolution, the first paragraph of which venience that might arise from a road in stated that the Committee came to their front of their premises by the removal of decision with the view to protect the inthe mud bank. Mr. Page and Mr. Penne- terests of the lessees of the Crown prothorne were almost the only persons who perty? attended to enforce a view such as that expressed in the report before the House, and the Report of that Committee was not signed by seven members and voted against by four; but it was unanimous, and amongst those whose names were attached to it were the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire and the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley), who, however, then appeared to

SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read the whole of the Resolution.

MR. DOULTON said, the point to which he was alluding was the fact that the right hon. Gentleman proposed a Resolution which was to form part of the Report, and that that Resolution conveyed upon the face of it the impression that private interests had at any rate some

And his answer was

I think it would not in any way touch the traffic between Charing Cross and Bridge Street." What witnesses were called to rebut the evidence of Sir Richard Mayne? None. He was not cross-examined by counsel, and scarcely any member of the Committee put any questions to him. At all events, in no respect was his evidence shaken. If the Report had been arrived at in consequence of the evidence adduced, he had a right to ask where was the evidence on which it rested. Any person reading the evidence would only find the question enveloped in more confusion than before. But, putting aside the blue-book altogether, let hon. Members station themselves for a day at the corner of Bridge Street and they would see that twothirds of the traffic of Parliament Street passed over Westminster Bridge, or went to the Houses of Parliament. Then let hon. Members go to Charing Cross, and they would find that two-thirds of the traffic from Parliament Street turned to the right by the Duke of Northumberland's house, and only a small portion of it went westward. No person, after that, would say that the traffic would not be very much relieved by the construction of the proposed embankment from Scotland Yard to Westminster Bridge. Considering that the block of buildings at the south side of Bridge Street was some day to be removed, would the House come that night to a decision which would prevent the completion of the improvement there? It might, perhaps, be said, there was no advantage in these clear open spaces; but he hoped to see the day arrive when there would be a First Commissioner of Works who would not play such tricks as had been perpetrated in Trafalgar Square. If they thus sacrificed public convenience and utility, what would they gain? When there was such rivalry between the two sides of the House with reference to financial questions, perhaps the Committee came to their recommendation because their plan was cheaper than the other. The embankment was to be made to Westminster Bridge, but there was to be only a footway from Scotland Yard to Westminster Bridge. That footway, however, was to be eighty feet wide, and the Member who proposed that must certainly have had some other object in view. Such a footway would cost nearly as much as if the embankment had been made with a roadway. But it

was said the Crown lessees were to pay for it. But he found no such provision, no such security in the Bill. He certainly would not give up the ground to the Crown lessees simply for the payment of an extra rent. What did Mr. Pennethorne say when he expressed an opinion in favour of his own plan? He said"Provided always that you widen Parliament Street so as to admit the increased traffic;" and when pressed on that point, he said it might cost £200,000; but it was since found to be £300,000. So that if the provisions of the Bill were agreed to, they would get the minimum of convenience at the maximum of cost-paying a sum of nearly £300,000 for having a great project spoiled. The Committee had brought up a plan leaving both ends of the scheme referred to them untouched. He trusted the House would not conclude from the remarks which he had made that he at all desired to delay the work. The course which he had pursued elsewhere would negative any such supposition. He did not make his Motion for the purpose of delay, but he must emphatically say that if the only alternative before the House were a plan such as that embodied in the Bill, or further delay in reference to the matter, then he certainly should prefer delay rather than the adoption of a Bill which sacrificed every principle which those best acquainted with the matter thought ought to be the basis of this embankment, and which would be a perpetual memorial of the power of those in high places to trample over public rights. He therefore begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That "to the end Bill be re-committed to the former Committee," of the Question, in order to add the words "the -instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. KER SEYMER said, he could hardly conceive that the House could gravely accede to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, and remit the Bill to the same Committee which had sat for a month on the subject, listened to the examination, crossexamination, and re-examination of witnesses, and come to a decision. If such a conclusion were arrived at, he should certainly respectfully request to be relieved from his duty as one of the Committee.