The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-28 00:00:00

THE EMBANKMENT OF THE THAMES.

The committee resumed its sittings yesterday, to
proceed with the opposition to this bill. The Right
Hon. W. Cowper in the chair.
Mr. Miller said he proposed now to call evidence
on behalf of Sir Robert Peel and other lessees of
property at Whitehall-place,
Mr. Galbraith, civil engineer, produced a plan of
the premises, and the height of the wall that would
be required in front of the houses to prevent per
sons loOking over from the embankment. Lord
Gage and Mr. foreman had no view of the river
except from the front windows, and if this wall was
to be constructed that view would be shut out. By
the embankment 150 feet would be added to Lord
Gage's house. His present house is ,115 feet, so that
if the ground that was to be acquired by the em-
bankment was to be added to it, that would make
his house 265 feet from the embankment. Still he
thought that would be an injury to Lord Gage's
property.

Lord Gage was then called, and he said he resided
at No. 4, Whitehall-yard. His principal view of
the river was in a direct line. It was proposed to
have a roadway in front of his house, which would
be quite destructive of its privacy, although a quan-
tity of land was to be reclaimed and to be the pro-
perty of the Crown. At present he experienced no
inconvenience from the smell of the river, and as to
the steamboats passing, they were no annoyance to
him. On the contrary, they added gaiety to the
scene. He was prepared to contribute towards the
expense of an embankment, supposing that it was
not to be a public road. If it were proved to his
satisfaction that this roadway would be a great
public convenience, and that private interests must
give way to it, then he must give way, as he would
have no choice. If a roadway was formed in front
of his house, on which persons could ride and walk,
he thought it might be a convenience, but there
would not be much pleasure in it.
Mr. Horsman, M.P., said he lived at No.l, Rich-
mond-terrace,
and held his house under a lease
from the Crown until 1929. If the embankment
was formed the privacy of his house would be de-
stroyed. He had been invited to be a member of
Sir Joseph Paxton's committee in 1860, because he
' might be considered to nave a private interest in. it,
and also because he did not wish to be an opponent
of an embankment which might be proved to be a
public convenience. If this was the only line pro-
posed it would be difficult for the Crown lessees to
object to it, however clumsy and crude it might
be. In that case they would have to stand neu-
tral. As to forming an agreeable promenade on
the bank of the river for the recreation of the
public, apart from any useful purpose, that would
be a proposition for which there was no precedent
in Parliament. Sir Joseph Paxton's committee
made three recommendations for an embankment.
namely—to facilitate the construction of the low-
level sewer, to improve the navigation of the river,
and to relieve the traffic. Ho believed that, as there
was a choice of routes, it would be a great waste of
public money to make the roadway on an embank- I
ment . To disgorge a large amount of traffic into
Bridge-street could not fail to be an interruption.
He was not aware that an act of Parliament gave
powers for the compulsory purchase of land for
Battersea Park. He had never heard of it. He
believed the best plan would be to make an em-
bankment from the point proposed by Mr. Penne-
thorne up to Blackfriars-bridge. To bring additional
traffic into Bridge-street, by another roadway join-
ing it at Westminster-bridge at right angles, could
not fail to be an injury and an obstruction. He had
no doubt the public would like to have a roadway
in front of the river, but he held that business
should considered before pleasure. As to the Royal
Commission of 1861, he thought it was the worst
the First .Commissioner could have appointed, as
they had already committed themselves to this
scheme, and had prejudged Mr. Pennethorne's plan.
He did not appear before the committee as a lessee,
but as ono of the public ; end if he lived in the
middle of Richmond-terrace, or at the other end of
it, he should have given the same evidence. He was
of opinion that a much better selection of members
might have been made, if men who had hitherto
expressed no opinion had been brought to consider
the question. The chairman and Sir J. Paxton were j
in favour of the present scheme, and therefore they
were not in a state of mind impartially to consider
Mr. Penn etherne's plan. He had merely signed a
tion against the bill to give him a locus stanch in
supporting the alternative line of Mr. Pennethorne.
He had heard that no printed estimate had been
presented by Mr. hunt of the expense of the em-
bankment, that it was merely a viva voce statement
made by him to the Royal Commissioners. It was
said by counsel that the Duke of Buccleuch would
have 120 feet of ground added to his garden ; but
he must express his surprise that any counsel should
have made such an observation, as there was no
clause in the bill by which that acquisition of land
would be secured to him. As to the Royal Corn-
misssioners, ho believed they did their work
clumsily, and ca me to their report very loosely, to
say the least of it. If any plan were required that
should increase the obstruction and crowded state
of Bridge-street more than another, this plan would
gain the first prize over all other competitors. If
the Government were to make the embankment,
tbe lessees were unanimously favourable to a per
tentage being added to their rent to pay for the
embankment. The object of this bill was a public
one, but there was a principle involved in it, as it
interfered with private rights. In the case of the
Duke of Buccleuch, although no land belonging to
him was taken, yet his private rights were inter-
fered with, as he was cut off from the river. The
interests of the public were prejudiced by being
adroitly mixed up with the private rights of the
Duke of Buccleuch. Nothing could be more objec-
o
tiffiAble than making the projectors of the bill
Judges in determining it in committee; and, so far
from the First Commissionerncaninating certain
m mbers f
have been thepipt,ointd b
e whole of the committee ought to
appointed by the Committee of Selection.
On the Bth of May the
-
police authorities reported
that 4,000 vehicles
not think it world re-
passed over Westminster-
bridge,
waggons; Ofbut which
did number 1,880 were carts and
of Parliament-street and
Bliervideget-hsetreoeb etiotstriufanbout
half of that nun:-
street and the West-4
ber were diverted from Bridge.