the roadway in question would be. Compa- and which, if the Bill passed, would be risons had been made between the composi- adopted. That alternative line was a tions of the Royal Commission to which street passing from the embankment at the subject of the embankment had been Whitehall Stairs along Whitehall Yard, referred and that of another Royal Com- through Lord Carrington's house to Whitemission; but that other Commission had hall. The Commissioners saw that it was to consider the great question of the no alternative, but an addition. He (Mr. improvement of the entire metropolis, and Cowper) took the same view, but those therefore it was necessary to have persons who conducted the case for the Duke of of wider experience on it. The case Buccleuch and the Crown lessees before put forward on the part of the Duke of the Committee, produced another plan Buccleuch and the lessees was, that their for a street starting from Whitehall Stairs, privacy would be in some degree inter- crossing Whitehall Yard, and reaching fered with, and that it would be necessary Whitehall through Gwyder House, which to build a wall between their houses and was now occupied by the Poor Law the new road, which would interfere with Board. He thought the Committee were the view of the river from those houses. entirely in error in adopting that as an That statement was specially supported alternative road to the embankment. He in reference to the house occupied by had never thought of bringing that road the right hon. Gentleman the Member for before the Committee, because he had Stroud (Mr. Horsman). He came to a never viewed it as an alternative, but point on which much reliance was placed only a possible addition. Looking at the -namely, the alternative plan. The right matter impartially, after all the evidence hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud that had been given, he did not think said, that he ought to have brought the it was properly an alternative road. If alternative road before the Committee. the Committee had not acted with preHe denied that he had any such duty cipitancy in clearing the room at the before him. The hon. Member for Dorset- conclusion of the evidence of the right shire (Mr. Ker Seymer) said, that as Chair- hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud mam of the Committee, he did not appre- - if they had followed the ordinary ciate the importance of the alternative course, and had allowed the counsel for plan. His view was, that the sugges- the promoters of the Bill to reply, to tion of the alternative plan was merely a rebut that evidence, and to criticise the trap laid for the Committee and a de- plans suggested by Mr. Pennethorne, he vice to defeat what could not be resisted believed the Committee would have been on its own merits. He was sorry it had fair enough to decide in a different mansucceeded. In his evidence before the ner to that into which they were hurried. Committee, Mr. Gore stated that there He thought no further argument or detail had been a meeting of the Crown lessees. was necessary to prove that it was almost Mr. Gore was asked, in reference to Mr. absurd to treat that road as an alternative. Pennethorne's plans-"Either of those It was shutting up the embankment in two roads would have the effect of pre- front of the house of the Duke of Bucventing the road from passing in front of cleuch and those of the other Crown the Crown property at Whitehall?" To lessees in Whitehall Gardens, in order to which he replied, "They were prepared concentrate all the traffic in Parliament with that intention." They were pre- Strect. He thought that no argument pared thus with the intention of ex- was needed to prove that two roads were cluding the public from the embank- better than one, and that it must be better ment at Whitehall Gardens. Accord- for the traffic to pass directly from the ingly, an attempt was made to press foot of Westminster Bridge along the emupon the Commissioners that one of those bankment, rather than to compel it to go two roads was an alternative plan, but the along Parliament Street. The right hon. Commissioners declined to adopt that view, Gentleman had very amusingly described and said, “We think either of these roads the difficulties which every one coming to is a good one, but we want it as an addi- that House encountered at the corner of tion, and not as an alternative." One of Bridge Street and Parliament Street; but those two roads was assented to unani- he (Mr. Cowper) would ask, what would mously by the Crown lessees, by the the alternative line, as it was called, do Crown, and the Commissioners adopted to diminish the excessive traffic at that it. That was the road before the House, corner? A large proportion of the traffic

passed over Westminster Bridge-on some days, probably, at least 2,000 carriages in the course of the day. Most of those vehicles would, if the original plan in the Bill were adopted, pass from Westminster Bridge to the embankment; but if the plan recommended by the right hon. Gentleman was adopted, they would all be obliged to pass into Parliament Street, and block up that already over-crowded street. He contended, therefore, that it was quite an error to treat that as an alternative plan, and that any further inquiry before an impartial tribunal would result in its being treated, not as an alter native, but as an addition. As to widening Parliament Street, that would be a useful portion of any plan of improvement. He could assure the House that no engineering difficulty whatever existed to the continuation of the embankment along the front of the Houses of Parliament. He knew that the high authority of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) had been given against it, but he relied upon a higher authority than that of the hon. Member for Bath the authority of common sense. He had also been assured by very distinguished engineers that it was perfectly idle to imagine there was any engineering difficulty in the construction of a roadway in front of the Houses of Parliament. It was not proposed to have a solid embankment at that point, but a roadway might be carried on iron columns, or on stone piers in the water. It would be obviously a great improvement to unite the embankment proposed with that at Milbank, and thus get a continuous embankment of three miles in length along the north bank of the river. That, however, would be entirely prevented if the embankment were wholly stopped at Westminster Bridge.

