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

of the river. The hon. baronet then moved for a select

committee to consider the best means of providing for the
increasing traffic of the metropolis by the embankment of
the Thames. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. COWPER thought the house would have no objet •
tion to the motion of the hon. baronet. (Hear, hear.) It
did not require any argument to show the necessity of free
communication between Charing-cross and London-bridge.
No one who had driven in a carriage along the crowded
thoroughfare of the Strand and found himself compelled to
go at a walking pace instead of a trot could fail to under-
stand the serious nuisance caused by the obstruction of
the route, and the consequent loss of time. It was gene-
rally admitted that an embankment would be of advantage
to the navization of the river, but the threatened stoppage
of the central traffic of the metropolis during the construc-
tion of the low level sewer along the Strand and Fleet•
street, undertaken by the Metropolitan Board of Works,
rendered it very urgent that the committee should proceed
to consider this subject immediately. He looked with the
utmost apprehension to the danger that might be incurred,
during the formation of this sewer, by the valuable build-
ings along its route. It was to pass very near to tie foun-
dations of Somerset-house, and not far from the foundations
of St. Paul's Cathedral. The great weight of the latter and
the character of the soil on which it rested afforded a strong
reason why a committee should at once be appointed to con-
sider what ground there was for apprehension of danger to
that magnificent structure, and why the Board of Works
should have an opportunity of abandoning their plan for a
sewer below the chief thoroughfare of the metropolis in fa-
vour of that which made it the basis of the proposed em-
'bankment. (Hear, hear.) lie believed it was possible to
construct the embankment in such a manner as would tend
greatly to the improvement instead of to the deterioration of
the pi operty by the side of the river; but of course the va-
rious plans for this work and their bearing upon the rights
of private individuals would be important points for the con-
sideration of the committee. Another question which would
demand their attention would be the fund from which the
expense of any of these operations was to be defrayed. He
must altogether demur to the allegation made by his hon.
friend that this project could be deemed in any way an im-
perial question. It appeared to him more entirely local
than almost any other that could be mentioned. (Hear.)
It was geneially held that street improvement and works of
drainage were especially local matters, and if the hon. baro-
net expected to get any money from the public exchequer
for the execution of this embankment? it was to be feared he
would by greatly disappointed. It was desirable that the
manner in which local taxation could be made available
for this purpose should be considered by the committee.
The Metropolitan Board of Works would no doubt be ready
to contribute largely, as far as the sewer was concerned ;
and it might be found that some other form of local taxa-
tion might be resorted to, in consideration of the general
benefit to be conferred on all parts of the metropolis, It
had also been suggested that private enterprise would aid
in the completion of such a work, A portion of the em-
bankment, for example, might be set apart for an omnibus
tramway. For these reasons he believed the committee
would answer a highly useful purpose. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BLACKBIJRN thought that the establishment of
the Metropolitan Board of Works would have relieved
the house from a discussion of local questions of this
kind, which would properly form the - subjeet of -a
private bill. He consented to the committ,..,e, how-
ever, on a distinct understanding that 'not a farthing
of the public money was to be 'spent "in carrying out
the scheme. In order to venr:ie all doubt on that score ho
begged to move " l'.ll amendment that these words be added
to the motion :—" And how these funds are to be provided
from the district benefitted."
Lord J. MANNERS could not support the amendment
of his hon. friend, because it would absolutely prohibit the
committee from reporting in favour of applying the coal duty
towards the construction of this great metropolitan improve-
' ment, which was one of the fairest objects to which such a
revenue could be devoted. He cordially supported the pro-
posal for this committee, considering that the embankment
of the Thames, if properly carried out, would be one of the
most beneficial and ornamental works that could be con-
structed in the metropolis. He agreed also as to the neces-
sity of making the investigation without loss of time, and
begged to suggest that much advantage might result from
the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the
