SECOND READING. (Hansard, 28 May 1861)

MR. COWPER
said, he felt bound to 183 call the attention of the House to this Bill. It was generally agreed that an embankment along the Thames was desirable which should be open to all passengers; but the Bill before the House was a proposal of a railway company, to take possession of that embankment and make a railway upon it and levy tolls upon passengers. They proposed to get their capital partly by shares, partly by taking £400,000 out of the funds of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and partly from a Vote of Parliament. The clause on which this proposition was embodied was a curiosity in its way, and was worth reading. It ran thus— It shall be lawful for Her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests to contribute, out of any money which Parliament may vote for the purpose, and to apply such sum of money as shall be sufficient to defray the expenses of compensation. The Government was to buy the land, and give the company as much as they wanted for their railway—a most convenient mode of proceeding for the company; but one which ought not to be adopted without the assent of the Executive Government. He was unwilling to take a hostile part on the subject of a private Bill, but he thought that in allowing such a clause to be passed they would be admitting a precedent which might have a very injurious effect. He, therefore, thought that it would be the duty of the House not to allow it to be read a second time. Another reason was, that a Commission had boon appointed to examine into the subject and had not yet made its report, and if the Bill should pass there could be no action upon the Report of that Commission. He, therefore, moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he was informed that the right lion. Gentleman himself was mainly responsible for these objectionable clauses being in the Bill, and that the right hon. Gentleman had encouraged the promoters to insert them. [Mr. COWER: No. no!] He believed that the principle upon which the Bill was founded was the only principle upon which there was the least chance of getting an embankment of the Thames without jobbing, without intriguing, and at a definite expense. If perfect irresponsible Royal Commissions 184 were to go in search of schemes, and prepare for themselves permanent occupation, there would be no end to the cost and no end to the work. Westminster bridge had been in course of building for years, and the outlay had been enormous, while Victoria bridge had been completed by a railway company in about a year for £95,000, or just the expenditure which had been made on Blackfriars bridge to repair it, as it was called, but really to prepare it for demolition. The principle of the Bill was recommended by the Committee of 1856, and he hoped the House would allow it to be read a second time, although he quite concurred with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be most inconvenient to adopt the clauses in the Bill to which their attention had been directed.

§ LORD FERMOY
said, the embankment of the Thames was a most important—indeed almost a national—question, and they ought to deal with it in a proper manner. By the Bill, however, a private company proposed to deal with public money. He feared that such a proposal would result in jobbing. Again, a Commission was sitting, and about to report. Surely the House had better wait and see the report before deciding whether they would proceed by means of a private or a public Bill. It would be injudicious to allow these parties to occupy the ground, because, even if they decided in favour of a private Bill, it did not follow that the London, Chatham, and Dovor was the company who ought to carry out the work.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, the Select Committee which sat last year upon the subject carefully abstained from expressing any opinion either in favour or against a railway being carried on the top of the embankment. The Bill before them was a Railway Bill, and if the railway was struck out it would be entirely destroyed. He should be extremely sorry if the House, by giving the Bill a second reading, pledged itself to the principle that the embankment should not be carried out except through the agency of a railway company, and he should, therefore, vote for the Amendment.

LORD HENRY LENNOX
said, the company did not bind themselves to carry out the details as embodied in the Bill, but were quite willing to leave them to the decision of the Government. As he had charge of the Bill he should put the House to the trouble of dividing in order to show upon whom rested the responsibility of 185 withholding from the Metropolis a work of great public utility.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, there was danger in the House going to a division without understanding the real facts of the case. He must deny that the Government had been at all remiss in the matter. The Select Committee appointed to inquire into the subject recommended that the embankment should be executed under the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that the expense should come out of the London coal dues, so that no additional charge should be placed on the Exchequer. The Government lost no time in acting on that recommendation, and there was no remissness or supineness on their part. They issued a Royal Commission to inquire into the best plan for the embankment, and he himself brought in a Bill, the object of which was to appropriate the coal dues to that object. That question was now pending for the decision of the House. If the House decided in favour of the present proposal they would create a nominal company, which would not mainly be supported by the subscriptions of the shareholders, but by a large subsidy, to be provided by prospective Votes of the House, and by large contributions in the shape of rates upon the Metropolis, to be raised by the compulsory powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Such a decision would not only amount to the virtual rejection of the Government measure, but be totally unprecedented.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, he would beg to ask the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill if he had any objection to postpone the second reading until the Commission had presented their Report.

LORD HENRY LENNOX
said, he would agree to that suggestion.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the Bill was so objectionable in principle, placing, as it did, a large sum of public money at the disposal of a private company, that he could not assent to the course proposed.