§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee.
§ Clause 34 (Plans and Elevations of Buildings fronting River to be submitted to First Commissioner of Works).
LORD JOHN MANNEESmoved that that clause be struck out. The Committee were, perhaps, aware that this Clause did not appear in the original draft of the Bill, and was only carried in the Select Committee by a majority of one. He objected to it on principle. It contained a principle utterly opposed to that which had hitherto guided Parliament in dealing with measures connected with other departments of the State. Parliament had wisely sought to establish responsibility by concentrating authority. The present clause, however, proposed to give the First Commissioner of Works power over the Metropolitan Board in relation to certain works connected with the proposed embankment. That was a species of double government or authority which Parliament had abolished in reference to the War Department, with respect to India, and in other departments. He was sorry to differ with his hon. Friend the Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. K. Seymer), who was its author, as to the merits of this clause. To say the least of it, it would establish a principle which would necessarily place the First Commissioner of Public Works, in an invidious position. The Metropolitan Board of Works, who were charged with the execution of a most gigantic undertaking, were nevertheless to be held incompetent to decide upon the colour of the seat, or the design of the drinking fountains to be placed on the line of embankment. Now, in his opinion, 1505 the Board were much more likely to study the public taste than any gentleman filling the office of Chief Commissioner, whose interference in such matters would very probably be viewed as vexatious and inconvenient. The Metropolitan Board of Works was now intrusted with the execution of some of the largest and most important engineering works of modern times. Upon what grounds, then, should it be controlled in carrying out the embellishments of the intended embankment by the unnecessary interference of the First Commissioner. He contended that nothing had been done by the Metropolitan Board since they had been enabled by the Legislature to proceed with the most important engineering work of modern times to warrant the suspicion that in carrying out the Thames Embankment they would propose anything in the way of ornament which would necessarily subject them to the vexatious interference of the First Commissioner. It was impossible to say that they had not fully and satisfactorily discharged the great duties intrusted to them, and it was too bad to assume that they were unequal to the ornamentation, however slight, of the few miles of embankment which they were to be called upon to construct out of metropolitan funds, and for which they were to be held responsible. But the clause was not only against all principle—it was also against all experience. The veto imposed upon the Metropolitan Board in 1855 produced nothing but ill-will, jealousy, litigation, controversy, and failure: and in 1858 Parliament was obliged to abolish it, though not before it had cost the public some £12,000 or £13,000. Since its abolition the Metropolitan Board had done its work well and satisfactorily. He objected to the clause, moreover, because it was in direct antagonism with the preamble, which declared the expediency of intrusting the Metropolitan Board with the execution of the proposed embankment and all the works connected with it. The preamble, in effect, stated that it was expedient the Metropolitan Board of Works should be empowered to form a certain embankment on the Thames from Black-friars Bridge to Westminster Bridge. Under the 35th clause a lessee was compelled, most properly, to obtain the sanction of the Metropolitan Board of Works to the plans of any building he might propose to erect. But under the joint operation of the two clauses, the 34th and the 35th, an unfortunate lessee must obtain the double 1506 sanction, first of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and secondly of the First Commissioner of Works. One might sanction, the other might refuse, and thus there might be a conflicting authority, which might lead to confusion, delay, and expense, which might prevent the progress of the works for years. He protested against this kind of piecemeal legislation; and, however it might have been some years ago, he thought there was nothing in the present circumstances of the metropolis to justify the House of Commons in frittering away responsibility or in imposing a vexatious restraint on the fair action of the Metropolitan Board of Works, whose members, whether elected by the best constituency or not, were the legitimate representatives of the taxpayers of the metropolis, who were carrying out and paying for a great metropolitan improvement. He begged to move the omission of that clause.
§ LORD FERMOYentirely concurred in what had been stated by the noble Lord opposite. He could not be a party to this clause, either in the sense of passing an indirect censure upon the Metropolitan Board of Works, or for more substantial reasons. The works were to be carried on by funds supplied by the coal and wine duties. If the land reclaimed from the river were saddled by too many conditions, its value would be proportionately reduced, because persons proposing to become lessees would take this into account, and offer a smaller sum. He congratulated the noble Lord opposite on his able and fair vindication of the character of the Metropolitan Board of Works as a representative body, and he hoped that the First Commissioner of Works would get up in his place and inform the Committee that in his opinion the matter might be safely left in the hands of the body which had so far successfully carried out the stupendous works connected with the drainage of the metropolis, and with so little unpopularity among those who had to defray the expense.
