buildings to be erected upon the reclaimed land, and he thought the Metropolitan Board of Works should have power in all cases to interfere. With that view he would move an addition to the clause of the words, "nor on such part of the reclaimed land as shall be within 200 feet of the embankment wall." He was afraid that Somerset House, Waterloo Bridge, and other structures would be greatly al. tered in their general appearance by the proposed embankment along this majestic river, unless this restrictive power were given to the Metropolitan Board of Works. He wished to know how the embankment was to be laid out, and whether the landing-places and stairs were to be arranged without interfering with the navigation and the general plan of the embankment. MR. COWPER said, it was desirable that all the land which was available for the recreation of the public along the embankment should be dedicated to that purpose. Clause 28 made a provision with that view in regard to the space between Cecil Street and Northumberland Street; but he did not think the land east of Cecil Street could with advantage be so appropriated. Where the reclaimed land amounted only to a narrow strip, the space must be devoted to building purposes his hon. Friend's Amendment would prevent that. The Thames Conservancy Board were invested with authority to construct and improve all the landing-places and stairs on the river, and the plan which he believed would be adopted in front of the embankment would be floating stages, which rise and fall with the flow of the tide. MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH complained of the constant encroachments that had been made upon the bed of the river; and they were now about to take steps which would have the effect of further contracting its width by one-third. He doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the extent to which the navigation would be impeded by this plan. He wished to know whether at low water the river would come to the base of the embankment ? SIR JOSEPH PAXTON replied, that though the water would come up to the embankment, the landing-stages would have to be carried out some distance before vessels could come alongside at low water. COLONEL KNOX said, that the Commit tee were informed that, even at low water, the bed of the river would be covered up to the embankment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clauses 36 to 41 also agreed to. Clause 42 (Prohibition against Use of Locomotives along the Streets). SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE objected to the clause as unnecessary and inexpedient. Why should they prohibit the use of the greatest improvement of the agesteam-on this new roadway? Why they should be specially excepted he could not understand, and it seemed to him retrograde legislation. He begged therefore to move that the clause be expunged. SIR JOSEPH PAXTON thought it absurd to make an exception as regarded this embankment. If they had a general law for the metropolis prohibiting steam locomotives to use the common roads, well and good. SIR JOHN SHELLEY thought it was very dangerous to allow locomotives to move along in crowded streets, and advocated the maintenance of the clause. SIR GEORGE LEWIS observed, there was now a general measure applicable to all towns as to those engines, the Home Secretary having power to prohibit steam locomotives travelling particular streets. He thought it best not to disturb the general law, but to leave it applicable to this as to other roads, the Secretary of State having power to interfere if the public safety required it. Clause struck out. Clauses 43 to 45 were agreed to. Clauso 46 (Appropriation of Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement Fund). MR. AYRTON asked for some explanation as to the amount of the funds which were available for the purposes of this Bill and the charges upon it. MR. COWPER replied, that the funds available were derived from the surplus of the London Bridge Approaches Fund, the amount of which was not ascertained. To carry out the construction of the embankment about £1,000,000 would be required from the coal and other duties, and these would probably furnish a surplus of £500,000 more than would be requisite. All the funds were paid to the Treasury, and must be transfer red by their authority to the Board of Works. agents for a number of years, and had been in communication with them in connection with Bills for railways and for the river Lea. One of the members of that firm was born and bred at Hertford ; the other was not resident at Hertford. Did the hon. Gentleman mean to say that because one member of a firm of Parlia MR. AYRTON thought they should have more detailed explanation. First the fund was to be liable for the charges upon the London Bridge approaches fund. Next, payment was to be provided from the same source of all costs of obtaining the Act. How was this to be considered?mentary agents happened to be connected Was the fund to be debited with the charges incurred by the right hon. Gentleman's department in connection with the Act. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had not employed the officers of his department in preparing the Act, but two firms of solicitors, Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, and Messrs. Marchant and Pead, of Hertford. Were both those firms to be paid out of this fund; and, if so, was the Department to be paid out of it also for the assistance they had rendered? In the next clause reference was made to so much of the Thames embankment fund as might remain after deducting those charges. What was that sum? He thought they ought to have in such a case a detailed statement of the fund, and of the charges upon it. with the borough he represented, he should It MR. COWPER said, he had not thought it necessary to make a statement, because he was not asking the House to vote the money. The clause simply stated how the MR. AYRTON said, the right hon. Genfunds in the hands of the Treasury by the tleman afforded so much amusement to the Act of last year were to be appropriated. House of his own accord that it was unMr. Scott, the Chamberlain of the City of necessary for him to interfere with a view London, had been examined before the of keeping up the entertainment. But he Committee, and gave such details as they must contradict the right hon. Gentleman required, and the hon. Gentleman would on a matter of fact, inasmuch as the Law find in his evidence all the information List, the accepted authority on such points, he asked for. The Committee consider-stated that Messrs. Marchant and Pead ed the question of the amounts provided were in partnership as attorneys at Hertand to be expended; but this clause did ford. [Mr. CowPER: It does not so apnot refer to those details. With regard pear upon the evidence.] He was aware to the general object of the clause :-First of that. There was some equivocation the expenses incidental to the obtain on this point in the evidence. ing of the Act were, as usual in such gentlemen might also practise as Parliaa case, to be paid. The hon. Member mentary agents in London. No doubt the could not, he thought, have read the evi- right hon. Gentleman had had relations dence given before the Committee, or he with them before, and might have had good would have seen that he was entirely mis- grounds, in his own opinion, for selecting taken in supposing that two sets of solici- them again on this occasion. All he wanted tors had been employed. The persons to know was whether the ratepayers would employed were the solicitors and the Par-be saddled with anything more than the liamentary agents; and when the hon. Gentleman said that a solicitor had come from Hertford to act as Parliamentary agent, he begged to inform him that the firm in question had been Parliamentary agents for several years. He had known them as highly respectable Parliamentary Those charges of these two sets of professional men. Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, were certainly Parliamentary agents of great skill, as many hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House, who had, unfortunately, lost their seats through the exertions of those gentlemen, knew to their cost. And, no doubt, if the right | selves landed in an immense deficit after hon. Gentleman had thought his scheme the works were completed. He had little could not stand on its own merits, and had confidence in the economical propensities been anxious to smooth away difficulties, of the First Commissioner of Works, rehe could not have done a cleverer thing membering, as he did, how that right hon. than to employ that well-known Conserva- Gentleman at the beginning of this Session, tive firm in this case. Such a choice, having £30,000 of this fund in hand, had however, implied a reflection on the com- proposed to make a road with it across petency of the Liberal Parliamentary Kensington Gardens. Mr. Scott, the City agents. The right hon. Gentleman had- Chamberlain, had stated his belief, that if unintentionally he was sure-made an properly managed and invested at 4 per equivocation about this clause which he cent--a pretty high rate of interest-the would doubtless retract. He had said that fund which was to be set apart to defray it was a clause not imposing but only ap- the cost of the embankment, would reach propriating taxation; but he forget, that if nearly £1,600,000 at the end of ten years. he appropriated this fund to the Thames Now, even supposing that nothing was Embankment, taxes must be imposed for taken from it in the meanwhile, he other purposes which were equally neces- thought the Board would have considersary. By disposing of the proceeds of a able difficulty in raising the £1,000,000 tax the clause was therefore, though in- they were empowered to borrow. Now, he directly, a taxing clause. This was the had been given to understand a few days first time the House had been asked to ago, and he wished to inquire into the appropriate a tax in such loose language, truth of the report, that the money paid and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman by the City Chamberlain to the Treasury, would show them what were the items to amounting to a large sum, was lying idle which the clause referred. at the Bank of England. The solicitor to the Office of Works (Mr. Gardiner) was a very able and excellent officer, and had had a great deal to do in originating the Mr. Gardiner received Bills of the office. a salary of £1,500 a year, and he could not understand why Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton had been employed as solicitors to the Bill. When the Committee first commenced their inquiry, the Metropolitan Board of Works appeared, by solitors and counsel, as opponents, and it was only when the clause was passed which gave to the Board the execution of the works that they became co-promoters. They were to be paid their expenses out of the fund; and he wished to know whether that meant that they would be paid the expenses of their opposition. Messrs. Marchant and Pead, Messrs. Smith, and Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton were all to be paid; and whether