§ SIR R. H. INGLISdesired to be informed by his noble Friend what hope there was of the measure with respect to the Chelsea embankments, recommended unanimously by the Improvement Commissioners, sanctioned by the Lords of the Treasury, and strengthened by a vote of 20,000l., being proceeded with in the course of the present year? He wished also to know if the offer made by the Duke of Bedford to carry forward the improvements of Covent Garden had been permanently rejected; and if the second offer made by the Duke of Grafton would meet the same fate? It was to be regretted that the munificent liberality of the Duke of Bedford, in proposing to defray incumbrances, and to lend the sum of 42,000l., at an interest of 4½ per cent, had been suffered to pass by the Government; and the only possible reason for rejecting such offers must have been in the circumstance that they proceeded from the relative of the noble Lord. Would the noble Lord now state if it was within his moral competence, as certainly it was within his legal competence, to accept the proposition which had since been made to effect the improvements in question, which had the complete approval of the Commissioners?
§ VISCOUNT MORPETH, in reply to the first question, had to state, that the delay which at first arose in prosecuting the works connected with the Chelsea embankments resulted from obstacles found in the Act, which prohibited the commencement of the work until certain agreements had been entered into on the part of the proprietors and owners of the land abutting on the Thames. Negotiations with those proprietors had been entered into; but the attention of the law officers attached to his (Lord Morpeth's) department had recently been so completely taken up with important Bills under discussion in the House, that they had been unable to facilitate the prosecution of this desirable undertaking. For the future, however, he could assure the hon. Baronet that no effort would be wanting to expedite the business.
§ LORD J. RUSSELL, in reply to the second question, stated, that though the hon. Baronet was correct as to the facts, he had drawn a wrong inference in sup- 413 posing the Government had any legal power to accept the offers which had been made. They had taken into consideration the amount which the coal duties were at present charged, and they could not have effected the improvements suggested without subjecting those duties to a considerably increased charge. It would further have been necessary to introduce a Bill for that purpose; and in and out of office he had always heard the opinion expressed that this was a decidedly objectionable source from which to derive the money. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had discussed the matter with him; they considered the question fairly and impartially; and it was from no fear of being attacked for undue favour to his relative, but because of the general principle involved, that he had rejected the offer. The same answer, therefore, would be given to the Duke of Grafton.
§ SIR R. H. INGLISdid not consider it would have been conferring any undue favour to accept the terms of the Duke of Bedford.