§ MR. BENTINCKsaid, he desired to put a Question to the Chief Commissioner of Works on the subject of the Royal Commission appointed to examine into plans for Embanking the River Thames within the Metropolis. When he read the announcement in the Gazette of the 26th of February, that the Lord Mayor and Colonel Jebb and others were to be Her Majesty's Commissioners for that purpose, it occurred to him that it was a subject which required some explanation in that House, because he did not think that money should be taken from the pockets of the taxpayers generally and applied to the improvements of the Metropolis. The Commissioners appointed in 1844 re- 1226 ported that nothing could be done in embanking the Thames. In 1845, a Select Committee was appointed on the subject of metropolitan communications, and they reported that until a comprehensive metropolitan authority were established to give effect to all improvements little could be done. Now, it was quite clear that the Committee were of opinion that works of this description should be entrusted to a Board of Works, and not to the Government. Moreover, they were of opinion that the costs of public improvements should be defrayed out of a local rate, to be levied upon the metropolitan districts. The House had also received the Report of a Select Committee on the Thames Embankment which showed that certain Commissioners had spent £8,836 in preparing plans and doing other things without arriving at any result, for eminent engineers pronounced their plan to be utterly impracticable. The new Commission would only arrive at the same result. He objected, however, to their appointment, as being at variance with the principle that London ought to be at the expense of its own improvements. He wished, therefore, to ask the right hon Gentleman, On what ground he had been induced to sanction the appointment of a Royal Commission, and whether the expenses of the Commission would be defrayed from the Imperial Treasury?
MR. COWPERThe remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bentinck) may encourage the desire of some hon. Gentlemen in this House to resuscitate the ancient country party, and in antagonism with the towns and the Metropolis. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no ground for the objection be has made in this instance. If my hon. Friend means that no Commissions should issue but those that are of universal application to the whole of the country, that is a proposition which is unsupported by past or present custom. For instance, the last Commission had reference to the salmon fisheries of England, and I will ask whether the hon. Gentleman's constituents care more for the interests of those who possess salmon fisheries than for a great improvement and convenience to the Metropolis. Most of the Royal Commissions, although they have reference to matters of public importance, have objects of a limited and local application, such as medical charities, public roads, universities, and harbours. With regard to this Commission, there can be no doubt that it is 1227 a matter of very great public importance, although it is partial in its application. Last year a Committee of this House was appointed to consider the embankment of the Thames. They recommended the source from which the funds for its construction should be derived—namely, the continuation of the coal duties; and they recommended that the works should be executed by the Metropolitan Board of Works. But, although the Committee investigated all the plans submitted to them for making an admirable embankment, they expressed no opinion as to which was the best, and they naturally felt themselves unfitted for the very difficult and delicate task of deciding upon the plans in detail. Now, it seems to me that a body of scientific engineers and of other well qualified persons to examine into the best plan of embankment is just what is required to complete the labours of the Committee of last year. This Commission is not to be expensive, because these gentlemen, highly competent as they are, have given their services gratuitously. The expenses of the Commission will, therefore, be confined to the ordinary expenditure of a secretary and the necessary stationery. There are special reasons why a Commission should be appointed in the present case, because the property required for the embankment is to a great extent Crown property. The foreshore is the property of the Crown, and about one-third of the frontage of the proposed embankment also belongs to the Crown. Before, therefore, the Crown can be asked to accede to the proposed embankment it is not unreasonable that means should be taken to ascertain that the plan proposed is the best that can be adopted. I do not think it follows as a matter of course that, because previous Commissions have failed, the present should not succeed. On the contrary, I have observed that one inquiry frequently prepares the way for the success of a future one. So the last Commission led to an improvement upon the plans of Mr. Walker, Mr. Page, and others, proposed in former years. The evil to be dealt with has been experienced by every Member of this House who has had occasion to pass from Charing Cross to the City and has found the great thoroughfares so blocked up that it is quicker to go on foot than in a carriage. If, therefore, Borne plan can be suggested whereby a spacious thoroughfare can be supplied; if we can obtain a great im- 1228 provement of the navigation, and if we can place the low level sewer so as not to cause obstruction to the traffic of Fleet Street, these are matters of sufficient importance and public interest to justify the slight expense of this Commission. I agree with the recommendation of the Committee that the execution should be given to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that the payment of the works should be made out of some local funds. It will be necessary, of course, for this House to intervene for the execution of any plan. The Government must intervene, because Crown property is taken; and where that is the case the matter is always more or less brought under the responsibility of the Government. The Commissioners will, I have no doubt, select a good plan; and we shall then, I trust, find no difficulty in carrying out this great public improvement.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, bethought the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bentinck) deserved the thanks of the House for bringing the subject under notice. He did not approve of the manner in which it had been treated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper). The arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman were, he thought, quite indefensible. One reason which the right hon. Gentleman had given for appointing the Commission was the fact that the property in the foreshore belonged to the Crown; but he seemed to have forgotten that, two years ago, an Act of Parliament took the foreshore out of the Crown and placed it under the charge of the Conservancy of the River Thames. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Crown had property on the banks of the river, but that was leased to parties, in many cases, for long periods. The Crown was, therefore, only in the position of an ordinary landowner, and ought to have left the question to the local administration. It appeared, however, that the right hon. Gentleman, for the gratification of the office of the Board of Works, was anxious to wrest from the local administration that authority which Parliament had taken from the Board of Works because it had shown itself unable to discharge it. The Committee of last year had recommended that this question should be left to the local administration. [Mr. COWPER: No; only the construction.] The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the Metropolitan Board of Works were only to be the board of masons to carry out his ideas. It was, however, of the essence of local administration that 1229 it should have the initiation of such projects, and that they should not be driven against their will into the adoption of any fanciful project. The adoption of what was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be the reversal of the whole policy towards which the House has been tending with great advantage for some years past, and a return to the wretched system which prevailed some years ago. And could anything be more mischievous than to refer an important subject of the kind to a mere dilettante Commission, who were not to be paid, and who, therefore, would have no responsibility? A Report would be issued by them, and then thousands of pounds would be paid to engineers and scientific men for their opinions upon how it should be carried out, and then it would end, as such matters always did end, by it being declared that the plan sanctioned by the Commission was utterly worthless and impracticable. It should be remembered, too, that the Thames embankment was but one of many works involving in the whole an amount of something like £15,0O0,0UO; and the inhabitants of the Metropolis who had to pay the money, had a right to have the question determined which was the most important. According to the Report of the Committee which investigated the whole subject, the Thames embankment was not the most important. Everybody was aware how much the thoroughfares into the City were obstructed, and that their improvement was the first necessity, while the Thames embankment concerned only some gentlemen living in Westminster, and a very small portion of the ratepayers. If this Commission were to act he hoped that not only the cost of the Commission, but of the whole embankment, would be paid out of the public revenue.