§ Mr. Waltersaid, that the subject to which he would now beg leave to call the attention of the House, and that of the Speaker particularly, involved the most essential privilege of that House. It might perhaps be recollected, that he mentioned some time ago, the rumour, that an advance of money to a certain Company, called the Thames Tunnel Company, had been made by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) then suspended his further proceeding, by promising to show him any document existing in his department that might explain the matter. The right hon. Gentleman had obligingly fulfilled his engagement; and the result had been, that the suspicions which he (Mr. Walter) originally entertained had been fully verified, and that money had been obtained under the authority of the House, but absolutely without its knowledge. His first impression was, to ask for the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the affair; but finding that this mode of proceeding would certainly be opposed—why, he could not tell, though it added to his surprise—he now felt it his duty to bring the subject before the House; and he trusted he might not improperly do so on a Motion for going into a Committee of Supply. He would briefly read a statement of this transaction, which had ended in a Bill empowering the Treasury to lend to this Company the sum of 270,000l. The first application made to the Treasury was in the year 1828. The Directors stated, that they had then completed nearly one-half of the work under the bed of the river, but that the work was stopped for want of funds, and they prayed for such aid as to their Lordships' wisdom might seem meet. The minute of the Treasury replied to this, that their Lordships did not feel that they would be justified in proposing to Parliament to afford assistance to enable the Directors to complete the work. The next step 401 taken to which he had to refer was a series of Resolutions passed at a public meeting in July, 1829. One of those Resolutions stated that the sum of 170,000l. was the total of the expenditure to that time; and that the sum of 200,000l. more, which the Directors, under the authority of a second Act of Parliament, had been permitted to raise, did appear to the meeting to promise to be more than equal to all the future probable exigences of the work. He would here mention that the Company, in their first Act, had considered 160,000l. as the probable amount of making the said tunnel, and other works and conveniences necessary thereto. This further sum of 200,000l. it was proposed to raise by donations, and debentures of 20l. and upwards. The Duke of Wellington very liberally subscribed 500l., and right hon. Gentlemen then in office with his Grace also subscribed largely. Soon afterwards the Secretary of the Company wrote to the Treasury, begging them to remit the Stamp-duty of 1l. 15s., to which the debentures were liable. With this request also their Lordships very properly refused compliance. The public did not respond to the call made upon them for donations or debentures, and this plan failed.
Mr. Francis Baringrose to order. He confessed he was rather taken by surprise by the course which had been pursued by the hon. Member. There was no notice on the Orders of the Day on the subject of his Motion; and his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was altogether unaware that such a discussion as the present would come on this evening.
§ Mr. Waltersaid, it was no fault of his that the notice he had given on this subject did not appear on the Orders of the Day. He inquired of the Clerk, several days ago, why it had not been repeated; and was told, that it should appear in time for the Committee of Supply. He had also been informed this morning by a gentleman connected (as we understood) with the Government whose name he would not mention, that he would have an opportunity this evening of bringing forward his Motion. Under these circumstances he should persevere. The next application to the Treasury for aid was in March 1831. The Company stated, that they had completed 600 feet of the tunnel, leaving only 700 yet to be constructed; that they had then, expended 182,000l.; 402 and that the cost of completing the remainder of the undertaking, according to the most liberal estimate, would not exceed 300,000l. They then, in order to raise this sum, offered to mortgage to the Government their future tolls, which they estimated at 15,000l. a-year. They referred to an interview they had had with the Duke of Wellington and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in March, 1829. The answer which was returned to them by the Treasury, on the 20th of May, 1829, stated that there were no funds, nor did the Government intend to place any, at the disposal of the Commissioners for making advances for public works—nor did the Government consider it would be proper to depart from that intention in favour of this particular work. It appeared, however, that the Duke of Wellington, notwithstanding his previous refusal, had been further pressed upon the subject; for his Grace was stated to have replied in a letter of the 27th of May, 1829, to some application, that on considering the matter with his colleagues, they had thought it best not to bring the matter before Parliament that year, either in the way of aid direct from the Treasury, or by lottery (of which a plan had been suggested to his Grace for this