The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 5, 1860.

vernment of the county of Kent to the Archbishop of Can-
terbury it would be the worst governed of any part of
England. (Hear, hear.) It is not, therefore, from any
prejudice against the Pope as an individual that I disap-
prove of his government. At the same time I confess there
are feelings belonging to Roman Catholics to which I as a
Protestant could not join. A friend of mine, whom I very
much respect, has written a pamphlet, in which he says that
the taking away of the Romagna from the Pope is not only
a spoliation and a robbery, but a sacrilege. (Laughter.) I
have no doubt he states the opinions of the Roman
Catholics; but they must not expect us Protestants to
think that there is any sacrilege in depriving them of the
government of the Pope. There is also this to be said with
regard to the desfitches written by Mr. Russell. Both the
Pope and Cardinal Antonelli were in the habit of speaking
to him with the greatest fairness and openness respecting
the affairs of their own Government; they always said—

"As you are not a regular diplomatic agent we can speak

with less reserve to you than we should if your character were

strictly official." That is a reason why I should not produce

to Parliament everything that he reports of those conversa-
tions. (Hear, hear.) A question was also asked respecting our
conduct with regard to Naples. On this subject it must be

borne in mind that the conduct of the Neapolitan Government

to its subjects may bring on complications which may be of
the greatest consequence to Europe. (Hear, hear.) It
might bring on an armed interference on the part of some
neighbouring powers to which we could not be indifferent.
But there is this to be said—that the Ministers of the King
of the Two Sicilies have from time to time communicated
with us in a manner which shows that they have a reliance,

and a very just reliance, upon the friendship of the
British Qovernment. For instance, on one occasion there
was a report that General Garibaldi was going to Genoa,
that ships had been armed there, and were about to proceed
to Naples. The Government of the King of the Two Sid-
lies immediately applied to the Government of her Majesty
to endeavour to stop that expedition ; and I lost no time in
applying to the Sardinian Government, and asking them if
they had authority over General Garibaldi (and he Fuss then
holding the commission of the King of Sardinia), not to
allow that hostile expedition to proceed to Sicily. But
when we are asked to perform acts of friendship, I think it
is but fair to say to the Government making the applica-
tion :—" If you wish that there should be no insurrection
in Sicily, and no foreign interference, you must conduct
your Government with such justice, and according to
such acknowledged principles, that discontent may not
arise among your subjects." (Hear, hear.) When there
is friendly intervention on our part, I think it is fair
that we should tender our advice. That is the course
we have pursued, not to threaten them with in-
terference, but not to conceal the opinion—l do not say of
her Majesty's Government, but of men of every party in
this country, with regard to the necessary tenour of some of
the acts committed by the police and the Government of
Naples. (Hear, hear.) Another question has been put with
respect to Mr. Cobden, a member of this house. I have
stated formerly to the house that Mr. Cobden was last year
in Paris as a private individual, and that he had a great
dealof private communication with the ministers of the Em-
peror of the French. It was supposed that that might lead
to a treaty ; and Mr. Cobden was then regularly invested,
just as Mr. Eden, a private individual and moreover in op-
position to the Government, had been in 1786, with the au-
thority of a plenipotentiary, so far as regarded the commer-
cial treaty. Mr. Cobden has now gone to Paris as one of the
commissioners to carry out the 13th article of the treaty with
France. There are three commissioners, Mr. Cobden is the
first ; with him are associated a gentleman belonging to the
Board of Trade, and one belonging to the Board of Customs.
I took whatimins I could to select the persons most•fitting
for this duty. Ido not believe that any three persons could
be found in the world who are acquainted with all the de-
tails of that question of converting ad valorem duties into
specific duties ; but I believe that they are the best persons
to treat with the French Minister of Commerce. It is a
specific matter ; they do not act as plenipotentiaries ; but if
any, convention has to be formed, Mr. Cobden will be asso-
ciated with Lord Cowley in that convention. The hon. gen-
tleman says very truly that the British Government ought
not, for such a service, to depend upon the volunteer efforts
of any person. There is no salary granted to Mr. Cobden ;
but as he is on a special mission it is proposed that his ex-
penses, while he is en that special mission, shall be defrayed.
Tha only other question put to me had :reference to the
Chinese expedition, namely, whether orders had been sent
out to stop the expedition from undertaking any operations
until the arrival of Lord Elgin. There is no truth what-
ever in that report ; on the contrary, it is very desirable, if
there are to be naval and military operations, that they
should be performed before Lord Elgin arrives there; so
that the responsibility of these operations may not be placed
upon him. (Hear.)