he was personal or not, he was bound to do his duty by calling attention to the fact. He should like to hear that it was an error to suppose the receipts from the coal and wine duties had been lying in the Bank without interest, instead of fructifying for the benefit of the fund. COLONEL KNOX said, he thought the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets could not have read the Select Committee's Report, or he would not have made the observations he had done. The City Chamberlain's evidence afforded the information which the hon. Gentleman sought. MR. W. WILLIAMS drew attention to the question of the cost of the lower main sewer. He had not observed any provision in this Bill that the cost was to be defrayed out of the £3,000,000 to be borrowed for the purpose of making the sewers generally; and he thought that if it formed part of the works of the new embankment, it would be most unjust if it were to be paid out of the tax upon coal and wine. LORD HARRY VANE: It is not to be so paid for. pro SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, he was glad they had, at last, come to the important question of expense, which had hitherto been overlooked in these discussions. At present they knew no more as to what would be the expense of the posed embankment than what they were told by the Committee, which was, that after several items of expense had been cut off, it would cost £500,000. Now, according to the evidence of the City Chamberlain, it was clear, that if they had taken the estimates offered in introducing this Bill, they would have found them that MR. COWPER said, with respect to the last point it was not within his cognizance. The Treasury had been intrusted by law with the fund, and he was not acquainted with what had been done with regard to it. The hon. Baronet must put his ques tion to some Member of the Treasury. But with regard to the amount of the fund, it was in evidence that at the end of June there would be £260,000 in hand, and that the present value of it exceeded £1,500,000. This clause was to enable the Treasury, after paying all the charges, to transfer the surplus to the Metropolitan Board. As to the first item of charge, it was not correctly known. As to the second, it was impossible to tell what would be the expenses of the Act until it had passed. It certainly would not have been a smaller sum if he had employed the solicitor of the Office of Works instead of Messrs. Baxter. The serving of notices and the other business connected with this Bill could not be done by the present strength of the Office of Works. In order that he might be enabled to discharge those duties, it would have been necessary for the solicitor of the Office of Works to increase his staff considerably, and to incur a much larger expense than the payment which he had hitherto received. Without neglecting his other business it would be impossible for him to execute the business in connection with this Bill. In an important measure of this kind, and in the face of such an opposition as it had to contend with, it appeared to him (Mr. Cowper) the wisest course to employ Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, those gentlemen being specially practised in this branch of business. He need scarcely say that he had not selected them on account of their politics-a subject which had never crossed his mind at the time. The main reason which influenced him in selecting this firm was, that they had last year been employed in serving notices over the same extent of land in connection with a proposed embankment between Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges, and had therefore in their office all the information required. With regard to the Parliamentary agents, Messrs. Marchant and Pead, did not act as solicitors, and he observed in the last page of the evidence a statement that those gentlemen had done nothing as solicitors. The gentleman who appeared in the Law List as a solicitor was the son of Mr. Marchant, and he had engaged the father, who was a Parliamen tary agent, to do the business of a Parliamentary agent. The payment of the expenses of the Metropolitan Board had been decided upon by the Committee, and he knew of no valid ground of objection. The petition of the Metropolitan Board, if in form against the Bill, was not hostile to the Bill; and having received the greatest support from that Board, he saw no reason why their expenses should not be paid out of this fund rather than out of a fund which had no relation whatever to the Thames Embankment. MR. AYRTON said, that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his questions. What he wanted to know was, whether private solicitors having been employed, the Department would have to pay its own solicitors as well, and next what was the meaning of the references to the London Bridge Approaches Fund? MR. COWPER said, that as the solicitor to the Board of Works was paid by salary, he would receive nothing with regard to this Bill. As to the second question, the Act of last year provided that any surplus existing from the London Bridge Approaches Fund should be paid to the Treasury and become part of the Thames Embankment Fund. What that surplus was had not yet been decided, some items being disputed; but the Committee was quite safe in enacting, that when the Treasury should decide what the surplus was, it should be added to the Thames Embankment Fund. In answer to Mr. W. WILLIAMS, MR. COWPER said, that the expense of the low-level sewer was kept quite distinct from those of the embankment, and would not come out of the coal duties. The expense would be defrayed out of the main drainage rate. MR. DARBY GRIFFITH remarked that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had fallen into the hands of the most expensive Parliamentary agents in London, as he knew Messrs. Rose, Baxter, aud Norton had charged for lithographed circulars as if they were manuscript. He had tested these charges by litigation leading to a reference to arbitration, and the result was a curtailment of their charges. