The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-06 00:00:00

be for a temporal? period, and that it would be hard all
at once to put in a free bridge between two paying he
Mr. FRENCH trusted the house would not sanction the
imposition of a toll. any
Kr. OLIVEIRA also felt the great objection
.toer
toll for passing from one side of the river to t
believed that this was the only great city ihe the World
ion
where such a principle existed. turnpikes removed
Mr. HUME wished to see aliTthisheebtethe metropolis
from the metropolitan bridges• ilegplace for great
of the country, considerable expensh
t therefore, that the
public purposes, and it was only rig
public should assist in bearing the weight of that expendi-
ture.
Mr. G. DUNCAN
imposition also expressed himself opposed to the
position of a toll. nothing had
Housewhat-
WILSON ; Mx. ILSON said. that this
be
eor
ever to do with a toll. It would the of Com-
ment; to determine afterwards whether the bridge should
be free or not. The Government had, of course, no object
in • posing a toll, if the house provided the money.
(Hear, hear.)
The vote was then agreed to.
On 35001. being proposed for defraying the expense of
constructing an embankment and public roadway between
Battersea and Vauxhall bridges.
Mr. W. BROWN objected to grants of this kind alto-
gether, for the benefit of the richest city in the world.
Col. SIBTHORP objected to the principle of saddling
the public generally with the expense of improvements in
the metropolis. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HEYWOOD considered that as no public or na-
tional advantage would be derived from the improvements
to which this vote was to be applied, the metropolis ought
to bear the expense itself. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI thought this vote involved a principle of
the utmost importance. The various counties throughout
the country supported their own bridges, and he had been
very much surprised at the opinion expressed by the hon.
member for Montrose, who had stated, some two years ago,
in bringing forward a motion on the subject of reform,
that he had always found that population and pronerty
went together. If that proposition were a true one, it was
clear that the large population of the metropolis was no
reason for requiring that its bridges should be paid for by
the united contributions of all the counties in the country.
(Hear, hear.) He really thought a stand ought to be made
against the system of taking from the public purse for the
use of the metropolis sums which must be supplied by the
whole country. (Hear, hear.) When he and his hon.
friends had complained of the excessive weight of local
taxation which pressed especially upon the rural districts
of this country, they had always been told that
those
that
system of taxation had its peculiar advantages. All
advantages, whether real or assumed, had, however, beenn.
withdrawn of late, and he thought it was the duty_oof
ohoorn.
gentlemen, when such votes as that now before th
mittee were proposed, to scrutinise them
ed upon just
very closely,
.
and ascertain whether they were founded P
principles or not. It did not seem to him
prin-
ciple that the various counties of this cyroanunbtrrrdo.sehso,ultdo
be called upon, besides paying of the county of
contribute to the expense of the bridges
for their o_
Middlesex—(hear, hear)--and that, toor,ieoneetthee.tplea that
in the
the county of Middlesex contained the h
world. He thought they ought to. oppose this vlotye, for he
able to lay the
believed that by doing so they might b
founation of a much more salutary sy than now
pursued with regard to the distributionstem of votes forwas public
works.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH expressed his ccrdial concur-
rence in many of the ohs°, rations of the right hon. gentle-
man, and especially in the principle that henceforth the
metropolis should be required to bear the expense of its
own public works. It must, however, be borne in mind
that there was not in the metropolis at the present moment
any municipal body which had the power of rating the in-
habitants for these purposes, and that the inhabitants
could not be so rated without the adoption of some prin-
ciple of representation. The Government, he might ob-
serve, had this subject under their consideration. When
it was determined that a royal park should be made at
Battersea, with a bridge and embankments, the Commis-
sioners of Works were empowered to raise slims amount-
ing (as we understood) to 350,000/., upon the security of
the tolls, &c., for the purpose of carrying out the projejt
It was at first proposed that the money required should be
borrowed from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, but it
was afterwards considered that the better course would be
to come at once to Parliament, to state what would be the
expense of completing the works which had been com-
menced, and to ask Parliament to provide for their com-
pletion. When he (Sir W. Molesworth) came into office,
he desired that the estimates might be laid before him,
stating how soon the works would be finished, and what sums
it would be necessary for Parliament to vote annually, in
order to complete them as speedily as possible. If they
gave up the embankment the bridge would be completely
useless, and without the bridge the park would be compa-
ratively of no value. He was informed that the cost
of the works would be altogether 524,0001. Of that
amount the Exchequer Loan Commissioners had furnished
280,0001., and therefore 244,0001. remained to be provide d
by Parliamentary votes. He believed, supposing the park
to be completed in 1855, that by 1862-3 they would realize
from ground rents and other sources 326,0001., and 62,0001.
in connection with the Chelsea embankment, making alto-
gether 388,0001., in addition to the tolls from Chelsea-
bridge, which were estimated at 6,6001. a-year. The right
hon. gentleman opposite had said that bridges ought not
to be constructed for the metropolis at the public expense,
and it was entirely upon that ground that provisions had
been made in the acts of Parliament for levying tolls upon
the bridges. He fully approved of the principle that great
metropolitan works should be paid for by the metropolis
itself ; but he hoped the right hon. gentleman would with-
draw his objection to this vote, as it was connected with
the scheme for the formation of Battersea-park.
