THAMES EMBANKMENT BILL. (Hansard, 18 July 1853)

§ SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH
said, he promised the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Locke), that on moving that the House go into Committee on this Bill, he would make a statement with regard to it. In 1845, the Royal Commissioners for Metropolitan Improvements, in their second and fifth Reports, recommended that a new park should be formed in Battersea Fields, and that, in connexion with it, a 429 bridge should be built across the Thames at Chelsea, and that a new street communicating with Lower Sloane-street should be made on the embankment from Vauxhall-bridge to Battersea-bridge, and along that embankment a road was to be made about two miles long. In consequence of this Report, in 1846 two Acts were passed—one to make a park in Battersea Fields, and the other to empower the Commissioners of Works to make a bridge at Chelsea, and to make an embankment from Vauxhall to Battersea. For the making of the bridge and the new street, the Commissioners were empowered to borrow 120,000l. from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, which was to be repaid partly by means of a general rate, and partly by contributions from persons whose property would thus be improved. Those contributions were not to be commenced till agreements, approved of by the Treasury, had been entered into by the parties whose property was to be improved. The time for making those agreements would expire on the 1st of August next, and one object of the Bill was to extend the time till July next year. The bridge at Chelsea was in process of construction, but the embankment had not been commenced, except a portion of it which had been commenced by Mr. Cubitt, in consequence of a quasi agreement with the Commissioners of Works. The estimate for the bridge was 70,000l., and for the embankment and new street, 146,000l., making 216,000l. altogether. It was expected that 62,000l. would be received partly from persons whose property would be improved, and partly from the resale of property along the embankment and the new street. The net expenditure, therefore, would be 154,000l., in return for which it was expected there would be a net income from tolls on the bridge, and from the piers, amounting to about 6,600l. a year, making a return of about four per cent on the outlay. The park of Battersea would be comparatively of little use to the inhabitants on the north bank of the Thames, unless there was a bridge at Chelsea; and the bridge would be of little use to it unless approaches were made to it from the east and west, from Vauxhall-bridge and Battersea. The embankment and roadway would be of the greatest benefit to the public; and he considered that they ought to be sanctioned by Parliament.

§ MR. LOCKE
said, that the observations he made the other night were not intended 430 to throw any obstacle in the way of the proposed improvements. What he objected to was, the bringing forward of measures of this kind, without at the same time producing an estimate of the expense. They were now told for the first time that the new works would cost 216,000l. It was not his intention to object to that expenditure, but he desired to know whether the funds were now forthcoming, or whether the operation of the Bill was to be delayed for another four years? He had received communications from various parties, complaining that their property had been hung up since 1846, and he really thought that something decisive should now be done in the matter.

§ SIR DE LACY EVANS
said, he agreed with the sentiments expressed with regard to this Bill by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Locke). He ohjected to the plan for creating a new turnpike under this Bill.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, he thought it was utterly impossible to know what changes were contemplated by this Bill, until a map or plan of the proposed works was submitted to the House.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, he believed there was but one feeling amongst the inhabitants of the metropolis with regard to improvements, and if the representative system were introduced into the metropolitan districts, he was satisfied that the public would be ready cheerfully to agree to an improvement rate. He thought it was extremely impolitic in the present day to create a bridge toll by this Bill.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he hoped the Government would listen to the objections that had been urged against establishing a toll bridge in this instance, and would therefore, desist from pressing that part of the measure. It was contrary to the direction of public feeling in the present day to be creating new tolls upon bridges, when they were doing away with the tolls upon turnpike trusts.