subject of metropolitan railways, in order to prevent their
cutting up the city in every possible variety of angle and in
the most ridiculous manner. He altogether despaired bi
any railway committee doing justice to this subject.
Mr. AYRTON thought they would be oubled with
monthly discussions on subjects of this nature unless they
would consent to create some mtua:'cipality that could deal
with them on an intelligible and proper principle. The only
proper body to'deal both w!ith the introduction of railways
into the metropolis and, the embankment of the river was a
municipality.
It, 'was altogether an improper mode of pro-
ceeding to iripoint a select committee to deal with such ques-
tions and then to consider how they should tax the inhabi-
tants in order to. carry out what was deemed a very interest-
ing' public object. The right hon. gentleman the First
Commissioner of 'Works gave his consent to'this committee
just to play with the subject. They had no earthly connexion
with it, and the manner in which they ware accustomed to
deal with such questions showed a capacity which was
perfectly remarkable. The Board had no sense of responsi-
bility, and they threw these matters over to a select com-
mittee, where no one was responsible. The house should
decline to entertain such propositions altogether, except in a
comprehensive way by a body elected by the inhabitants
and by property, which should protect the one as well as
the other in all these important questions.
Mr. DEEDES thought something ought to be done, but
could not agree that Imperial money should be spent on
such a project. The right hon. gentleman dial not say posi-
tively that no public money would be devoted to that object,
and he thought he ought to say so at once. Unless they
pointed out at whose expense the work was to be under-
taken the inquiry would lead to no positive result. There
should be a Royal Commission appointed to consider the
various important questions involved in this subject.
Lord PALMERSTON said he could not agree in the
opinion of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets as to the
inefficiency of select committees. On the contrary, he
thought a committee a very good instrument to examine
fundamental propositions, and to extract from witnesses
those facts upon which conclusions might be safely founded.
(Hear, hear.) His hon. friend reverted always to his own
proposal, that there should be a municipal body to repre-
sent the whole metropolis. It was a very fit subject to pro-
pose to the house as a separate question, but he could not
concede that it had any direct application to the motion
which they were now discussing. There was a body which,
with regard to these works, did correspond very much with
the notions of his hon friend. The Board of Works were
empowered to raise by local taxation the funds necessary
for improvements connected with the metropolis. In virtue
of these powers they were making tunnels, and charging
the expense upon the rates which they were in the habit of
levying. They had the means of looking;very effectually to
. the expenses of this operation. His hon. friend found fault
with the department of the Government which, before the
appointment of the Board of Works, was charged with the
arrangement of the sewers. The reason the department of
the Gsvernment was not able to construct the sewers was
because they had not the power to raise the money. It was
not that the Government were unable to devise a plan for
draining the metropolis and preventing the sewage going
into the Thames, because the plan of the Board of Works
was the same plan which the Government thought efficient
and proper for the purpose. (Hear, hear.) He should cer-
tainly object to the addition proposed by the hon. member
opposite,because all matters connected with the subject were
naturally included in a reference to a committee. (Hear,
hear.) He was quite prepared to make good the assertion
of his right hon. friend, that the committee was not to ex-
pect that any recommendation of theirs would have the ef-
feet of bringing towards the expense of the operation any
vote of public money, because he was sure the house would
not agree to expend any portion of public revenue on these
local improvements of the metropolis. (Hear, hear.) The
hon. gentleman ought to go into committee with the
clear understanding thit, whatever the cost, no part of
it would be defrayed out of the revenue of the
countyr at large, (Hear.) But it might be that the com-
mittee might think some fund could ho formediand some
mode deviled' of offering a fair remuneration to capitalists
who would invest money in works connected with this em-
bankment, The inquiry, therefore, seemed to him to be
one very fitting for a committee to undertake, and they
were not, in his opinion, superseded at all by the existence
of the Metropolitan Board of Works. (Hear, hear.) He
happened to be a member of a committee appointed two