Mr. DISRAELI said, it was in consequence of the plan
for making a park at Battersea that he particularly opposed
this vote. They were told by the right hon. baronet that
the plan of asking for votes was adopted in consequence of
the objection which he (Mr. Disraeli) on the part of the
late Government, had made to the system of advances by
the Exchequer Loan Commissioners for carrying out this
project. The right hon. baronet had not stated, however,
that the commissioners had ceased to make these or similar
advances, for at present the machinery for such advances
still existed, although these votes were proposed in Com-
mittee of Supply. He (Mr. Disraeli's) objection to the
advances by the Exchequer Loan Commissioners was, that
very considerable expenditure was thus incurred triithout
any proper control on the part of Parliament, for purposes
of a local and partial character, and which had really no-
thing to do with the general convenience and interests of
the country. (Hear.) The right hon. baronet said in effect,
"We intend to continue the same pernicious system, but,
in consequence of the statements you made, we shall con•
tinue it by other means." Now, he (Mr. Disraeli) con-
sidered that Battersea-park ought never to have been
made. He objected to the expenditure of half-a-million of
money upon the formation of such a park. He wished to
stop the system—(hear)—for why should they not be
called upon to-morrow to make a park at Fins
cu
mmittery. (Hear e
of
.)
He considered that every vote granted
supply for these objects was an additional argument in
favour of analagous appeals to the Legislature. Such
object ought, in his opinion, to be accomplished by local
funds, and if the committee entertained the same view
they would resist this vote. He thought the time had
come when they must put an end to these grants of public
money for local objects, for it was most unjust to continue
such a system. He therefore earnestly recommended the
committee to oppose the vote, and if they succeeded in
resisting it, he believed they would put an end to one of
the most flagrant systems of expenditure that had ever
existed. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WILSON cordially concurred in the sentiments
expressed by the right hon. gentleman ; but he must ob-
serve that, when the present Government came into office,
last December, they found the works for which this vote
was required very far advanced ; and although the late
Government had not commenced those works, yet they had
not stopped them. (Hear.) It was complained that the
works were not sufficiently under the control of Parliament,
but he had stated to the house at an early period of the
session that they would be carried on, but that, as votes
would be applied for in supply, they would be continued
with the full cognizance of Parliament.
Mr. DISRAELI said the hon. member for Westbury
was mistaken in supposing that no attempt had been made
by the late Government to stop these works. The subject
had been been brought before him when he was Chancellor
of the Exchequer, and it appeared to him of the greatest
importance to the public interests that measures should be
adopted for stopping all works of the kind. He took the
earliest steps in his power to discontinue advances, and he
had entirely opposed all grants for the establishment
of a park in
Finsbury, which was proposed to the
i
late Government.t was represented to him by a very
large deputation from that populous and wealthy district,
that it was of the utmost importance that such a park
should be made,proposition haead he told them he would consider the
trict would contribute would inform him what sum the dis-
rpoi,vtsoet he object. He was sorry to say,
however, that the wealthy community of Finsbury
were apparently
pull() prepared to advance a single pound
sterling for the
(Tar, and laughter.) The
late Government, therefore, had given no encouragement
whatever to such projects.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH foug.clai act of Parliament of
the last session, the object of vi
previous act, to hasten the completion of by amending the
of the embankment
of the Thames. (Hear, and a laugh.)
first act the embankment could not
ptrhoe.
those gentlemen
certain agreements were entered into :itle3eAtt,;reldinaencdegdethduntil
prietors, the object of which was to make
contribute a certain sum of money towards
tion of the embankment. An act—the 15th and 16th vice-
.
toria, chap. 7l—was therefore passed, of co
arse with the
assent of the late noble Chief Commissioners of -works
(Lord J. Manners), and the then Chancellor of the Rube
quer—(hear, and a laugh), in order to empower the
Commissioners of Works to proceed with the embank_
menus before such agreements were made.
Mr. FRENCH was sorry to say that the arguments of
the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire
had failed in carrying conviction to his mind. He be-
lieved that the property would pay every sixpence laid out
upon it. He entirely disapproved of the toll
the of upon
übli the
bridge, which would shut out a great portion p
from enjoying c
the advantages of the park.
It had been said of the late Government that
Colonel SIBTHORP hoped that the present vote would
be opposed.
members opposite had not
they- had not proposed any change in the expenditure,
bat the fact was that hon.
given them time to do what he firmsilytebhelisedvedthrtohwney
have done. Hon. members op world
impediment in their way, and now attempted to saddle
L auhter.) He
them with their own vices and fuollies.
considered the proposals of the presenht Ministry to be most
iniquitous and dangerous, and alt ough hheounhaddtobaeenn
many years in Parliament, and hadnever been
Government, a more fraudulent one than the present he
had never seen. (Laughter.) They wgre trying every
trick, but he hoped that they would be shown up, and that
there was still sense and intelligence enough in the country
to declare that they were regarded with the utmost want
of confidence.
Mr. HENLEY begged t
his right hon. friend, that to state, for the information of
not liable to build brid,esc.ounHtiises
objectcod ul nwotasbet, and wereogetths
bridge built, and then the expenses of it would be thrown
on the counties of Surrey
that the
Mr. HORSFALL
whether distant counties ought to the real question was
be called upon to pay
Airpws DA , for the luxuries of other parts of
'llebnueuiZYp. laced on the
,--- A -/-11-'1; ,Mr. DUNCAN objected to a to
ridge ; but in the hope that eventually the Government
was Prepared to vote
continue them,
had
nld not impose any such toll, he
oonincuarerteladei%
14,-1•=*?-c(e'
k the grant.
: A ''teet!r. SPOONER was of opinion that, as theoe
- ::14/411 commenced, Parliament was pledged toy
AVd on that ground, although he perfect]
had fallen from his right hon. friend, he should snip.
. I.t the vote-
-v. • W JOLLIFFE objected to any toll being placed
on
ety the bridge.
Mr. HUME had objected to the commencement of these
works, but now that they were actually in progress, it