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had bribed a Member out of his seat. ["Order !"] Well, what was he to say? The noble Lord, with that tact which distinguished all he did, offered an inducement to au hon. Member which resulted in his vacating his seat, and finding an opportunity for bestowing the seat on an official of his own Government. He had intended to put a question to the noble Viscount on the point; and only let him off for one reason, and that was, that having understood the salary of the selected person to be £2,000, it came out that it was only £1,200, and he thought it hardly desirable to disturb the repose of the noble Viscount for such a trifle. MR. COWPER, in reference to the expenses, remarked, that there was an understanding between the parties concerned that the bill of costs should be taxed by an officer of the House. SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, Messrs. Marchant and Pead, who appeared before the Committee as agents for the Bill, according to the Law List, were solicitors at Hertford. Clause agreed to. small minority, and on one occasion in a minority of one. MR. AYRTON said, he thought the metropolis had great reason to complain of the Treasury, which had declared it would not, directly, contribute anything towards the embankment. On one point there existed considerable misapprehension in this House, and still more out of doors. It was not remembered that, in so far as this embankment touched on Crown land, it was not competent for the Committee or for the House to deal with the question, except in the way indicated by the Crown ; and therefore the Committee were in the dilemma of having to take the embankment exactly as the right hon. Gentleman Clauses 47 to 54, inclusive, were also proposed it, or of putting a stop to it alagreed to. Clause 55 (as to Street between Whitehall Place and Wellington Street). SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, that this clause had reference to the street between Whitehall Place and Wellington Street. He wished it to be understood that there was a strong feeling in the Committee that the street was a downright mistake, and that its creation would give rise to endless claims for compensation. The evidence before them was, that the street ran in a wrong direction, and he hoped the matter would be discussed in another place. MR. COWPER could not agree that the Committee considered the street a mistake. If the matter had been discussed, he thought the reasons in favour of it would have satisfied the Committee that they would have been quite right in passing it. Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 56 to 71, inclusive. Clause 72 (Disposal of Reclaimed Land in which Crown interested). pre SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, this clause and Clause 77 would enable the Crown to lease the land reclaimed from the foreshores, and charge its tenants what it thought fit. The foreshores were at sent useless, but the metropolitan ratepayers were going to render them of great value; and inasmuch as all persons, from the highest in rank to the lowest wharfinger, had been called upon to make sacrifices in order to carry out this great improvement, he thought the Crown, instead of taking the utilized land for its own advantage, should join in making a sacrifice for the common good. He had expressed this opinion several times, and had divided the Committec, although always in a together. They had therefore no alternative except to take the course which had been actually pursued. On the part of the metropolitan taxpayers, he thought they had a right to complain of the hard terms which were put upon them by the Government. Certainly the inhabitants owed nothing to the Government and the Chief Commissioner for his interference with the embankment, because he was convinced, that if the Metropolitan Board had been allowed to propose it, they would have got better terms from the Treasury, and would have saved £300,000 in the execution of the work, while the public would have got all that they legitimately desired, and all that would be ultimately necessary. The Government, however, said, "The inhabitants of London shall embank the Thames, and shall pay the Crown for any supposed interest it may have in that part of the river." It was true that some of the land in front of the Crown estates was absolutely vested in the Crown; but then it was only a dirty bank, and surely, if the inhabitants paid the cost of an embankment there, and thus made the Crown land more valuable, the Crown on its part ought to contribute something. He felt sure, that if the matter had been fairly put before the noble Viscount, and he had been told that the inhabitants were about to spend £1,500,000 upon this embankment, he would have released the rights of the Crown in this foreshore, as the contribution which the Crown made in consideration of the great improvement to the Crown estate through this alteration. Instead of this, everything had been exacted. They were now compelled to take the Bill exactly as it was tendered to them regarding the Crown estates. |