proposal had the support of three members of the Committee. The third plan was that which the majority of the Committee adopted, and which neither altogether excluded the public nor altogether admitted them, but which suspended a decision on the roadway until time had been given for further consideration. He felt confident that the more inquiry and consideration were given to the subject the more certain it would appear that there was no sufficient reason for excluding the public from the full enjoyment and use of an embankment that was to be made out of the public money. The clause as it stood would not be so objectionable if it were made clear that the Bill did not prejudice the rights of the public, and if a clause should secure to the public the use of the footway until Parliament should otherwise direct. If, however, he thought that the Bill affirmed, or would lead in any way to the absolute exclusion of the public from that portion of a continuous embankment which might be constructed in front of the Houses of Parliament, he never would consent to it, because such an arrangement would not, he thought, be justified by the facts of the case. With regard to the carriage-way from Whitehall Stairs to Westminster Bridge, he believed that the evidence of injury to the inhabitants of the houses from that source was so slight that the House and the Government would not be justified by any such considerations in waiving the claims of the public to such a roadway.

LORD JOHN MANNERS said, that not having been a member of the Select Committee to which so much reference had been made, he could only express his great surprise at the criticisms which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the He wished to say a few words on the Chairman of that Committee upon the provisions of the Bill. There were three conduct of his brother members. Unless courses before the Committee with refe- his ears deceived him, the right hon. Genrence to that portion of the embankment tleman had accused the members combetween Whitehall Stairs and Westmin- posing the majority of that Committee of ster. The first was that which he pro- a want of fairness, hasty judgment, of posed in his Bill-that the public should rashness and precipitancy. Now, it aphave the unconditional use of the embank-peared to him (Lord John Manners) that ment, both as a footway and a carriage way. That plan was supported by four members of the Committee. The second proposal was that advocated by the counsel of the Duke of Buccleuch and the Crown lessees, that the public should be unconditionally excluded from the embankment in front of their houses. That

The

that was language of a very strange character to fall from the Chairman of the Committee when commenting upon the deliberate action of its members. members of the majority of the Committee would probably find some salve for the wound inflicted by his injurious observations in the right hon. Gentleman's an

nouncement of his intention to support | tions of the Committee of 1860? Instead the Bill as amended by the Select Com- of confiding the execution of the proposed mittee. He was afraid, however, that if embankment to the Metropolitan Board of the Bill passed, the House would at some Works, the first thing the right hon. Genfuture period have the right hon. Gentle- tleman did was to appoint a new Comman's new scheme of a roadway in front mission to inquire into the subject. The of the Houses of Parliament ushered in right hon. Gentleman's defence of the with an alarming paraphernalia of esti- mode in which that Commission was conmates and engineering outlay. The right structed was not a little extraordinary. hon. Gentleman said, although the archi- The names of the Commission of 1844 tectural authority of the hon. Member for had been contrasted with those of the Bath (Mr. Tite) went to show that there Commission of 1861, and the right hon. were some engineering difficulties in the Gentleman said, in reply, that it was way of his plan, nevertheless he felt it necessary that the Commission of 1844 supported by a much greater authority- should be composed of men of weight. namely, that of common sense. The The right hon. Gentleman had left the House was put in a very unsatisfactory House to infer that in his mind it was not position when it was called upon to de- necessary to appoint gentlemen of weight cide the question of the Thames embank- upon the Commission of 1861. He conment when it was brought forward in the fessed, when he read the list of names, he manner proposed by the right hon. Gen-came to the opinion which had been extleman. The scheme before them was pressed by the right hon. Gentleman the only regarded as valuable by the right Member for Stroud, that it was not a hon. Gentleman as a portion of some Commission so constituted as to impress further scheme for an embankment in the public with a conviction of its imfront of the Houses of Parliament upon partiality. That Commission must be some plan of construction which he could held to represent the views of the Governnot exactly catch, and which, if he had ment of the day, and therefore, being so caught, he should probably not have constituted, it could not give satisfaction understood. He could not help thinking to the people out of doors. That Comthat the right hon. Gentleman's scheme mission, again, departed from the recomof a new embankment up the river would mendations of the Committee of 1860, and materially interfere with the course of recommended that the construction of this the stream, and that such a plan had great metropolitan improvement should never yet been suggested by any Com- be handed over, not to the Metropolitan mission or other body entitled to speak Board of Works, but to some body which with authority. The House must have was darkly hinted at, but which he supheard with pleasure the eloquent address posed was themselves. Well, the Governof the right hon. Member for Stroud ment hit upon a novel scheme; they took (Mr. Horsman), to which he (Lord John the management of the Bill into their own Manners) had very little to add by way hands, they prepared it, and made themof criticism. He must, however, say that selves responsible for it; but at the same he differed from the right hon. Gentleman time they proposed to charge the Metroin thinking that the Committee of 1860 politan Board with the responsibility of was unfairly constituted, or that it arrived the execution of the works. That was at a conclusion favourable to any one par- a system of divided responsibility which ticular portion of the embankment. The must necessarily lead to complexity and Committee agreed upon the desirableness confusion of all kinds. And the result of embanking the Thames, and settled had been what had been anticipated. He where the funds were to come from, and remembered that in the month of April the executive body to whom that great the right hon. Gentleman the First Comwork was to be intrusted. [Mr. HORS-missioner alluded to the Thames EmMAN: And the roadway to Westminster.] bankment as a great work in the charge On that subject they did not go into of his own department. When he minute details. He would ask the House whether a great deal of the difficulty, perplexity, vexation, and confusion with which the question was surrounded was not owing to the course taken by the Government in opposing the recommenda