purpose); but his Grace added, that he thought it probable they should be enabled to bring the subject forward in the next Session. His Grace, however, though he remained in office during the next Session, did not bring forward the subject, but subscribed his own money in the manner mentioned. The reply of the Treasury, on the 19th of April, 1831, was highly proper: the parties were informed, that the Lords were not disposed to recommend or sanction any application to Parliament for pecuniary assistance. In October of the same year, 1831, the Directors again memorialized the Treasury; they again said, that nearly half the work was completed; that only 255,000l. was wanted to finish it; that they were authorized by the proprietors to apply to the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer-bills in aid of public works for that sum, and to give such securities as might be required, on the property, estate, effects, tolls, and revenue of the Company—on condition, however, that the proprietors should not be made personally liable to any further advance for completing the undertaking, in case the expense of the same should exceed the 403 aforesaid estimate for such completion. The Lords of the Treasury directed that the parties should be informed, that it would be premature on the part of the Lords to express an opinion till the object came recommended by the Commissioners for the loan of Exchequer bills.—In November, 1832, the Directors transmitted a new memorial to the Treasury, enclosing a Bill prepared by their solicitor, to be presented, next Session, to extend the period of their powers, and introducing a clause giving sufficient authority to the Exchequer-bill Commissioners to make such advances as the nature of the undertaking might require. This memorial was endorsed "Thames Tunnel Company, for the sanction of the Crown to a Clause in the Bill authorizing the loan of Exchequer-Bills without requiring personal security for the same." The answer to this last memorial was, that the Company were at liberty to introduce the Clause, but that it must be so framed as not to commit the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, or the Treasury, in their final determination.—The Bill introduced into Parliament, to which he referred at the outset, passed the House in August 1833, but nothing was done upon it till July, 1834, when a new memorial was sent in, praying the Treasury to send a warrant to the Exchequer-bill Commissioners, authorizing them to issue Exchequer-bills, or advance money, to the memorialists, to the extent of 246.000l., upon the security mentioned in the said Act, to be repaid with interest, commencing when tolls should begin to be taken, out of the annual profits. The Lords of the Treasury hereupon requested the opinion of the Commissioners for the loan of Exchequer-bills as to the arrangements which should be thought necessary, in case their Lordships should be disposed to exercise the discretion vested in them. The Commissioners in reply, advised that the advances should be first applied in completing the most hazardous part of the undertaking: they recommended that the money should be given by instalments, and the progress of the works watched as they consumed the instalments; but the Commissioners were wholly silent as to any investigation into the nature of the securities offered, feeling themselves, no doubt, precluded by the wording of the Act from instituting such an inquiry. He was justified in forming this conjecture, because he knew that in September, 1831, 404 they refused the application of the Company for 250,000l., and also a second application in September, 1833,for 270,000l. The final minute of the Treasury is dated October 10th, 1834, wherein the Lords did at last authorize the issue of 30,000l. Such were the proceedings of the Treasury. He now came to show the manner in which the positive refusals and protracted reluctance of the Treasury and the Exchequer-bill Commissioners to part with any money upon such a scheme had been baffled and overcome by the unfortunate, and what he might call the unconscious intervention of Parliament. A very few days after the meeting of the first Reformed Parliament, viz., on the 19th of February, 1833, the first step was taken; and he (Mr. Walter) should read the history from the Journals, for he had no information except from that source; —1833, February 19th, Petition of the Thames Tunnel Company, praying leave to bring in a Bill to amend, extend, and enlarge the powers and provisions of the former Acts, and to enable the Company to raise a further sum of money. To be referred to a Committee, Mr. Gillon, &c., and to have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—March 22. Mr. Hawes presented a Bill to amend the Acts relating to the Thames Tunnel Company, and to extend the powers thereby given for raising money for the completion of the said Tunnel. And the same was read the first time.—April 1. A Bill to amend the Acts relating to the Thames Tunnel Company, and to extend the powers thereby given for the completion of the said Tunnel, was read a second time and committed to Mr. Hawes, &c.—May 17. The Bill, with several amendments, was reported, and the Report ordered to lie on the Table. After this the Bill appeared to have been, what was called, "hung up" till August, with what view he (Mr. Walter) would leave the House to judge: in August, however, and amidst the hurry and confusion of a closing Session, the Bill was got through. He must now recur to that date when the second reading took place—viz., the 1st of April; and he would read an extract from Hansard's Parliamentary Debates:— "Monday, April 1, 1833. The Thames Tunnel.