§ MR. KER SEYMERbegged permission to clear the First Commissioner from all participation in the introduction of this clause. When the Bill was referred to the Select Committee, he (Mr. Ker Seymer) went carefully over it, and arrived at the conclusion that some such clause was necessary. He therefore proposed it for the adoption of the Committee; and though he was sorry to be opposed by one who 1507 spoke on these matters with the authority of the noble Lord, he had not been convinced by his arguments, and should therefore now take the sense of the Committee on its retention. He must add, however, that when he first introduced the clause, it was with no wish to disparage the character or the usefulness of the Metropolitan Board of Works, or to interfere vexatiously with their functions. He thought that this was an exceptional case, quite unusual, quite different, and quite distinct from the operations which generally fell under the control of that body. There were three objects in view —namely, a proper place for the low-level sewer, improved communication, and the ornamentation of the metropolis. The first two objects fell legitimately within the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works; the last should, he thought, be brought under the control of the Government and the House. He did not think that the Metropolitan Board had any cause to complain, seeing that the works were not, in fact, to be completed from funds raised from the ratepayers, but from the funds provided by the coal and wine duties. Every man, therefore, who ordered his wine of a London wine merchant contributed in some degree to the fund. He thought the men of taste were dangerous; but there was a class still more dangerous, and that was the men of no taste. He thought the men of no taste quite as expensive as the men of taste, and more dangerous. He therefore trusted that the clause would be assented to by the Committee.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, this was almost the only point upon which he had ventured to differ from his hon. Friend (Mr. K. Seymer) in the Committee. With regard to the absence of any opposition to the clause in the Committee by the counsel for the Metropolitan Board of Works, it arose from the feeling, that as the First Commissioner of Works was Chairman of the Committee, it was rather a delicate thing to oppose his having the veto given him by the clause. For his own part, he regretted that the clause was not opposed by the counsel for the Board, because, had it been, he believed the clause would never have received their sanction. He thanked the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Manners) for the manner in which he had brought the question forward. It came much better from his noble Friend than from any metropolitan Mem- 1508 ber. With respect to this question, the House of Commons had year after year decided that it would not contribute anything towards the improvement of the metropolis out of the Consolidated Fund: the works were therefore to be constructed by funds raised upon the metropolis by the wine and coal duties; and though it might be true that every one who ordered wine from a London wine merchant did to that extent contribute, yet the wine duties formed a very small portion indeed. The great bulk of the fund was raised by the coal dues, and was therefore directly contributed by the inhabitants of the metropolis represented by the Metropolitan Board of Works. Besides this argument for giving that Board full and final control over the works, he (Sir J. Shelley) objected to giving a veto to the First Commissioner, for the reason that Governments in this country were not very long-lived, and each First Commissioner would have his own taste in architecture; so that they would be able by the difference in style to tell when an admirer of the Gothic style was in office, and when an advocate of the Italian exercised the veto. He trusted that the House would support the Amendment of the noble Lord. He would put it to the Members for any large city or borough, such as Liverpool, Manchester, or Birmingham, how they would like such a proposal as that contained in this clause— namely, to give the First Commissioner of Works control over any local improvements made from local funds.
§ LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he entertained no very high opinion either of the Board of Works or of the Metropolitan Board so far as related to questions of economy or taste. The proposal under discussion was, he might add, simply one to saddle the citizens of London with the payment of a certain amount of money which the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner was to be at liberty to spend —a proposal to which, as one who lived principally in the metropolis, he for one decidedly objected. It was, in his opinion, quite an alarming power with which to invest the right hon. Gentleman at the expense of the coal-consumers of this large city, to say that he should be able to put his veto on works of utility merely because they did not suit his own particular architectural views. What, he should like to know, would the hon. Members for Manchester or Birmingham think of such a scheme if it were proposed to give it effect 1509 in the case of their constituents? For his own part, he must confess that after the speeches which he had heard that evening his distrust in "men of taste" was greater than ever, inasmuch as it was gravely contended that the question before the Committee was not to be regarded as one of money. He knew how terribly the London poor suffered in winter from the want of coal, the price of which was greatly enhanced to them by this duty. During the last winter the poor were paying at the rate of 35s. per ton for coal, when the highest price in the market was 24s.; and he could not therefore agree to inflict a burden on every poor man's hearth in order to enable a First Commissioner of Works to indulge in his architectural caprices.