THE TREASURY.
In reply to several questions,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would first address himself to a question put by an hon.
gentleman (Mr. Hennessy) about two hours ago, in refe-
rence to the Customs Board. This question involved three
separate subjects. With respect to Mr. Ogilvie, who had
been selected by the Board of Trade to assist Mr. Cobden
in the revision of the French tariff, the hon. gentleman
asked—" Whether Mr. Ogilvie was employed by the Board
of Customs in getting up the prosecutions for alleged frauds
against the various dock companies ; whether he assisted
in the revision of the British tariff which had just been
abolished, and whether any. reports or statements of Mr.
Ogilvie with respect to the wine duties would be laid before
the house ?" As to the first question, he would observe
that for all those prosecutions the Minister of Finance was
responsible, and he understood that Mr. Ogilvie had no
connection with them. With reference to the question re-
specting the wine duties he had to state that there were no
papors in existence which answered to the description of a
" report" made by Mr. Ogilvie to the Board of Customs.
On inquiry he found that there were some memoranda on
the subject of the wine duties, but it was quite contrary to
usage, would be inconvenient to the public service, and
would prevent confidential communicationsin future if such
papers were laid before the house. Of course hon. members
were well aware that there was a difference between private
memoranda and ,those reports which constituted formal
documents prepared for the information of Parliament. As
to the question of the hon. member for Wiltshire (Lord
Thynne) with respect to a report as to the time when the
reduction of the wine duties would take place, he was
obliged to him for putting the question, for he was of opinion
that such a report would be injurious to the trade. There
was no foundation for any such report. Her Majesty's Go-
vernment had no experience of the probable working of the
new wine duties, as they could not come into operation until
Parliament had passed a measure to that effect. With re-
spect to the National Gallery, he had made inquiry on the
subject, and ascertained from the proper authorities the
state of the building, and found that there was no means
of ventilating it except by opening the windows. If the
building were to be regarded as one of a permanent cha-
racter, some other means might be attempted,:but hon. mem-
bers were well aware that such experiments were rather
costly, and,should not be lightly undertaken. (Hear.)
THE SERPENTINE.

Mr. LOCKE asked the First Commissioner of Works
what steps he had taken, or was about to take, in regard to
the ;report of the committee upon the purification of the
Serpentine. It appeared, he said, that the sum of £14,000
had been expended out of the £17,000 which had been
voted. When the time came for the right hon. gentleman
to make his statement, he (Mr. Joseph Locke) would have
to express his opinions on the subject, and he would ask did
they think the people out of doors would be satisfied with
them so spending £14,000 out of £17,000 in the manner in
which it had been done. One scheme was proposed by one
gentleman, and then another gentleman comes forward and
upsets that scheme. Whatever might be the opinion of the
house, he thought there should be some change in the de-
partment which had charge of this matter, and that the
hands in which that department was were not competent to
discharge their duties.
Mr. B ENT INCK thought the time was come when these
jobs out of the public purse should be put an end to. Here
was £14,000 which they had been fooling away, and the
question was, would the people sanction such schemes. In
his opinion, such expenditure ought to be met by a metro-
politan rate, and he hoped the house would have its atten•
tion directedlo this point. •
Mr. COWPER said, the question they had to consider
was, the best mode of purifying the Serpentine. The plan
proposed last year appeared to be captivating, from its
novelty, more than for its merits, as the object to be ac-
complished was the clearing out of the mud from the
bottom of the Serpentine and pouring in fresh water.
When he came to consider the plan officially, he shared
the opinion which was formed by eminent engineers, as
well as others, that however ingenious the scheme might
be the plan could not prove to be satisfactory. At the
time that the scheme was before the house he did not ap-
prove of it, but having respect to the vote'of the house), he
did not wish to make any alteration in the scheme without
giving the house an opportunity of expressing its opinion
upon it and being consulted, and with that view he thought
the object could be best arrived at by referring the sub-
ject to a select committee. That committee was very fairly
constituted, for parties were so nearly balanced in it that
their proceedings were anything but unanimous. The
result of that committee was a recommendation that it
was desirable to abandon the system of filtration, and get
a supply of fresh water. He had, therefore, ordered the
removal of the works for filtration, and, in the first in-
stance, consulted with Mr. Simpson on the best possible
means for removing the foulness at the bottom of the lake,
and he had selected Mr. Simpson, from his great eminence
as an hydraulic engineer, and from his knowledge of the
spot, and his connexion with other works that were going
on in the immediate neighbourhood. He (Mr. Cowper)
did not believe that filtration would deal with the srigin of
the evil, because, the water, when filtered, would be liable
to the same defects, for the vegetable matter grew after
filtration, with redoubled activity. Ie had therefore an-
nounced to Mr. llawkesley that his plan of filtration must
be abandoned, and that a supply of pure•watcr might be
had from a well at the head of the present works in Ken-
sington-gardens, which would produce % daily supply of
half a million gallons from a tertiary sand of a very pure
character. The engine intended to facilitate. filtration
,would be employed in pumping the water from the lottom
of the lake, passing it through conduits, and they would