—Sir E. Codrington presented a Petition from the proprietors of the Thames Tunnel, praying for aid to enable them to complete that work. The petitioners said they 405 had already expended 170,000l. in prosecuting it, and had surmounted difficulties which were never contemplated. They had already shown the practicability of the undertaking, and the only difficulty now was the want of funds. If Government would purchase the property, or allow it to be sold by lottery, the petitioners would be happy to meet such a proposition.— The Speaker inquired the prayer of the petition, and on being informed what it prayed for, he decided that, before it could be received, the sanction of the Government must be given. Petition withdrawn." * Having always had a very great suspicion of this undertaking, he (Mr. Walter) watched to see whether a new petition would be brought forward; but hearing nothing further, his vigilance was disarmed; for he could not have the least idea that a private Bill to effect the same object had been already read a second time. Early in March this year he first heard of the advance of 30,000l. of the public money. For some time he did not believe it possible, but then took the steps he had already mentioned. The money which had been advanced, and which he had no doubt was lost, was not of so much consequence as the deviation from the established law of Parliament. He believed it to be the rule of the House that money should not be granted without the leave of the House; and this Bill, authorizing the payment of 270,000l., had been got through totally without the knowledge of the House, under the disguise of a private Bill. To talk about security was ridiculous. The parties were screened from liability themselves, and the country was told it might have the works, which would be totally unproductive. A tunnel might be made, no doubt, in various ways, but at what expense? Nearly 200,000l. had been already wasted; 270,000l. more were asked for by the Act in question; and when that was spent he would venture to say that another 270,000l. would then be found necessary for its completion. He stated this on no light authority. The money already given was totally thrown away, unless the House were content to vote at least half a million more for this project, which was carrying on, in more senses than one, in the dark; respecting which the Government had no information whatever, except such as it
* Hansard, (third series) vol. xvi, p. 133.406 derived from the parties receiving the money, and who had been misleading the public from the very commencement of the undertaking. He could not conceive that the House would knowingly make such an improvident grant of the public money while so much general distress was diffused over the agricultural interest of the country. He thought that a considerable part of the money already advanced might yet be recovered, if the right hon. Gentleman would act with promptitude, and grant a Committee. That would be the most effectual mode of proceeding. He at least trusted that the discussion which might take place would put an end to any other draughts on the public purse. Before he sat down he would read a communication which he had received from a gentleman who took a great interest in the building London-bridge, and who firmly believed the proposed tunnel would never be completed. "They had not yet got," he said, "to the worst part of the river. Experience obtained in building the new London and Southwark-bridges had proved that the soil on the northern side of the river is springy, liable to quicksand, and in every respect more dangerous and difficult to work than the southern or Surrey side, on which the work has been commenced. To insure a reasonable prospect of success the tunnel ought to have been made several feet deeper. The work never could be accomplished without coffer-dams, and there is no timber long enough to make the piles in that part of the river. Timber from fifty-five to sixty feet long might be obtained fit for that purpose, but not longer, and it was with the greatest difficulty that timber of a sufficient length was obtained for the coffer-dams at new London-bridge. A Committee to examine practical engineers would be very desirable. The coffer-dams would cost all the money at present advanced, and would interrupt the passage of the river, if not wholly stop it." Another individual had informed him, that when the water broke in, there were only about seven feet of soil between the tunnel and the wash of the river. The most difficult part remained to be done. The channel of the river was on the Middlesex side. The tunnel was therefore about to approach a part of the river deeper than that under which it was at present, and therefore with less soil to cover the tunnel. The hon. Member concluded by moving 407 for—"a copy of any document under the authority of which the advance of the sum of 30,000l. has been made to the Thames Tunnel Company; and for copies of the Reports, if any, of professional persons, made before the money was advanced, respecting the existing state of the tunnel, the estimated cost of completing the same, and the probability of future repayment."
