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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 5, I'6o.

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 despatches 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 Government. 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 Sici-
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 was 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. --rnat to Lue
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 teen 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
deal of 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 *hat pains 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 ed 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 on that special mission, shall be defrayed.
The only other question put to me had :reference to the
Chinese expedition, namely, whether orders had been sent
ott to stop the expedition from undertaking any operations
until the arrival of Lord Elgin. There is no truth what-
ever in that report ; on tke 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.)

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 a visionary 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 the 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. tinder 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 committeeto 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.)
who mvtivu thn.t do hrnzan atlts ruing elnyuld adjourn fn
Monday was then carried.
DUTIES ON FIRE INSURANCES.

Mr: H. B. SHERIDAN moved for leave to introduce a

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 he had received, that an attempt would be made
to " count out" the house, but be 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 Is. 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 £2i 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. Bui 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 upon 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 ls. 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 accident, 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 £IQ,OOO, but that amount was
utterly inadequate to restore the Home. An attempt lead
been made to insure English property 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 Meese were to form themselves into a mutual fire
insurance, and that every man was to insure for £1,0.00, 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 bad 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 £B,OOO, while if 200
working men insured property amounting in the aggregate
to the same sum, they would be charged stamp duties
amounting to £lO. The hon. gentlenuen 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-
ness 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 the 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 did not 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 lion, member had referred to Mr.
Coode'i statistics, but a more careful, thoughtful, inquiring
man than Mr. (oode could not be. The question now was
as to how £225,000 was to grow into a state to supply the
£130,000 to be 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.
The 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 1831 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 65 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
waet:al 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 France, But the hon, gen-

tleman 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. memb2r had himself said that
property in France was insured three or four times over.
He did not hesitate to say that the hon. gentleman's calcu-
lations were open to the greatest objections ; and he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) contended that no course
could be adopted of gaining property in one year at the ex-
pense of what could be done in another. They sometimes
repealed the timber duties, and sometimes the wine
duties ; they might have great transactions to go
through, but in no case did he know it to be done
that 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 plarr
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 he understood that smile. The noble
lord, howevei, would admit that no great changes should
be made except in cases where the interests of trade required
it. He hoped he 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 beat 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 statement as the hon. and learned gentleman states in
1859.

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 having brought " 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, ho had not yet succeeded in repealin g up to the
present time. (Hear, hear.) He had a very distinct recollec-
tion of the 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
had 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 additional penny
in the income tax would do. Ho thought also that the tax
on fire insurance was not the worst we had, though he
would like to see it reduced. But he could not consent to
the proposal of the hon. member for Dudley, under which
an assurance for 4s. 11d. would cost Is., 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 ho de-
cidedly condemned his 'wn financial scheme. (Hear.) He
could not comprehend how the right hon. gentleman could
have brought himself to the point 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 (Lord 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 former 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 au 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. CONINGHAM, who spoke amid loud cries of
" Divide," said that, although favourable to the abolition of
this duty, he should be unable to supporethe 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 was not repealed to oblige a member of the Govern-
ment ; but because its repeal was a measure of great public
ad vantage.
The house divided. The numbers were—
For the motion B4
Against

Majority -24
Leave to bring in the bill was therefore refused.
EMBANKMENT OF THE THAMES.

Sir J. PAXTON, in rising to move for a select committee
on thissubject, said that tiloever 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 500 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 vest end
could not keep it unless they gave themselves half an hour
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 Tern-
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 1815 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 thaMeti opolitan 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 ; and 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 enema •
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 wharfingers, but if the com-
mittee for which ho 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 wharfingers. Moreover, the
railway companies now proposed to cross the Thames with
their lines; and the question of the embankment of the
river mist be settled before those companies obtained their
bills, otherwise it could never be carried out. The population
of London had increased between the years. 1811 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 pissed in and out of the metropolis last year I
by the various termini was upwards of 30,000,000 ; 1
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 purpme. In his opinion this was not a local
but an imperial question. (No, no.) Hon. members might
wry " 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 would there-
fore be required to put 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
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 navigation 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 ricet
street, undertaken by the Metropolitan Board of Works,
rendered it very urgent that the committee should proeeed
to conside'r 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 the foun-
dationsof 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.) He 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 pt 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 individulls 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 lfim more entirely local
than almost any other that could be mentioned. (Hear.)
It was generally 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 b 2, greatly disappointed. It was desirable that the
manner in which local taxation could bo 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 bo 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. BLACKBURN 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 subject of a
private bill. He consented to the committee, how-
ever, on a distinct understanding that not a farthing
of tie public money was to be spent in carrying out
the scheme. In order to remove all doubt on that score he
begged to move as an 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 ln 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 0;e
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 of
any railway committee doing justice to this subject.
Mr. AYRTON thought they would be troubled with
monthly discussions on subjects of this nature unless they
would consent to create some municipality that could deal
with them on an intelligible and proper principle. The only
proper body to deal both witth 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 appoint 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 were 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. LEEDES thought something ought to be done, but
could not agree that Imperial money should be spent on
such a project. The right hon, gentleman did 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 proptositions, 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 uow 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 Gsvornment 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. membet
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 tho assertion
of his right hon. friend, that the committee was not to ex-
pect that any recommendation of theirs would have the 41-
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 improvement's of the metropolis. (Hoar, hear.) The
hon. gentleman ought to go into committee with the
clear understanding that, 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 be formediand smie
mode devised, 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 U. 31 dert4.e, apd they
were riot, 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

BIRTHS.

HENNING.—On the 24th ult., at Tunbridge-wells, the
wife of Mr. R. S. Henning, surgeon, of a son.

HALDANE.—On tho 2d inst., at 17, Charlotte-square,
Edinburgh, the wife of Robert Haldane, Esq., of a son.
MAJOR.—On the 2d inst., at Burntwood Grange, Wands.
worth-common, the wife of C. M. Major, Esq., of
daughter.
M‘LEon.—On tho 13th ult., at St. Vincent, Cape de
Vords, the wife of H. E. M‘Laod, Esq., of a son,

MARRIAGES.
HARFORD-GOULD.-011 the 4th inst., at the parish
church, Lexden, Essex, Frederick, youngest son of Chas.
R. Ilarford, Esq., of Rutlan&gate, London, to Ellen
Gould, widow of.the late Anthony B. Story, Esq.
TAYLOR—GREENE.--011tho Ist inst., at the parish church,
Ashburnham, Sussex, Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander
Taylor, U. 13. Bengal Engineers, to Lydia Greene,
daughter of the Rev. John Read Munn, vicar of the ,
parish.