establish a current from one end of the lake to the other,

which would prevent the accumulation of mud by the
continual motion of the "water. In addition to this,
arrangements of an ornamental character were contem-
plated by throwing the water into a basin in Kensing-
ton-gardens, by which they could have a large cascade to
throw the water to a considerable height. He thought

when the works were completed that all the money which

they would cost would be deemed to be spent in a satisfac-
tory manner. The hon. member (Mr. Bentinck) had ex-
pressed it as his opinion that the expenditure should be met
out of rates which had no existence. Those parks being
Royal parks, were properly supported out of the public
money. They were, no doubt, connected with the metro-
polis of the whole nation, but they did not come strictly

;within the meaning of being altogether of a local character,
(Hear, hear.)

Sir J. V. SHELLEY said it was no fault of his that so
much money had been fooled away, as he was of opinion
that the scheme of filtration was avisionary plan. The hon.

baronet then referred to the proceedings before the commit-
tee, and said he was of opinion that the proposed ornamen-
tal arrangements would convert the place into a kind of tea
garden, which he did not approve of.
Mr. BLACKBURN agreed in the opinion which had
been expressed by tho hon. member (Mr. Bentinck), that
the whole country should not be taxed to pay for those im-
provements in the Parks. _ _ _

Lord PALMERSTON said the scheme which had been
suggested in the first instance was, that the plan for cleans-
ing the Serpentine should be the same as that which had
been adopted in St. James's Park. That plan, however,
would have involved an expense of £60,000, and his late
right hon. friend had been led to believe that the plan of
filtration would keep the water in a state of sufficient purity,
and only cost £16,000. Under these circumstances, and
placing confidence in the opinion of Mr. Hawkesley and
others skilled in matters of the kind, he did not feel inclined
to vote for the larger sum.
Lord JOHN MANNERS begged to set the noble lord
right. The sum calculated for the plan of the late Go-
vernment was not £60,000, but £30,000 or £32,000, and
instead of adopting that plan, the Government of the
noble lord took up this new-fangled scheme of filtration,
which was found when it came to be examined
by the select committee to be one that really would not hold
water. (Laughter.) The moral of the transaction was, that
a Government coming into office should not be in such a
violent hurry to upset the plans of their-predecessors. By
so doing great waste of public money was often, as was the
case in this instance, incurred. (Hear, hear.)
The motion that the house at its rising should adjourn to
Monday was then carried.
DUTIES ON FIRE INSURANCES.

Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN moved for leave to introduce a i
bill to amend the law relating to the duties now chargeable
on fire insurances. After apologising to the house for tak-
ing upon himself to bring under its consideration so large a
question, the hon. member proceeded to say that he feared
the present aspect of the house justified the information
which ha had received, that an attempt would be made
to " count out" the house, but he warned the
house that a question of such great magnitude, relating
in fact, to every dwelling-house, nay every build-
ing in the kingdom, was not to be treated with levity.
(Hear.) His proposition was, that when the premium for
insurance should not exceed ss. per cent. the duty should be
reduced from 3s. to ls. per cent. The existing revenue
from fire insurances was £1,300,000 a year—a sum not dif-
fering much in amount from the paper duties, which were
so lightly treated in the financial statement of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. (Hear.) Many insurances were
effected at premiums far higher than ss. per cent. Some
ran from £1 to £2O and £24 per cent. In fact he knew an
instance in which 26 guineas per cent. had been paid for
insurance against fire. With regard to all those risks more
than ordinary hazardous he did not propose to deal with
them. The duty of 3s. per cent. did not effect these in-
surances. The duty was not prohibitive. But when the
premium was under ss. per cent. the matter was altogether
different. His proposition would not affect £870,000• of
the existing revenue which was derivable from the duty
of ss. and upwards per cent. paid non insurances. He
only proposed to take off two-thirds of the remaining
£430,000; but this deduction would be much more than
supplied by the duty of Is. on insurances not now effected at
all owing to the burden of the duty of 3s. It had been cal-
culated that £3,000,000,000 worth of property in this king-
dom, including shipping, was insurable. On that property
insurances were at present effected to the extent of only
£900,000,000. There therefore remained £2,000,000,000 of
property that ought to be ensured, and that would be en-
sured if the duty which at present operated as a preventive
of insurance were relaxed. Insurances had not increased as
the national property had in this country. As compared
with France we were very far behind. In France an amount
was insured of fire insurances, as compared with which the
'amount insured in this country sunk into insignificance.
What was the reason ? It was because the Government of
France encouraged insurances by every means, whereas in
this country it was the subject of heavy taxation. The
policy stamp in France was very small, while in England it
was extravagantly large. (Hear) The French offices were,
in comparison with our own, bat modern establishments ;
but in respect of the vast amounts insured they were far
ahead of us. There were various descriptions of insurances
in France which were utterly unknown in this country.
Railways there insured against accidents and the damage
they might do to the goods of other persons. In France
where a tenement was burnt by the negligence of a neigh-
bouring tenant, or of a lodger, or his servant, the person who
who was the cause of the ac:.'ident, or his master, was liable,
but they commonly insured against such contingencies.
The Seamen's Home, which was burnt at Liverpool re -
cently, was only insured for £lO,OOO, but that amount was
utterly inadequate to restore the Home. An attempt had
been male to insure . English piroperty in French institu-
tions, in order to avoid the enormous duty levied in this
country, but an act of Parliament was quickly passed to pre-
vent that, so that our paternal Government would neither
themselves encourage this description of prudent provision
for the future, nor would they allow others to do so. Sup-
pose that lemma were to form themselves into a mutual fire
insurance, and that every man was to insure for £l,OOO, but
before they could be allowed to do that, each hon. member
must pay to the Government £2,000 for the privilege of do.-
ing so. That would represent the state of the law as to fire
insurances. Why should they tax those who had the fore-
thought to insure, and not tax those who had the impru-
dence to neglect the precaution ? The hon. member at
considerable length exhibited the oppressive nature of
this tax. Why should the tradesman and mechanic be
charged 3s. Per cent., while the farmer was let off? (Hear.).
It was difficult to see the justice of charging the rich man
Is. stamp, duty on a policy, say of £2,000, while if 200
working men insured property amounting in the aggregate
to the same sure, they would be charged stamp duties
amounting to £lO. The hon. gentleman concluded by
moving for leave to bring in the bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the hon. member complained more than once of the empti-
nebs of the benches, and threatened hon. members with the
most serious consequences when next they appeared on the
hustings. The hon. member made a speech of a most skil-
ful description ; but when he complained of the indifference
of the house to a question of such importance, he must re-
mind him that the house generally judged of a measure from
the circumstances under which it was placed before it. He
would not enter into the question, 'whether the duty ought
to be levied or not, but he would remind the house that the
hon. member did not propose a substitute for the existing
law, which, if altered, would have tie effect of deducting
from the revenue a sum of not less than £400,000. Now,
that was a sum which the country could not then afford.
The hon. gentleman said that the repeal of the tax would
be a great increase to the revenue; but when was that to
take place ? It might occur before such took place ; but
that was a principle which must not be applied to every case.
He said, look to the postal duties and see the result to the
revenue. But what was the fact ? Twenty-one years ago
thd postal duties were lowered to a mere nothing, and yet
the revenue at the present time didnot amount to more than
one half,of what it was then. Did he mean to say that it
ought not to have taken place ? By no means, for the ad-
vantage it conferred on the ceuntry was more than a com-
pensation for the loss of revenue. The hon. gentleman said
that this was an affair of £430,000 ; and now he would give
the gentlemen on the other side an opportunity for a sheer.
(Laughter.) The hon. gentleman said, " You have been
dealing lightly with the paper duty," but if they had been
dealing lightly with that duty, and if they had given it
away, that was no reason why they should repeat the im-
prudence in this case. (Laughter.) The hon. gentleman,
however, in the face of that, said nevertheless, " You should
give up those £130,000." The hon. gentleman told them
that there were two thousand millions of property in the
country which were uninsured, but a more vague,
a more uncertain assertion 'could not be. They had,
in fact, no certain data to go upon. Undoubt-
edly there might be a large amount of property uninsured
in the country. The hon. member had referred to Mr.
Coode's statistics, but a more careful, thoughtful, inquiring
man than Mr. Coode could not be. The question now was
as to how £225,000 was to grow into a state to supply the
£430,000 to bo withdrawn. The fact was the property must
increase threefold to put the hon. gentleman in a condition
to begin to fulfil his promise, and the hon. gentleman must
begin the increase in the first year of his operations. He
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not arguing here
now upon the merits of this duty, but he was arguing as to
how they could best make up so as to meet the deficiency.
Tho hon. gentleman promised a great increase in the re-
venue by reducing the duty from 3s. to ls. What then was
the increase that had taken place in the descriptions of in-
sured property which was subject to duty? In 1834 that
property amounted to £483,000,000; in 1856 it had in-
creased
to £802,000,000, that was, it had increased in 22
years G 5 5-6ths per cent. The exempt property had in-
creased in 22 years 67 and 1-sth per cent., while the non-
exempt and burthened property increased 65 5-6ths per
cent., or a difference of one and one-third per cent. That
broke down the case of the hon gentleman, and there was a
total and ruinous collapse of his statement. (Laughter.)
The hon. member referred to France, and said that whereas
only £900,000,000 of property was insured in England there
was as much as £1,800,000,000 insured in France; and he
argued that if they diminished this duty the amount of the
duty would increase as it had in Vance, pto the hon. gen.-