§ Mr. Hawessaid, that as one of the Directors of that Company which had engaged in the undertaking with reference to which the speech of the hon. Member for Berkshire had just been made, he felt himself called upon to trouble the House with one or two observations, for the purpose of giving a direct answer to the extraordinary statement which had just been addressed to them, in the course of which allusion had been made to the question put a few days ago to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Not having been in the House on that occasion, it was out of his power then to have said anything in the way of reply, but, had he been present, he certainly should have said that which he now felt bound to state—namely, that the hon. Member for Berkshire might, if he wished, have obtained the most full and accurate information from the books and papers of the Company, which were all open to him. He was told that every one of the books, that every document in the possession of the Company, was accessible, and that there was no information he could desire relating to their affairs that would not be cheerfully given. In reply to that offer they had not received the least communication from the hon. Member, and the only step which he thought proper to take in consequence of it, was to bring forward the present Motion, in a speech so full of details, or rather with the appearance of so much detail. He (Mr. Hawes) of course could not desire to address himself to that question otherwise than with the most perfect courtesy towards the hon. Member for Berkshire, but he felt bound by a sense of duty to affirm that the information upon which the speech of that hon. Member was made had not the slightest foundation. First, he thought it right to bring the matter forward on the ground of its being a breach of privilege, but having found it expedient not to rest entirely upon that ground, he complained of it as authorised by a Bill which had passed 408 through that House without his knowledge, which had escaped even his vigilance. Now, the hon. Member was altogether wrong if he supposed that the sums referred to had been advanced upon the authority of any individual Bill framed for that purpose. The circumstances of the case were these:—A sum of 1,000,000l. had been placed at the disposal of Commissioners, to be applied to the carrying on, or in aid of public works. Of that 1,000,000l. 30,000l. had been advanced on the usual terms, and under the sanction of the Treasury; he was, therefore, warranted in saying, that there was not the slightest irregularity in any part of the transaction. A motion for papers was in such a case peculiarly unnecessary, for no document whatever had been withheld, or would be withheld, from any person whatever applying on public grounds. The hon. Member who introduced the subject had complained that no professional persons were consulted. Such a complaint could hardly have been anticipated in the present state of the works, for one-half of them was completed. Where was the necessity of consulting professional men on a matter which had already been sufficiently investigated, and respecting which no fresh information could reasonably be expected? How could it be considered that there was any further necessity for professional inquiry, when the main difficulties had been overcome? There had been two irruptions of the river, and nevertheless the work advanced, there was therefore nothing more to apprehend. The hon. Mover had referred to the circumstance that the original estimate was 160,000l., that 270,000l. had been expended, and that half a million more would be necessary. In reply to that he should say, it was to be recollected that original estimates of such works as that must of necessity be in a great degree conjectural; that conjecture had now been superseded by fact; and they could at length feel assured that the remaining half of the work would not cost more than that which had been already executed. Notwithstanding this, however, they had asked for the larger sum, considering that it was best to err upon the safe side. The hon. Member concluded by repeating, that in the present case there was no breach of privilege, and there was no Bill passed without the knowledge of Members generally.
§ Sir Robert Peeldid not understand the hon. Gentleman opposite (the Member for Berkshire) as saying that any specific Bill had passed for the purpose of granting the sum mentioned to the Thames Tunnel Company.
§ Mr. Hawesbegged permission to interrupt the right hon. Baronet, and to appeal to the hon. Member for Berkshire himself as to the description he gave of the act under which it was alleged that the sum in question had been granted.
§ Mr. Waltersaid, he had the act in his pocket. It was the Thames Tunnel Act, and had received the Royal Assent on the 28th of August, 1833.