years ago to inquire into the state of the Thames, and they
had evidence given to them showin,',. what great advan-

tages would arise in every point of view from a good em
bankthent of the Thames on proper principles. It would
secure greater purification of the Lea of the river; it would
improve the navigation ; it would be conducive to the
general convenience of the metropolis. (Cheers.) In every
point of view it was a scheme proper to be encouraged.
The particular object for which the committee was ap-
pointed was of a different kind, and, therefore in their re-
port they merely adverted to the circumstance. But he
thought the house would do well to concur in the motion of
his hon. friend and appoint this committee. (Hear, hear.)
This committee would eellect evidence showin gin what way
the embankment could be made, They would certainly not
recommend, he was sure, after what had been said, any
grant of public money; but they might point out how,
independent of the resources which the Metropolitan Board
had at its command, either by the coal duties or 'by private
enterprise, the work, which would be a great ornament to
the metropolis and a great convenience to the traffic, might
be accomplished. (Cheers.) •
Mr. BENTINCK said those who were chiefly interested
repudiated the committee, and the Government repudiated
any idea of pecuniary assistance. He, therefore, did not
see how inquiry could be of any use.
Mr. JOHN LOCKE said the inhabitants of London did
not want the embankment, and if it were made to delight
the eyes of gentlemen visiting the metropolis from every
part of the country, the expense ought to be met, to a cer-
tain extent by the Imperial treasury. (No, no.) He de-
cidedly objected to the amendment of the member for Stir-
ling, who had a strong objection to the spending of money
upon the metropolis, but who was the warm advocate of
grants in aid of the Scotch pickled herring trade. (Laughter.)
The proposed embankment would only pass through two
or three parishes, or "districts," as the amendment called
them, and on these it was proposed to levy the entire
amount.
Lord LOVAINE said the house was already in posses-
sion of evidence upon evidence, and estimate after estimate
and another committee could but produce results exactly
similar. Still, if it were any amusement to the hon. mem-
ber for Coventry to sit upon the committee, he should not
object to the motion, though he must be distinctly under-
stood to join in the protest against taxation, whether direct
or indirect, in order to carry out the project.
Sir S. M. PETO said 'the metropolis was committed to
the expenditure of £7,000,000 on the drainage scheme, and
the ratepayers were already cr, ing out that they derived no
benefits proportioned to the rates levied. They were conse-
quently not likely to contemplate with pleasurable feelings
the present proposition. All attempts at dealing with ques-
tions of this magnitude were but playing at legislation, un-
less a master mind existed to direct, and means equal to the
accomplishment of the works to be undertaken were forth-
coming. He did not wish to introduce an Imperial regime
into this country, but he could not help regretting the puny
hap-hazard spirit with which our -Government shrunk from
dealing with great questions when he sawthe improvements
which had been effected in Paris. Here, on the contrary, we
suffered an agglomeration of warehouses to stand in the way
and were deterred from action by impediments originating
in arrangementsdating from the time of Edward I. (Sear,
and laughter.) All that was required was that the Govern-
ment would deal with the question in a spirit worthy of
itself ; and all that was needed .was that the noble lord the
member for Tiverton should carry it out in the same firm
manner in which he had carried the Smoke Bill, which re-
flected honour upon him. (Hear, hear.) It was useless for
the committee to commence the inquiry with their hands
tied up. It was decided that they should neither be at
liberty to recommend direct nor indirect taxation ; and any
person who knew anything of the metropolis must be aware
that it would not submit to additional imposts. Unless the
house and the Government were prepared to deal with the
question in a better spirit, they ought not to touch it at all,
it would be more judicious to allow the Corporation Bill,
like many other measures to go adrift. (Hear, hear.)
Lord FERMOY said the report of the committee coed
not be.binding on any person and unless they were perfectly
untrammeled no good result could follow from their labours.
The amendment was then negatived and the motion
agreed to.

MEDICAL RELIEF BILL.
The order for the second reading of this bill Wae
charged,

INNKEEPERS' LIABILITY,
This bill was read a second time.

AGGRAVATED
This bill went through committed p»•o forma, with
amendments.
The house then adjourned.