(Lord John Manners) heard that, he got up immediately and protested against such language as contrary to the recommendation of the Select Committee and the set. tled intentions of the Legislature, and he warned the right hon. Gentleman and the

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 topie 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 object— the 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 defence of his neighbour, spoke one word 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

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 Commissions 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

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 of it, are directly at variance with each up an additional avenue, and to direct the other. The preamble contemplates a furpublic stream into the narrow gorge of ther inquiry, and a result to depend upon Parliament Street. And then it is said that inquiry; while the enacting part of that you may get rid of any difficulty in the clause positively declares that no roadthat quarter by spending £300,000 in way shall be made between Whitehall and pulling down one side of Parliament Westminster Bridge. The effect of that, if Street-the pulling-down of the whole passed, would be to give the persons inwould be more expensive, for you would terested-and who avow themselves to be have to buy all the houses between Par- interested-a Parliamentary title to be liament Street and the site of the new exempt from having a carriage-way along public offices. But if you were to save by that portion of the embankment. I am so doing the expense of the embankment, sure that would not be the intention of that plan might be very good. But no, this House, and therefore I have given the embankment is to be made. But then notice of an Amendment providing that it is said, if you give over that part of the that shall only be till Parliament shall embankment to the lessees of the Crown, otherwise determine. If the clause should and respect their rights, they will furnish be adopted with that Amendment, it money to make it. But you might go would still leave the matter open for along the whole front of the river and say further investigation; and the persons that each proprietor may buy the part concerned could not say, if Parliament before his own house, and then the public should next Session determine that the thoroughfares would be destroyed. But, roadway should be free for carriages, that it is said, can you do anything so absurd they would thus be deprived of anything as to make a thoroughfare that will come which Parliament had this Session secured at right angles to the foot of the bridge? to them. That is the object with which Well, is there any town which any hon. I proposed my Amendment. If the House Gentleman is acquainted with in which agrees to it, it will then decide as it thinks that has not been done? Dublin has been fit with regard to the clause itself. If the mentioned. Every bridge which crosses clause stands with that Amendment, the a river must be at right angles with the matter will remain perfectly open for the quays along its banks. Has any hon. House to reconsider it next year. The Gentleman who opposes this continuous House will have full liberty, without roadway been to Paris? There all the giving any pretence of complaint to the streets leading to the bridges are at right parties interested, to open the whole exangles with the quays. If I mistake not, tent of the roadway to Westminster Bridge. the same thing is seen at Florence. I If, on the contrary, that should not happen forget exactly whether it is not so also at next Session, I am pretty sure it will Berlin and Dresden, but I rather think it happen the Session after that, or, at all is. But one really need not go so far for events, very soon; for it is clear that this examples. Has any hon. Gentleman hap- cannot be a permanent arrangement. I pened to visit the cattle show? Has he will only now express the hope that my gone by Chelsea Bridge? Because, if he hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth will has, unless my memory greatly deceives withdraw his Amendment, and allow us me, he had to proceed along an embank- to go into Committee. ment, 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