House of the confusion which must neces- | attacks upon my right hon. Friend, desarily result if that hybrid scheme of di- fences of the Duke of Buccleuch, whom vided responsibility were persevered in. nobody would attack that knows anything And now they had been informed by the of his character-and of my right hon. Members of the Committee of the hope- Friend I will also say, that nobody would less confusion in which they were involved attack him who justly appreciates his in consequence of the way in which the character. In fact, every possible topic scheme was brought before them. They has been adverted to in order to draw hardly knew, and the public out of doors away the attention of the House from the hardly knew, who were the promoters of real question, and to involve it, like one the Bill. The Metropolitan Board of of Homer's heroes, in a cloud, for the purWorks hardly knew whether they were pose of defending their darling objectthe promoters or opponents. He had namely, the preservation of the gardens made these few observations in order to which skirt the banks of the river. Now, prevent similar confusion for the future. it appears to me to be the plainest possible He sincerely trusted that they should position, that if the Thames is to be emhear no more of continuing the Thames banked from bridge to bridge, and if that embankment in front of the Houses of is to be done by means of resources furParliament; and that when the Bill be- nished by the whole metropolis, the whole came law, it would be held to be the ter- metropolis ought to have the full benefit. mination of the Thames Embankment Now, those who are most violent in their scheme, so far as that part of the river opposition do not dispute that the emwas concerned. Whether it might not bankment would be a great improvement. go further down the stream, was a separate The noble Lord who has just sat down, question. But the right hon. Gentleman and who attacks the Government for havhaving based his support of the amended ing proposed the scheme, bringing that as Bill of the Committee on the feasibility of a charge against them, as if the scheme extending the embankment past the Houses was an obnoxious one, does not dispute it. of Parliament, he thought it only right to Why, no one that I have ever heard speak enter his protest against such a scheme, on the subject has ventured to say that it is and to express a hope that they had heard not desirable to make an embankment and the first and the last of it." a broad road upon it for the accommodation of the public. The whole question is this-whether that road should be continued to Westminster; and, if so, whether nobody should be permitted to go upon it except upon his own feet. Now, one thing is certain; let the House determine as they may upon the Bill as it now stands, let them restrict it as they choose, that restriction will not, cannot, be maintained. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, though in the most chivalrous manner he broke a lance in favour of the Duke of Buccleuch, ended by saying that the question was between the Duke of Buccleuch and the public. ["No, no!"] Why, his own confession and statement were to that effect. Does any man suppose that the public at large will not think that the position which the right hon. Gentleman took? ["No, no!"] Well, then, it is not the Duke of Buccleuch singly, but the Duke of Buccleuch and my right hon. Friend, who, in his eloquent | VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, who has made the Motion which we are now discussing, will not take the sense of the House upon it, because I think he will see that it is inapplicable to the Bill and to the stage of the Bill which is now under consideration. To refer that plan back to the same Committee would be positively useless; and any Amendment which he thinks the Select Committee might make, it would be open to him to propose in the Committee of the Whole House. I should like to say a word or two now upon the question which we have been discussing. It is remarkable, that the real question being the simplest one possible, and lying in the narrowest compass -namely, whether the roadway on the embankment should stop at Whitehall Stairs or go to Westminster Bridge, we have been led by those who opposed the extension to Westminster Bridge into the most complicated discussion about Com-defence of his neighbour, spoke one word missions which sat Heavens know when, the constitution of those Commissions, whether those who sat upon other plans were fit to sit upon them, into personal for the Duke and two for himself. Now, what is the only argument I have heard against continuing the roadway to Westminster? The argument is very absurd of it, are directly at variance with each other. The preamble contemplates a further inquiry, and a result to depend upon that inquiry; while the enacting part of the clause positively declares that no roadway shall be made between Whitehall and Westminster Bridge. The effect of that, if passed, would be to give the persons interested-and who avow themselves to be interested-a Parliamentary title to be exempt from having a carriage-way along that portion of the embankment. I am sure that would not be the intention of this House, and therefore I have given notice of an Amendment providing that that shall only be till Parliament shall otherwise determine. If the clause should be adopted with that Amendment, it would still leave the matter open for further investigation; and the persons concerned could not say, if Parliament should next Session determine that the roadway should be free for carriages, that they would thus be deprived of anything which Parliament had this Session secured to them. That is the object with which I proposed my Amendment. If the House agrees to it, it will then decide as it thinks fit with regard to the clause itself. If the clause stands with that Amendment, the matter will remain perfectly open for the House to reconsider it next year. The House will have full liberty, without giving any pretence of complaint to the parties interested, to open the whole extent of the roadway to Westminster Bridge. If, on the contrary, that should not happen next Session, I am pretty sure it will happen the Session after that, or, at all events, very soon; for it is clear that this cannot be a permanent arrangement. I will only now express the hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth will withdraw his Amendment, and allow us to go into Committee. indeed. It is said that in order to disin- | arisen entirely by accident; but the precumber the thoroughfares of London from amble of the clause, and the enacting part the pressure of the crowd you are to shut up an additional avenue, and to direct the public stream into the narrow gorge of Parliament Street. And