MR. COWPERthought the noble Lord's anxious appeal on behalf of economy was particularly misplaced, inasmuch as that question was not in any degree involved in this clause. He did not himself propose the clause, but he listened most attentively to the debate in Select Committee upon it, and he felt that the arguments of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire were conclusive for inserting the clause in the Bill. The object of the clause was to secure some unity of design and harmonious arrangement in the buildings that were hereafter to face the Thames. Those who compared London with the more splendid Continental capitals would see that the great defect of our streets—especially of our older streets—was that they were not built on any general plan, but were left to the individual caprice of the owners of separate houses. A small house, for example, was found standing between two very tall ones, or a stuccoed house between two brick ones. They were not in a style which any variety could render picturesque, and their irregularities prevented the broad architectural effect which plain houses might produce when symmetrically arranged on a general plan. This clause was intended to remedy that defect, and would not make buildings any more expensive. The embankment, which was to be 100 feet wide, would be one of the great features of London. On the one side of the proposed quay would lie the river which was the pride of England, and on the other there would be a considerable extent of ornamental ground, and in some parts rows of houses, in terraces or streets. He thought it essential to the general architectural effect that those houses should be erected on some 1510 harmonious plan, and should not be left to the fancies of individuals. The noble Lord had spoken as if the First Commissioner of Works would have the power of preparing the plans for these houses. That was not so; the clause simply directed that the plans and elevations should be sent to him, and he would have the power of vetoing them within a month. He did not think the individual opinion of any First Commissioner of Works would be paramount in the matter, for they had daily experience of the fact that that Minister was responsible to that House in regard to such proceedings. Practically, therefore, this veto would be given to that House. The First Commissioner of Works would take the advice of competent architects, and the mere fact of the existence of the veto would probably insure that the whole block of houses should be erected on some general plan. The noble Lord seemed to forget that one great advantage of our constitutional system was, that it left no power or authority in the country without a check. Municipal corporations could not raise a loan without the sanction of the Treasury; and he did not think it would be any disparagement of the Metropolitan Board of Works that it should be subject to this veto. If he were to study his own individual convenience as First Commissioner of Works, he should be inclined to follow the laissez faire policy of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners), who in 1858 surrendered the control which the law then gave him over the main drainage of the metropolis. It was certainly no agreeable or pleasant tiling for a person who filled the office of First Commissioner to be intrusted with any power or duty which was likely to bring him in collision with any Members who represented the metropolis. If he thought that such a power would bring him in direct collision with the hon. Members for Westminster and the Tower Hamlets, who were always ready to oppose and obstruct any scheme introduced by the Government for the benefit and improvement of the metropolis, he certainly would not for a moment desire to possess that power, and especially when he remembered how during the last few days the hon. Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had seized upon every careless word or trifling act of his in order to found upon it some accusation against him. He utterly disregarded, of course, all attacks made upon him in the discharge of his public duty; and in supporting this clause, 1511 as First Commissioner, he did so because he believed it would be beneficial to the metropolis. Its only object, he repeated, was to secure a better architectural effect to what he believed would be the grandest and most magnificent thoroughfare in London. When the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) spoke about the chance of the coal tax being increased, he would remind him that the tax was already granted for ten years, and that the only question to be determined was how the money should be disposed of. If the money were not spent on this improvement, it would be on others; but he thought that it could not be better expended than in the way proposed.
§ MR. CRAWFORDhad listened with regret to the right lion. Gentleman's attempt to reintroduce personalities which by this time he had hoped might have been buried and forgotten, and which were unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman's position. He (Mr. Crawford) had voted against the hon. Member (Mr. Ker Seymer) in Committee, and he had since heard nothing to induce him to alter his opinion; on the contrary, he had heard a great deal in the speech of the First Commissioner of Works to induce him to vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners). The clause proposed that no ground plan or elevation of the buildings to be erected should be adopted which had not for one month previous been submitted for the approval of the First Commissioner of Works. The clause did not say what was to be done if the First Commissioner disapproved of the plan; and he believed, that even if no disapproval were communicated to the parties proposing to construct these buildings, they would incur a certain amount of risk if they proceeded to build after the month had expired. The clause, too, he apprehended, would have a continuous operation; so that, for all time to come, whether these buildings remained as frontages or not, no person owning land on the ground so reclaimed would have the power to build without the approval of the First Commissioner of Works. It was even proposed in Committee to give the First Commissioner the same power in regard to the new street in the City of London; so that no one would have been able to build a new shop or warehouse in the new street without coming to the First Commissioner for his consent. Fortunately, that proviso had been abandoned in the Committee. They were told that this was a national ques- 1512 tion, and that the nation took a pride in the beauty and magnificence of the metropolis. If so, let the nation contribute towards the expense, instead of calling upon the consumers of coal to pay the entire cost of this national object. He should give his hearty support to the Amendment of the noble Lord.
MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he should oppose the clause, believing that it would entail a very serious expense for all time on parties desirous of building on the river frontage; and he thought the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) deserved the gratitude of the metropolis for the course which he had taken in proposing the omission of the clause,
§ LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he should support the clause, for he thought the reasons assigned in Committee by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Ker Seymer) and the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner perfectly satisfactory. The clause was, in the first instance, submitted to the counsel who watched the case on the part of the Metropolitan Board in the Select Committee, and they did not object to it, but left the matter entirely in the hands of the Committee. He should be sorry to diminish the power of local self-government by removing from the Metropolitan Board any duty that properly belonged to them; but the present case was one of an exceptional character, and it would be a thousand pities if the opportunity should be lost of rendering the embankment an ornament to the metropolis, and preventing the frontage of the river being destroyed and disgraced by some monstrous erection or other. The clause could not be productive of any greatly-increased expense, because the greater portion of the reclaimed land would be appropriated to public purpose, and would not be built upon.
§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEthought this was a most unconstitutional clause, for it gave a power to a Government Department which had never been delegated by the House on any previous occasion. He could not give his assent to the views which had been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works on what the right hon. Gentleman called the architectural beauties of the plan. Questions would be constantly asked in the House about the shape of every chimney that might be built if the First Commissioner were 1513 to be made the arbiter. He hoped the Committee would reject the clause.
§ MR. TITEsaid, the Metropolitan Board had not regarded the clause as one implying any reflection on them, but simply as a matter of business. They thought the arrangement which it would sanction a very undesirable one, but they were advised not to oppose it. His own opinion was, that the less interference with the free action of individual speculators, the better for obtaining the full value of the land; but, speaking from an architectural point of view, he thought the double responsibility the best. The Corporation of London, after clearing the approaches to London Bridge, put themselves into the hands of Sir Robert Smirke; but the consequence was, that in the buildings which were subsequently erected there was too great sameness. They afterwards change their plan, allowing each person to whom the land was parcelled out to choose his own architect, but reserving to themselves a veto, and the result was that fine specimen of street architecture that was to be seen in Cannon Street. In the new street in the Borough the Metropolitan Board of Works were following precisely the same plan. Here, however, was to be a double control, which experience should have taught them to regard with jealousy. However, he should leave the question in the hands of the Committee.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONThis question does not appear to me very important, nor one in which the Government takes a great interest. If there is any one interested in its decision, it is my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of the Board of Works, who I think, would naturally incline to repudiate the responsibility which the clause would throw upon him. It is, however, a question of public interest that there should be some controlling authority, in order to secure uniformity of design in a block of buildings to be placed in so conspicuous a position as the new embankment would be. We have seen the advantage of this in the Regent's Park. Many people may not approve the different styles of architecture to be seen there; that is a matter of taste. Some of it is Gothic, some Grecian, and some neither Gothic nor Grecian; but still those blocks of building are to some extent uniform, and produce a good effect. It was really an original thought of Mr. Nash, and very creditable to him, to combine a number of separate private dwellings into 1514 one great mass, and to make them look like one great palace. I think, therefore, there should be some controlling authority to secure that the buildings upon this terrace should not be one high and one low, but that they should be of some uniformity of character. It seems to me that this clause would secure unity of plan and consistency of purpose. The Metropolitan Board of Works, in letting the ground, would probably require some security for uniformity of design; but they might omit to do so, and this clause just interposes the veto of the First Commissioner for the time being, in order to insure that the mass of buildings should be of a certain uniform plan, so as to contribute to the general good effect. I think, therefore, that the Committee would do well to retain the clause.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the noble Lord wanted to secure unity of design and consistency of purpose. Some Gentlemen might consider unity of design good, and others bad; but, whether good or bad, they were more likely to get it if they permitted one board, which was to commence and carry out the work, to decide, than if they permitted a fluctuating officer, such as the First Commissioner of Works, who was here to-day and away tomorrow, to interfere. They all knew the differences of taste in different Commissioners of Works, and yet the noble Lord would look for uniformity of design in leaving the decision to such officials. The buildings in the Regent's Park were not erected by a great municipal corporation, who were to be interfered with at every turn by the executive Government of the day, but by one Government Department, who had nobody to interfere with it. They called in one of the great architects of the day, and the great scheme of building was carried into effect. If, therefore, the Committee desired uniformity of plan, let them reject the clause and leave the responsibility to the Metropolitan Board.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:— Ayes 162; Noes 145: Majority 17.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 35 (Board may grant Building Leases of Ground not wanted for purposes ! of this Act).