§ Sir Robert Peelobserved, that the hon. Member on the other side appeared to attach much more importance to the circumstance of the hon. Member for Berkshire not having gone to the office of the Company to inspect their books and papers than a matter of that sort appeared to deserve; it was surely no reflection on him that he had not done so, and it was perfectly natural that, as a Member of that House, he should now wish upon public grounds to obtain copies of public documents for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of money obtained, the terms upon which the advance was made, and the prospect which remained to the public of repayment, by the tolls or otherwise. As a Member of that House he had a right to call for that information, and to inquire the Parliamentary grounds of the whole proceeding. The hon. Member for Lambeth had attempted to answer the arguments on the subject of no engineers having been consulted in reference to the present grant, by saying that such a step had been rendered perfectly needless by reason of one-half of the work having been already completed, and that their knowledge of what that cost must necessarily enable them to know the probable cost of the remaining portion of the undertaking. Now, it was too much to assume that the cost of one portion of the work would not be greater than that of the other; surely such a mode of reasoning could not be expected to produce conviction in the minds of any hon. Member, and it was quite fitting that due inquiry should be made before a further advance of public money took place. Then, had not the House a right to obtain 410 some security, not only that the terms of the loan should be complied with, but that the undertaking itself would eventually be completed? For these reasons, he was quite of opinion that nothing could be more natural, more strictly Parliamentary, than the Motion of the hon. Member for Berkshire.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought that the speech of the hon. Mover had invited the discussion into which his hon. Friend behind him had entered; at the same time he fully acknowledged the right of inquiry. The House had every right to inquire how the money was to be applied, and what were the prospects as well of repayment as of the ultimate completion of the undertaking; and he, therefore, should not offer the slightest objection to the production of those documents for which the hon. Member for Berkshire moved; but he must be allowed to observe, that he thought the speech which the House had that night heard had much better been deferred until the requisition contained in the Motion was complied with. It would have been, in his opinion, much better to have put the House in possession of the documents first, and to have made the speech afterwards. Consenting to the Motion as he did without hesitation, he trusted he might be allowed to suggest, that its being moved as an Amendment to the question of going into a Committee of Supply was rather inconvenient; he trusted, therefore, that the hon. mover would consent to withdraw it for the present, with the understanding that, like all Motions made by consent, it might be brought on just before the rising of the house, when the hon. Gentleman would be allowed to make the Motion without opposition, or it would be made for him. He wished merely to add, that the grant to which the Motion referred was not made since he had received the appointment of Chancellor of the Exchequer, but in the time of his noble Friend Lord Spencer. He felt, however, that the grant was in every respect defensible; it was surely expedient not to leave so great a public undertaking incomplete; it would in his opinion, be a kind of national reproach if it were not finished; still he was ready to admit that those considerations did not of themselves form sufficient grounds, and therefore reports had been made respecting the previous expenditure as well as the probable amount of the future cost. 411 As to the conversation which took place respecting a breach of privilege, or the passing of a Bill for the purpose, he had only to say that the money was granted in the regular way of performing an ordinary official act.
§ Sir Robert Peelsaid, there were many cases in which advances of money might be made with a view to an ultimate effect of public importance, and he did not say but there might frequently be presented to the executive Government objects likely to produce great public benefits; but in such cases there could not be a doubt that the opinion of Parliament ought to be taken, and the nature and the value of the undertaking, as well as the probabilities of repayment, should be submitted to the House. It was certainly his opinion, that when money was required for public purposes it would be dangerous to admit the practice of having it granted by orders from the Exchequer without giving Parliament any opportunity to judge of the prospects of repayment.
§ Mr. Waltersaid, the Commissioners appointed for the loan of Exchequer-bills on security of public works had twice refused any money to the Thames Tunnel Company—first in September, 1831, and next in September, 1833. The sum now granted, it appeared, had been obtained under the authority of an act of Parliament, of which he would venture to say that ninety-nine Members out of every hundred had no knowledge whatever. As to the offer that had been made to him, respecting an opportunity of inspecting books, papers, &c, he certainly had not availed himself of that offer by the hon. Member for Lambeth, for he preferred going to the fountain head, and he had taken all the pains in his power to verify the statements he had made, by reference to the most authentic sources of information; he, therefore, felt confident that they could not successfully be impugned; but it appeared to him best, after what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to adopt that right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. He would, therefore, withdraw the Motion for the present, as its object would be attained at a more advanced hour of the evening.—Motion postponed.
On the Question, "that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,"