then it is said that you may get rid of any difficulty in that quarter by spending £300,000 in pulling down one side of Parliament Street-the pulling-down of the whole would be more expensive, for you would have to buy all the houses between Parliament Street and the site of the new public offices. But if you were to save by so doing the expense of the embankment, that plan might be very good. But no, the embankment is to be made. But then it is said, if you give over that part of the embankment to the lessees of the Crown, and respect their rights, they will furnish money to make it. But you might go along the whole front of the river and say that each proprietor may buy the part before his own house, and then the public thoroughfares would be destroyed. But, it is said, can you do anything so absurd as to make a thoroughfare that will come at right angles to the foot of the bridge? Well, is there any town which any hon. Gentleman is acquainted with in which that has not been done? Dublin has been mentioned. Every bridge which crosses a river must be at right angles with the quays along its banks. Has any hon. Gentleman who opposes this continuous roadway been to Paris? There all the streets leading to the bridges are at right angles with the quays. If I mistake not, the same thing is seen at Florence. I forget exactly whether it is not so also at Berlin and Dresden, but I rather think it is. But one really need not go so far for examples. Has any hon. Gentleman happened to visit the cattle show? Has he gone by Chelsea Bridge? Because, if he has, unless my memory greatly deceives me, he had to proceed along an embankment, and then turn at a right angle to cross the bridge. But it is really childish to say that you are not to have a roadway up to Westminster Bridge, because, when you get to the foot of the bridge, however you may round the corner, you must make a sharp turn to cross the river. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark has given notice of a Motion to leave out that clause. Nobody can tell what the decision of the House may be on that point, but I should be sorry to see the clause affirmed as it stands. Of course, it has MR. DOULTON said, that as the Members of the Committee had only defended their misdeeds, he agreed with the noble Lord that it would answer no practical end to refer the question back again to them, and he would therefore withdraw his Amendment. MR. SCULLY said, he had been listening there for six hours to an angry debate concerning the character of a noble Duke. ["Oh! oh!"] If hon. Gentlemen wished to hear him at considerable length, they would continue to interrupt him. They MR. AYRTON moved that the Chair House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow. FORTIFICATIONS (PROVISION FOR had had nothing but a series of English | Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; House in Committee. Clause 1 (The Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts incorporated with this Act). Order for Committee read. SIR GEORGE LEWIS said, the Thames Embankment Bill would be fixed for today. If it was concluded to-day, the Fortifications Bill would be taken the first thing on Monday; otherwise it would be the second Order. MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Yes; but the House ought to have a more definite answer; and unless one was given, he should divide the House on the question that the Bill should be absolutely fixed for Monday. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON : Let us do before us; let us finish that. If there is one thing at a time. We have got one Bill time on Monday for the hon. Gentleman to make a long speech, we will go on with the Bill; if not, I will agree to postpone the Order. MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I wish that there may be time also for the noble Lord to make a long speech in reply. Committee deferred till Monday next. THIRD READING. MR. AYRTON said, he hoped they were not to go on with the Bill, which did not in the least conform with the statement made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He trusted the noble Lord would abide by that statement, and assist the metropolitan members in securing that the public should have the full benefit of the improvement for which they were to be taxed. When they examined the clauses which the patriotic Chief Commissioner of Works had intro- INCLOSURE (No. 2) BILL-[BILL No. 174.] duced, they would see how much of the Thames Embankment was to be given to the public and how much to be frittered away in other directions. And when they came to the question of the Crown lessees, they would have to consider what was to be done, not merely with a footway of eighty feet wide, but with the rest of the valuable land to be reclaimed from the river at the public expense, and whether it was to be allotted to the Crown lessees as garden ground, the worth of which was to be computed according to the number of cabbages it could produce. Order for Third Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time." Bill was similar to one which had already MR. PEACOCKE inquired whether the passed that House with considerable opposition; and whether its object was to enclose a second portion of Hainault Forest? SIR GEORGE GREY replied that it was precisely similar to the Bill referred VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, he hoped to, and its object was to give effect to VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, he hoped that the introductory clauses, which would give rise to no discussion, would be gone through that night. Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive. certain provisional orders made by the were not made without the fullest notice Enclosure Commissioners. These orders laid on the table of the House before the in the neighbourhood, and a report was Bill was introduced. In that case no pe Clause 6 (Power to make Works accord- tition had been presented against the Bill. ing to deposited Plans). MR. COX said, that the Bill had only MR. CONOLLY said, he objected to the clause, as it did not carry out the views of the Committee. been introduced within the last few days, and the inhabitants of the eastern part of the metropolis, who would be affected by the enclosure of Hainault Forest, knew nothing about the measure. MR. PEACOCKE observed that notice was given to owners of property in the neighbourhood, but they were precisely the class of persons who would be benefited by the enclosure; and the persons who received no notice were the public at large. Nevertheless, a petition against the Bill was in course of preparation for the purpose of being presented to the House of Lords. For the sake of the poorer classes of the metropolis, who used Hainault Forest for the purpose of recreation, he objected to the proposed enclosure, and should therefore move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be recommitted. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the words "That the " to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Order for the Third Reading of the said Bill be discharged," -instead thereof. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." The House divided:-Ayes 72; Noes 76 Majority 4. Words added. Clause agreed to. House resumed. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow. POOR REMOVAL BILL-[BILL No. 151.] COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. Clause (Parties aggrieved by Warrant of Removal may appeal) brought up, and read 1°. Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time." The Committee divided: - Ayes 31; Noes 48 Majority 17. Another Clause (Substitution of Three for Five Years' Time specified in 8 & 9 Vict., c. 83, s. 76) brought up, and read 1o. Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time." That the Chairman do report Progress, Whereupon Motion made, and Question, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived. Original Question put. The Committee divided: - Ayes 20; Main Question, as amended, put, and Noes 46: Majority 26. agreed to. Ordered, That the Order for the Third Reading of the said Bill be discharged. Bill re-committed for To-morrow. POOR RELIEF IRELAND (No 2) BILL. SIR ROBERT PEEL said, he wished to move the insertion of a clause in lieu of one which he had withdrawn, providing that every person making application for relief after the passing of the Act should be deemed to have been resident in the electoral division in which, during the period of five years immediately before the application he had been longest usually resident, certain qualifications being laid down as to the electoral division in which the persons seeking relief should, under certain circumstances, be chargeable. The clause was, he might add, the same as had been in operation in Ireland for some time. House resumed. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow. House adjourned at half after Two o'clock. CATION WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA. ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE. believe that those two men were the in- HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY-COMMUNIstruments of others, and ordered that those other persons should be called to the bar for examination on the subject. He thought the course which would be wiser and in accordance with precedents would be to refer the whole matter to a Select Committee. He therefore moved that a Select Committee should be appointed to investigate the subject, and that Isaacs and Preston, together with Mr. R. S. Lingwood, solicitor, at Cheltenham, C. W. Maisey, clerk to Lingwood, and Mr. Boodle, solicitor, the employer of Isaacs, should be ordered to attend before that Committee from time to time. Motion agreed to. THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE, in moving an Address for Copies of Correspondence relating to the establishment of a means of a communication between Canada and British Columbia, said, that a large part of the territory to the north and the west of our Canadian possessions had been for the best part of two centuries in the hands of the Hudson's Bay Company, part of it under a charter of Charles II., and part of it under a licence to trade. Within these territories the company had the sole power of governing the country and trading with the Indian tribes. It was The Order for the Attendance of Wil-difficult to define the exact boundaries of liam Isaacs, Clerk to Mr. Boodle, Solicitor at Cheltenham, and John Preston, Town Crier at Cheltenham, and Robert Sole Lingwood, Solicitor at Cheltenham, and Charles William Maisey, Clerk to the said Robert Sole Lingwood, at the Bar of this House, in reference to their Conduct with regard to the Signatures to the Petition of Barbara Robinson and others of Cheltenham, presented on the 22nd of May last, praying to be heard by Counsel against the East Gloucestershire Railway Bill," discharged: Then a Select Committee appointed to inquire into the Circumstances attending the Conduct of the said William Isaacs, John Preston, Robert Sole Lingwood, and Charles William Maisey, and also of William Boodle, Solicitor of Cheltenham, with regard to the Mode of obtaining Signatures to the said Petition of Barbara Robinson and others of Cheltenham, presented on the 22nd of May last: The Lords following were named of the Committee; the Committee to meet on Monday next, at Eleven o'Clock, and to appoint their own Chair that part which was held under charter from that which was heldunder the licence, and in all probability the Secretary to the Colonies would not be able to give any definite information on the point, but it was said that it included all the territory which drained into the Hudson's Bay. At the time the charter was granted the country included in the powers was almost totally unknown, and, as to all that large portion which was held under the licence, remained so down to a very recent period. The licence to trade expired in 1859, and a large portion of the territory which they had held under it had since been erected into a colony under the name of British Columbia. It was well known that that colony since its first establishment had received an immense development from the discovery of gold mines, exceeding in richness all that had been discovered in Australia or California, and very large numbers of persons were desirous of emigrating thither. So long as British Columbia was merely a small colony, it was, perhaps, not worth while to seek for any further means of communication than were afforded by the route over the Isthmus of Panama and the West India line of steamers; but since its immense development it was imperatively necessary that we should have an inde That William Isaacs, Clerk to Mr. Boodle, So-pendent means of communication through licitor at Cheltenham, and John Preston, Town Crier at Cheltenham, Robert Sole Lingwood, Solicitor at Cheltenham, and Charles William Maisey; Clerk to the said Robert Sole Lingwood, and William Boodle, Solicitor at Cheltenham, do attend the above Committee on Monday next, at Eleven o'clock, in reference to their Conduct with regard to the Mode of obtaining Signatures to the said Petition of Barbara Robinson and others of Cheltenham, presented on the 22nd of May last. our own territories, without having to rely on any other Power, which at some time or other might possibly be hostile. Of course, it would be futile to ask the Government to spend money in making roads or rail. ways. What he would ask of them would be to give such facilities for the introduc tion of settlers into the colony as would lead to the country being opened up, and |