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, this clause was objectionable, in as much as there was no limit placed in reference to the 1515 buildings to be erected upon the reclaimed land, and he thought the Metropolitan Board of Works should have power in all cases to interfere. With that view he would move an addition to the clause of the words, "nor on such part of the reclaimed land as shall be within 200 feet of the embankment wall." He was afraid that Somerset House, Waterloo Bridge, and other structures would be greatly altered in their general appearance by the proposed embankment along this majestic river, unless this restrictive power were given to the Metropolitan Board of Works. He wished to know how the embankment was to be laid out, and whether the landing-places and stairs were to be arranged without interfering with the navigation and the general plan of the embankment.
MR. COWPERsaid, it was desirable that all the land which was available for the recreation of the public along the embankment should be dedicated to that purpose. Clause 28 made a provision with that view in regard to the space between Cecil Street and Northumberland Street; but he did not think the land east of Cecil Street could with advantage be so appropriated. Where the reclaimed land amounted only to a narrow strip, the space must be devoted to building purposes: his hon. Friend's Amendment would prevent that. The Thames Conservancy Board were invested with authority to construct and improve all the landing-places and stairs on the river, and the plan which he believed would be adopted in front of the embankment would be floating stages, which rise and fall with the flow of the tide.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHcomplained of the constant encroachments that had been made upon the bed of the river; and they were now about to take steps which would have the effect of further contracting its width by one-third. He doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the extent to which the navigation would be impeded by this plan. He wished to know whether at low water the river would come to the base of the embankment?
§ SIR JOSEPH PAXTONreplied, that though the water would come up to the embankment, the landing-stages would have to be carried out some distance before vessels could come alongside at low water.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, that the Commit- 1516 tee were informed that, even at low water, the bed of the river would be covered up to the embankment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 36 to 41 also agreed to.
§ Clause 42 (Prohibition against Use of Locomotives along the Streets).
§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEobjected to the clause as unnecessary and inexpedient. Why should they prohibit the use of the greatest improvement of the age— steam—on this new roadway? Why they should be specially excepted he could not understand, and it seemed to him retrograde legislation. He begged therefore to move that the clause be expunged.
§ SIR JOSEPH PAXTONthought it absurd to make an exception as regarded this embankment. If they had a general law for the metropolis prohibiting steam locomotives to use the common roads, well and good.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYthought it was very dangerous to allow locomotives to move along in crowded streets, and advocated the maintenance of the clause.
SIR GEORGE LEWISobserved, there was now a general measure applicable to all towns as to those engines, the Home Secretary having power to prohibit steam locomotives travelling particular streets. He thought it best not to disturb the general law, but to leave it applicable to this as to other roads, the Secretary of State having power to interfere if the public safety required it.
§ Clause struck out.
§ Clauses 43 to 45 were agreed to.
§ Clause 46 (Appropriation of Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement Fund).
§ MR. AYRTONasked for some explanation as to the amount of the funds which were available for the purposes of this Bill and the charges upon it.
MR. COWPERreplied, that the funds available were derived from the surplus of the London Bridge Approaches Fund, the amount of which was not ascertained. To carry out the construction of the embankment about £1,000,000 would be required from the coal and other duties, and these would probably furnish a surplus of £500,000 more than would be requisite. All the funds were paid to the Treasury, and must be transfer- 1517 red by their authority to the Board of Works.
§ MR. AYRTONthought they should have a more detailed explanation. First the fund was to be liable for the charges upon the London Bridge approaches fund. Next, payment was to be provided from the same source of all costs of obtaining the Act. How was this to be considered? Was the fund to be debited with the charges incurred by the right hon. Gentleman's department in connection with the Act. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had not employed the officers of his department in preparing the Act, but two firms of solicitors, Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, and Messrs. Marchant and Pear, of Hertford. Were both those firms to be paid out of this fund; and, if so, was the Department to be paid out of it also for the assistance they had rendered? In the next clause reference was made to so much of the Thames embankment fund as might remain after deducting those charges. What was that sum? He thought they ought to have in such a case a detailed statement of the fund, and of the charges upon it.