Homan had answered himself. Almost all the property in
England was insured below its value; but in France, from
the peculiar construction of the houses, every tenant of a
_ _

floor or flat was hound to insure his:neighbour's property as
well as his own, and the hon. member had himself said that
property in France was insured three or four times over.

:e did not hesitate to say that the hon. gentleman's calcu-

lations' were open to the greatest objections; and he (the
Chaneor of the Exchequer) contended that no course
could be adopted of gaining property in one year at the ex-
pense of what could be clone in another. They sometimes
repealed the timber duties, and sometimes the wine
duties ; they might have great transactions to go

:hrongh, but in no case did he know it to be done

;hat the cost of one year was to be made up by another.

Here there were commercial arrangements to be shaken,

and when duties were to be dealt with they ought to be
dealt with with caution. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentle-
man said that the duty would increase threefold if his plan
were followed out; but if he were right in some parts of
his argument, still he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
must say there were still fatal objections to his speech, as
delivered in 1860—a speech which, if the hon. gentleman
had reserved it until Feb. or March,:lB6l, would perhaps
give them immense information and instruction to judge of
the proportion in which the increase might take place. He

must say, and truly own, that there was some reason for

complaint upon a subject of this kind. The noble lord op•

posite smiled ; but ho understood that smile. The noble

lord, however, would admit that no great changes should
be made except in cases where the interests of trade required
it.. He hoped ho had expressed himself clearly to the house
on this subject, and that the house would not accede to the
motion of the hon. gentleman ; and, undoubtedly, he would
in conclusion say that, so far as her Majesty's Government
were concerned they would give it their most decided oppo-
sition. (Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.)
Mr. MALINS said there was one consolation, that the
right hon. gentleman had not only made a most vehement
speech, but decidedly the best speech against his own
" budget" that had been made that session. (Laughter.)
The right hon. gentleman used the same arguments on the
present occasion that he used in a former session against the
repeal of the paper duty.
Mr. GLADSTONE (warmly)—The hon. and learned
gentleman is mistaken. I consider, in candour and in fair-
ness, that if any hon. gentleman makes a statement con-
trary to fact, it is right to assume that he was in error, and
that it was proper to put him right. I did not make such
a statemwt as the hon. and learned gentleman states in

