The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-28 00:00:00

THE MIA

ICMENT.

Touching the proposal to embank the south side
of the Thames, which was urged upon Lord Pal•
merston by a deputation of inhabitants of the Surrey
side of the river on Wednesday last, it is, perhaps,

not generally known that the subject was discussed
at length by the Royal Commission which investi-
gated the general question of the embankment in
the past summer, and upon whose report it is that
the Government bill for embanking the northern

side is founded. They came eventually to the con-
clusion that they were not prepared to recommend

,he construction of an embankment on the Surrey

shore at present, adding that, if hereafter it should
be thought desirable or necessary to embank any
portion of it, the scheme they had proposed for the
Middlesex side would not in any way interfere with

it. Several considerations are understood to have

governed
....
g the Commission in recommending the
embankment on the northern side, which do not

apply, or apply but slightly, to a similar work on
the opposite shore. These considerations especially
pointed to the necessity of giving priority at least
to the work on the northern side. The principal
one was carrying the great low level sewer on the
Middlesex side along the line of the proposed em-
bankment, instead of tearing up for its construction
—it might be for a year or two—the great thorough-
fares of the Strand and Fleet-street, involving
the diversion of the enormous traffic into the
little narrow collateral streets and byways. That
public nuisance has therefore been avoided.
Another main object was by means of the embank-
ment to split, and to relieve the great human tide
continually setting in both directions between West-
minster and the City. Neither of these considera-
tions was thought to apply to the Surrey side. The
traffic along the York-road and Stamford-street is
never at all considerable. At all events, whatever its
amount, it does not admit of comparison with that of
the Strand, Fleet-street, or Cheapside, except for the
purpose of strong contrast. For all time, since Lon-
don was a city, and now more than ever, the great
mass of the metropolitan population has dwelt on
the northern side of the Thames, a consideration
which of itself demands that the requirements of
that side should be first consulted in the matter of
the embankment. Apart from public convenience,
taking the embankment of the river simply as a
work to be invested with elements of interest and
beauty, an equal claim to be consulted might be
advanced by the inhabitants of either side, but the
comparison of claim fails in all other respects.
Again, the project to run an embankment along the
south is beset with a difficulty which is experienced
in only a minor degree on the north, and which
arises out of the array of wharves connected with
trading concerns on the Lambeth side, and stretch-
ing from Westminster to Blackfriars bridges in an
almost unbroken line. All these would either re-
quire facilities of access to the river in any scheme
of embankment, or occasion an enormous outlay in
compensation. On the other hand, with respect to
wharfage, the Commissioners experienced compara-
tively small difficulty, from Westminster to the
Temple-gardens, in dealing with an embankment
for the northern side. What wharf property
there is between these two salient points, involv-
ing more than two-thirds of the whole distance
at present proposed to be embanked, is, for the
most part, devoted to the coal trade; and the
Commissioners found that great facilities are now
afforded for the distribution of coal by the new
system of unshipping in the docks into railway
waggons, and by various depots on the railways in
and near the metropolis. These in substance are un-
derstood to be the grounds, or some of them, on which
the majority of the Commissioners decided for the
present not to recommend a southern embankment.
Mr. Thwaites, chairman of the Metropolitan Board
of Works, and one of the members of the Commis-
sion, was a dissentient, and protested in writing
against the omission from the report of the southern
embankment from their recommendations. He
added that he was aware of a difference of opinion
among competent authorities as to the effect of a
northern embankment on the south side, and fully
concurred in the prior necessity of the northern
work, both as a means of communication and as in-
separable from the construction of the northern low
level sewer, but he agreed with the Parliamentary
Committee of last year in considering the embank-
ment of the south side as a necessary part of any
complete scheme for the improvement of the river
and the metropolis.