« PreviousContinue »
within the provisions of the twenty-eighth Section of this Act,"
brought up, and read 1o.
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 gar den 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
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 of the Societies, and cerexpense tainly 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
lution, I hope no time will be lost in
MR. COWPER, while sympathizing with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets in his desire to see the Temple Gardens used as freely as possible by the public, thought the clause proposed would not effect the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view. The public were at present admitted to the gardens under certain restrictions, which were of by no means an illiberal tendency. But now the learned Member proposed that the Crown should have the power of overriding the decision of the Benchers in that respect. That was a proposal which he did not think it would be worth while to embody in the Bill. He might add that he did not concur with those who thought that the Benchers had been exacting in their demands in connection with the proposed embankment, inasmuch as it would interfere prejudicially with the existing river front-me and replied, "The Resolution exage of their property. 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 oc
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 Mr. Montague Smith
curred. 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 | thought it not becoming of him to take adfor Huntingdonshire (Lord Robert Mon- vantage of the alteration in the Resolution tagu) has told me that he well remembers in my handwriting to charge me with the my protesting against any alteration being responsibility attached to that alteration, made in the Resolution. I can only say because unsuspiciously I made it with my I believed, as I think every member of own hand, instead of returning the Resothe Committee believed, that the Resolu- lution to him for the purpose of having it tion as carried in the Committee would made. Had I handed it back to him, and appear on the Minutes of Proceedings; but, said, "You alter it," we should have heard as I stated in the House a few evenings nothing more about it; but because I ago, the Resolution as carried by me in adopted the course of altering it with my the Committee did not appear in the Mi- own pen, I put myself in the hon. Member's nutes, and the copy presented to me by hands. When the matter was brought the right hon. Gentleman was not in under the notice of the House, I had no the words in which I proposed my Reso- better means of setting myself right than lution. I never did consent to the altera- by appealing to the Members of the Comtion made in it by the Chairman; and I mittee; and such of them as were present think it most important it should be confirmed by statement-["No, no!" and clearly understood that the Chairman of a "Hear, hear!"]-that the alteration was Committee may not take away a Resolu- made with the consent of the Committee. tion in his pocket, and, without bringing [Sir JOHN SHELLEY: Not with my consent.] it back again, allow the Committee to It was made, as I believe, with the unanidisperse; and then, when a member of the mous consent of the Committee. It was Committeee makes an objection to the because I understood it to be the unaniResolution as carried not appearing in mous wish of the Committee that the the proceedings, stand up, and because amendment should be made, I made it. he had some conversation with individual The matter itself was of no importance. members of the Committee, charge the It occurred in a great hurry; and possimember who complains with not telling bly there may have been some misunder the truth. Emphatically, in the face of standing about it, and that the hon. Bathis House, I say I did not consent to the ronet did not hear me. But I thought it alteration. I believed the Resolution most unfair and most unworthy that any would appear in the Minutes as I had Member of this House should have taken proposed it; and when I told the House advantage of such an occurrence to make that the other night, I told the truth, the a charge against me which, if true, would whole truth, and nothing but the truth. have implied that I was unfit for the If the right hon. Gentleman is not satis- society of gentlemen. I was very angry, fied, I think the proper course for him and I feel I am getting angry again; would be to call the Committee clerk to so I will say no more. The hon. Genthe bar. Before I made my statement I tleman has taken a liberty with me which conversed with the clerk on the subject; I beg he will not take again; for I cannot and if called to the bar, he will confirm promise that on a future occasion I would every word I said. I do not ask the right bear it so quietly. 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
MR. DARBY GRIFFITH rose to a point of order, with reference to a matter which had occurred that evening. He had always understood that a proposition made in Committee required no seconder, and therefore no second voice when the question was put; and he was therefore surprised to find that a single voice was not sufficient to divide the House. If that were so, it would place hon. Members under as great a disadvantage in Committee as they laboured under in the House; and he therefore asked for an explanation.
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. Ile 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 of the money they voted. There was the hon. Gentleman. I repeated the ques- a difference of opinion as to certain of tion a second and a third time with the these works, and it was considered more same result; and although it is true that desirable to carry out some of them a second voice is not necessary in Com- than others. The question was, whemittee, a second teller is necessary in case ther they had then the means of giving of a division. Therefore I thought it un- effect to their opinion upon the details necessary to trouble the Committee with of the Bill-whether they could reduce a division when there did not appear to be the expenditure upon certain fortifications, a second teller. 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
Bill reported; as amended, to be con- danger of passing Bills like this year
after year; and if the House were to
said, that he forbore from moving his
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 The Chairman
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.
FORTIFICATIONS (PROVISION FOR
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE (who had given notice on going into Committee
"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,")
spent on works at Portsmouth and elsc-
SIR GEORGE LEWIS admitted that
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 sum. 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 tractor 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 Comsug-mittee of Supply. He should be quite 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. Ho 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