Mr. MALINS—The right hon. gentleman has become
excited ; but whether it was last year or the year before
that he made such a speech, not havinibrought " Hansard"
into the house, he could not say; but this he knew, that in
this very session the right hon. gentleman made a speech in
favour of repealing the paper duties, which, notwithstanding
his arguments, he had not yet succeeded in repealing up to the
present time. (Hear, hear.) He had a very distinct recollec-
tion of tho views expressed by the right hon. gentleman
against the repeal of the paper duties, and it did not matter
whether they were expressed last year or the year before,since
he had now come forward and declared that he was bound to
repeal that duty in deference to an abstract resolution of the
house. In the vote he was about to give in favour of the
motion of the hon. member for Dudley, he would do so,
not because of any so-called threat of losing his popularity
with his constituents—(a laugh)—because upon that, as
upon all other questions, they left him to the unfettered
exercise of his own discretion—(cheers)—but because he
intended to record his opinion that this was a duty which
ought to be reduced ; and as the right hon. gentleman
bad felt himself bound to defer to the opinion of a
majority of the house so recorded in the case of the paper
duty, he hoped that next year, or as soon as the revenue
would afford it, the right hon. gentleman would act in the
same way with respect to this tax as he had done with the
paper duty. He would not support any further progress of
the measure at present, but believing its object to be a just
and a proper one, he would cordially support the motion.
Mr. F. CROSSLEY differed from the hon. and learned
gentleman in thinking that the paper duty weighed more
heavily upon trade and the public than the additionalpenny
in the income tax would do. He thought also that the tax
on fire insurance was not the worst we had, though he
would like to seeit reduced. But he could nbt consent to
the proposal of the hon. member for Dudley, under which
an assurance for 4s. 11d. would cost la., while an assurance
for ss. would be charged 3s. At the same time he quite con-
curred in the opinion that as soon as any Chancellor of the
Exchequer found himself in a position to deal with this tax
he should do at the earliest possible period.
Lord C. HAMILTON said that he, in common with the
house, acknowledged the power of eloquence possessed by
the right hon. gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and his ability to make the worse appear the better reason,
but he must say the greater part of his speech that night
had been devoted to the purpose of showing that the prin-
ciples of taxation he unfolded in his speech on the budget
this year were entirely fallacious. (Hear.) In fact he de-
cidedly condemned his lwn financial scheme. (Hear.) He
could not comprehend how the right hon. gentleman could
have brought himself to the pint of almost rebuking
the hon. member for Dudley for enunciating the same
Principles as himself had so often declared in that house as
to the reduction of taxation increasing revenue. (Hear.)
He had recommended the hon. member to make his speech
again bodily in 1861. Might he (fiord C. Hamilton) ven-
ture to recommend that when the Paper Duty Bill came
on again, that he should repeat bodily the speech he made
against the repeal of that duty on a ferinee occasion.
(Hear, hear.) If it was wise, sound policy, sound morality
to reduce the taxes upon french kid gloves, foreign wines,
and foreign luxuries, which were mainly consumed by the
richer classes, surely the motion of the hon. member for
Dudley had a paramount claim on the support of the house,
dealing as it did with the interests, the daily interests, of
the middle and working classes„
Lord C. HAMILTON urged that it was due to the arti-
san to reduce this most obnoxious tax.
Mr. BAXTER thought that, as an expression of
opinion, the house ought to permit the introduction of the
bill.

