The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-30 00:00:00

cellor of the Exchequer come to a satisfactory un-
derstanding with each other upon the subject,
and the conclusion so complacently arrived
at by the Royal Commissioners will be overruled
betimes, and swept aside peremptorily, to the
satisfaction of the sane mass of the inhabitants of

the metropolis.
It is conspicuously to the credit of Mr. THWAITES
that his was the only dissentient Yoke raised against
this extraordinary opinion otherwise unanimously
formed by his brother Commissioners. Mr. THWAITES
was then and there in a minority, and conse-
quently his advocacy of a Southern Embankment
as well as a Northern Embankment went for
nothing. But—apart from the Royal Commis-
sioners—he is certainly in a minority upon the sub-
ject no longer. It is gratifying to remember that he
at least among the Commissioners, he who
occupies the responsible position of Chairman of the
Metropolitan Board of Works, was, upon a matter
of such importance, wiser than the rest of them.
The opinion Mr. THWAITES then avowed is
strictly in harmony with the view afterwards
taken of it by the Parliamentary Committee, by
the deputation that waited the other day upon the
Prime Minister, and last, and perhaps most im-
portant of all, by the Prime Minister himself.
We entertain no doubt whatever as to what will
be the result of so remarkable and conspicuous a
coincidence.

If any one comes freshly to the consideration of
the question now immediately under dispute, it must
certainly appear ludicrous upon the very face of
it, to find a Royal Commission deliberately re-
commending that one side, and one side alone, of
a groat river like the Thames, rolling through a
metropolis like London, should be Embanked !
And that the other of course should be left, so to
speak, in impuris naturalibus! " Several conside-
rations," we are now gravely informed, "governed
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." We are farther informed, " These consi-
derations especially pointed to the necessity of
giving priority at least to the work on the northern
side." It is then observed that " the principal one
was carrying the great low level sewer on the
Middlesex side along the line of the proposed
Embankment, instead of tearing up for its construc-
tion—it might be for a year or two—the great
thoroughfares of the Strand and Fleet-street,
involving the diversion of the enormous traffic into
the little narrow collateral streets and byways."
A very good reason, this, no doubt, in favour of
carrying out the enterprise of a northern Embank-
ment. But—not the smallest reason in the world
for not carrying out a southern Embankment as
well. The mere question as to priority we take
to be altogether beside the mark—and to be
worthy of no consideration whatever, supposing
it were alone possible to have one Embankment at
a time. In that contingency, of course, we should
have to decide which of the two banks should have
precedence. But it is altogether essential, as a pre-
liminary, to show that the simultaneous carry-

ing out of both Embankments is a duplex work
wholly and absolutely impracticable. Even if that
double labour were clearly proved to be impossible
—even if it were quite plainly demonstrated that
one Embankment alone at a time could be con-
structed, we could readily enough adduce good and
valid reasons why the southern instead of the
northern Embankment should have the priority.
For example, the southern side lies considerably
lower than the northern. Lambeth aad those
neighbourhoods are continually in the time of
heavy rains and high tides liable to be overflowed
in consequenee. Therefore—for one reason—the
southern or Surrey side should have precedence
over the northern or Middlesex side. Again, the
property upon the northern side is of greater value
than the property upon the southern side. There
again being no sufficiently comprehensible:reason
why the Surrey bank should have priority over the
Middlesex bank. It is yet to be shown, however,
that the two Embankments cannot be carried out
together, that is, simultaneously.

The argument in justification of the decision
arrived at by the Royal Commissioners, seriously
goes on to put the matter before us thus : " Another
main object," it is added, " was by means of the
Embankment to split, and to relieve the great human
tide continually setting in bath directions between
Westminster and the city." An excellent reason
again in favour of the notion of a northern Em-
bankment. But a reason utterly worthless as
opposed to the scheme of a southern Embankment.
It is admitted a little later on, that " 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 con-
sulted might be advanced by the inhabitants of
either side, but," it is rather extravagantly ob-
served, after this, " the comparison of claim
fails in all other respects !" As to the larger
number of the difficulties said to be arrayed
against the promoters of the Embankment
scheme along the southern banks of the
Thames, as contrasted with those discoverable
along the northern or Middlesex bank—we simply
ask any unprejudiced Londoner to say from his own
knowledge of the position of the things upon either
side whether the opinion he should conscientiously
have arrived at would not have been diametrically
the reverse. In confirmation of the reasonableness
of which conclusion we need only direct particular
attention to the very words employed in an earlier
part of this same argument in justification of the
views entertained by the Royal Commissioners.
Namely, where it is emphatically remarked that
" For all time since London was a city, and now

rnore than ever, the great mass of the metropolitan

population has dwelt on the northern side of the
Thames, a consideration [think the Commissioners]
which of itself demands that the requirements of
that side should be first c'nsulted in the matter of

he Embankment." But—allowing that, admit-

ting that—a consideration also, say we, proving as
plainly as anything possibly can be proved, that tho

difficulties against the northern enterprise must
necessarily be, as we have just now been insisting
upon, larger and more numerous, and in every
way more formidable than those likely to be en-
countered while carrying out a similar scheme upon
the southern side !

It were idle, hoWever, to pursue the
argument against the Royal Commission fur-
ther. The question, we rejoice to think, is
already virtually decided against them. Mr.
THWAITES has to all intents and purposes even now
won the day against his brother Commissioners.
He is no longer, we repeat, in a minority. His
once isolated opinion in favour of a southern Em-
bankment as well as a northern Embankment being
coincident with the opinions now entertained and
avowed upon the matter by a considerable propor-
tion of the public at large, and by the Prime
Minister of England, no less than last session by
th© members of the Parliamentary Committee.

The Marquis of Harlington, eldest son of the
Duke of Devonshire, is about to marry the Hon, Miss Pitt,
daughter of Lord and Lady Rivers.
A marriage is also arranged to take place between
Lady Londesborough and Lord Otho Fitzgerald, son of the
Duke of Leinster,