MR. COWPERsaid, he had not thought it necessary to make a statement, because he was not asking the House to vote the money. The clause simply stated how the funds in the hands of the Treasury by the Act of last year were to be appropriated. Mr. Scott, the Chamberlain of the City of London, had been examined before the Committee, and gave such details as they required, and the hon. Gentleman would find in his evidence all the information he asked for. The Committee considered the question of the amounts provided and to be expended; but this clause did not refer to those details. With regard to the general object of the clause:—First the expenses incidental to the obtaining of the Act were, as usual in such a case, to be paid. The hon. Member could not, he thought, have read the evidence given before the Committee, or he would have seen that he was entirely mistaken in supposing that two sets of solicitors had been employed. The persons employed were the solicitors and the Parliamentary agents; and when the hon. Gentleman said that a solicitor had come from Hertford to act as Parliamentary agent, he begged to inform him that the firm in question had been Parliamentary agents for several years. He had known them as highly respectable Parliamentary 1518 agents for a number of years, and had been in communication with them in connection with Bills for railways and for the river Lea. One of the members of that firm was born and bred at Hertford; the other was not resident at Hertford. Did the hon. Gentleman mean to say that because one member of a firm of Parliamentary agents happened to be connected with the borough he represented, he should be debarred from employing the services of that firm? He could only presume that the hon. Gentleman meant to have a malicious hit at him because one of the Parliamentary agents employed for the Bill was connected with the borough he had the honour to represent. Any member of the Select Committee would bear him out in stating that Messrs. Marchant and Pead (the Parliamentary agents referred to) had discharged their duties satisfactorily and efficiently. With respect to the clause under discussion, it only gave authority to the Treasury to pay the Thames Embankment and Metropolitan Improvement fund to the Metropolitan Board of Works. It was beside the question to consider what these sums were. The important point was, that whatever they might be, they should be paid by the Treasury to the board.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman afforded so much amusement to the House of his own accord that it was unnecessary for him to interfere with a view of keeping up the entertainment. But he must contradict the right hon. Gentleman on a matter of fact, inasmuch as the Law List, the accepted authority on such points, stated that Messrs. Marchant and Pead were in partnership as attorneys at Hertford, [Mr. COWPER: It does not so appear upon the evidence.] He was aware of that. There was some equivocation on this point in the evidence. Those gentlemen might also practise as Parliamentary agents in London. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had had relations with them before, and might have had good grounds, in his own opinion, for selecting them again on this occasion. All he wanted to know was whether the ratepayers would be saddled with anything more than the charges of these two acts of professional men. Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, were certainly Parliamentary agents of great skill, as many hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House, who had, unfortunately, lost their seats through the exertions of those gentlemen, knew to 1519 their cost. And, no doubt, if the right hon. Gentleman had thought his scheme could not stand on its own merits, and had been anxious to smooth away difficulties, he could not have done a cleverer thing than to employ that well-known Conservative firm in this case. Such a choice, however, implied a reflection on the competency of the Liberal Parliamentary agents. The right hon. Gentleman had— unintentionally he was sure—made an equivocation about this clause which he would doubtless retract. He had said that it was a clause not imposing but only appropriating taxation; but he forget, that if he appropriated this fund to the Thames Embankment, taxes must be imposed for other purposes which were equally necessary. By disposing of the proceeds of a tax the clause was therefore, though indirectly, a taxing clause. This was the first time the House had been asked to appropriate a tax in such loose language, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would show them what were the items to which the clause referred.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, he thought the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets could not have read the Select Committee's Report, or he would not have made the observations he had done. The City Chamberlain's evidence afforded the information which the hon. Gentleman sought.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSdrew attention to the question of the cost of the lower main sewer. He had not observed any provision in this Bill that the cost was to be defrayed out of the £3,000,000 to be borrowed for the purpose of making the sewers generally; and he thought that if it formed part of the works of the new embankment, it would be most unjust if it were to be paid out of the tax upon coal and wine.