Sir M. PETO asked for an assurance from the Govern-
ment that the subject should be taken into its earliest con-
sideration. The subject should be dealt with at an early
period. The law could not be allowed to remain in its pre-
sent state.
Mr. CONrNGHAM, who spoke amid loud cries of
" Divide," said that, although favourable to the abolition of
this duty, he should be unable to support the introduction
of this bill, more especially as by the speeches delivered on
the opposite side of the house an attempt had been made to
convert it into a vote of censure on the budget. The paper
duty wal not repealed to oblige a member of the Govern-
, meat ; but because its repeal was a measure of great public
advantage.
The house divided. The numbers wore—
For the motion .. , , .S 4
Against
Majority
—24
Leave to bring in the bill was therefore refused.
EMB4NJMENT OF THE THAMES.
Sir J. PAXTON, in rising to move for a select committee
on thissubject, said that whoever had watched the thorough-
fares of London for the last 30 years, mast have remarked
that they were gradually becoming impassable. It took a
longer time to go from London-bridge to the Great Western
Railway than- from London-bridge- to Brighton, or than
from the Great Western Railway to Oxford. The improve-
ment of the thoroughfares in the country had, been con-
sidered so important an object that if half an hour could be
saved in a journey of 509 miles, millions of money were
spent to save that period of time; and yet people who lived
in London and who made an engagement at the west end
could not keep it unless they gave themselves half an hpur
more than would be necessary if the thoroughfares were in
a proper condition. Some years ago a great scheme for
improving the entire communication of London was
brought forward, which would have remunerated the
parties who proposed it. The matter was submitted to
a committee upstairs, but it ended in a blue-book. The
embankment of the Thames would give great relief to
those who wished to pass from the west-end to the city. It
was not a new question, In the year 1824 Sir F. Trench
proposed a plan for embanking the Thames in front of Tem-
ple-gardens. A select committee sat, but nothing came of it.
In 1842 a Royal commission was appointed, which was pre-
sided over by Lord Lincoln, now Duke of Newcastle. They
examined into the thoroughfares of London and the•em-
bankment of the Thames. They planned out 10 miles of
new streets, but, with the exception of Cannon-street and a
few small improvements, nothing came of that commission.
The bill was not discussed till the following spring, and the
matter again dropped. The year 1845 was remarkable for the
number of railways that were then projected in all parts of
the kingdom, and this subject was not taken up till 1854,
when a committee of that house inquired into the best mode
of opening the metropolitan bridges to the public. That in-
vestigation only ended in the production of a blue-book, as
did also another inquiry instituted in the year following. In
1855 the Metropolitan Board of Works was established, but
it had not yet done anything with regard to the great arte-
rial thoroughfares of London. That board was, however,
now carrying on a general system of drainage, and had in
hand the construction of high-level, mid-level, and low-
level sewers. If those plans were executed there would be
no open communication between the west end and the city
for the space of two years ; affd the carrying away of ma-
terials from the tunnels for conveying the sewage would
create a serious nuisance in the principal thoroughfares.
The scheme of Mr. Bazalgette for taking the low-level sewer
along the bank of the Thames was concurred in by the late
Mr. Stephenson; but, owing to the difficulties it encoun •
tered, it was afterwards determined to take it along the
Strand. It was the more important, therefore, that the sub-
ject of the embankment of the Thames should now be taken
into consideration. Various plans hitherto framed for that
object had been opposed by the wharfingors, but if the com-
mittee for which he now asked were granted it would. be
shown that the execution of so magnificent a metropolitan
improvement;so far from injuring, would much enhance
the value of the property of the whard.ngers. Moreover, the
railway companies now proposed to cross the Thames with
their lines ; and the question of the embankment of the
river mast he Settled before those companies obtained their
hills, otherwise it could never be carried out. The population
of Lowlon liacl inereaml betweeu the years_lBll and 1851

from 1,138,000 to 2,362,000 ; and in 1861 it would doubtless
reach close, upon 3,000,000. The total number of persons
who passed., in and out of the metropolis last year
by the various termini was upwards of 30,000,0001
and, although many of them travelled for only
short distances, it was manifest that in going
to and from the railway stations they must enormously
swell the traffic in the crowded thoroughfares of London.
He believed the Select Committee:would report in favour of
the execution of this great work, and then would come the
question of the means to be provided for that object. The
Metropolitan Board of Works proposed to expend on the
making of the low-level sewer a sum of £221,000, and that
would, of course, form part of the embankment scheme.
The Board of Conservancy of the Thames were also
most anxious that the undertaking should be accomplished,
and were willing to consider whether a portion of the re-
venue to be obtained from reclaimed land might not be ap-
plied to that purpose. In his opinion this was not a local
but an imperial question. (No, no.) Hon. members might
say " No," but he put it to the house whether the saving
of time to the vast numbers of people who were in the habit

of passing to and fro in London which would be effected by
this scheme was not a sufficient reason why the Imperial
Exchequer ought to contribute to its execution. Large
grants were made for the improvement of various ports in
the kingdom, and he did not see why there should not also
be a grant for improving the navigation of the Thames. In
order to carry the sewage of the metropolis down to Bark •
ing Creek a large quantity of water would have to be with-
drawn from the Thames, and the embankment wouldthere-

fore be required to pat the river in a proper condition for
the purposes of navigation. The embankment would be
extremely valuable in a sanitary point of view, both by
supplying a fine public walk and facilitating the cleansing