§ LORD HARRY VANEIt is not to be so paid for.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he was glad they had, at last, come to the important question of expense, which had hitherto been overlooked in these discussions. At present they knew no more as to what would be the expense of the proposed embankment than what they were told by the Committee, which was, that after several items of expense had been cut off, it would cost £500,000. Now, according to the evidence of the City Chamberlain, it was clear, that if they had taken the estimates offered in introducing this Bill, they would have found them- 1520 selves landed in an immense deficit after the works were completed. He had little confidence in the economical propensities of the First Commissioner of Works, remembering, as he did, how that right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of this Session, having £30,000 of this fund in hand, had proposed to make a road with it across Kensington Gardens. Mr. Scott, the City Chamberlain, had stated his belief, that if properly managed and invested at 4½per cent—a pretty high rate of interest—the fund which was to be set apart to defray the cost of the embankment, would reach nearly £1,600,000 at the end of ten years. Now, even supposing that nothing was taken from it in the meanwhile, he thought the Board would have considerable difficulty in raising the £1,000,000 they were empowered to borrow. Now, he had been given to understand a few days ago, and he wished to inquire into the truth of the report, that the money paid by the City Chamberlain to the Treasury, amounting to a large sum, was lying idle at the Bank of England. The solicitor to the Office of Works (Mr. Gardiner) was a very able and excellent officer, and had had a great deal to do in originating the Bills of the office. Mr. Gardiner received a salary of £1,500 a year, and he could not understand why Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton had been employed as solicitors to the Bill. When the Committee first commenced their inquiry, the Metropolitan Board of Works appeared, by solitors and counsel, as opponents, and it was only when the clause was passed which gave to the Board the execution of the works that they became co-promoters. They were to be paid their expenses out of the fund; and he wished to know whether that meant that they would be paid the expenses of their opposition. Messrs. Marchant and Pead, Messrs. Smith, and Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton were all to be paid; and whether he was personal or not, he was bound to do his duty by calling attention to the fact. He should like to hear that it was an error to suppose that the receipts from the coal and wine duties had been lying in the Bank without interest, instead of fructifying for the benefit of the fund.
MR. COWPERsaid, with respect to the last point it was not within his cognizance. The Treasury had been intrusted by law with the fund, and he was not acquainted with what had been done with regard to it. The hon. Baronet must put his ques- 1521 tion to some Member of the Treasury. But with regard to the amount of the fund, it was in evidence that at the end of June there would be £260,000 in hand, and that the present value of it exceeded £1,500,000. This clause was to enable the Treasury, after paying all the charges, to transfer the surplus to the Metropolitan Board. As to the first item of charge, it was not correctly known. As to the second, it was impossible to tell what would be the expenses of the Act until it had passed. It certainly would not have been a smaller sum if he had employed the solicitor of the Office of Works instead of Messrs. Baxter. The serving of notices and the other business connected with this Bill could not be done by the present strength of the Office of Works. In order that he might be enabled to discharge those duties, it would have been necessary for the solicitor of the Office of Works to increase his staff considerably, and to incur a much larger expense than the payment which he had hitherto received. Without neglecting his other business it would be impossible for him to execute the business in connection with this Bill. In an important measure of this kind, and in the face of such an opposition as it bad to contend with, it appeared to him (Mr. Cowper) the wisest course to employ Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Norton, those gentlemen being specially practised in this branch of business. He need scarcely say that he had not selected them on account of their politics—a subject which had never crossed his mind at the time. The main reason which influenced him in selecting this firm was, that they had last year been employed in serving notices over the same extent of land in connection with a proposed embankment between Westminster and Blackfriars Bridges, and had therefore in their office all the information required. With regard to the Parliamentary agents, Messrs. Marchant and Pead, did not act as solicitors, and he observed in the last page of the evidence a statement that those gentlemen had done nothing as solicitors. The gentleman who appeared in the Law List as a solicitor was the son of Mr. Marchant, and he had engaged the father, who was a Parliamentary agent, to do the business of a Parliamentary agent. The payment of the expenses of the Metropolitan Board had been decided upon by the Committee, and he knew of no valid ground of objection. 1522 The petition of the Metropolitan Board, if in form against the Bill, was not hostile to the Bill; and having received the greatest support from that Board, he saw no reason why their expenses should not be paid out of this fund rather than out of a fund which had no relation whatever to the Thames Embankment.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his questions. What he wanted to know was, whether private solicitors having been employed, the Department would have to pay its own solicitors as well, and next what was the meaning of the references to the London Bridge Approaches Fund?
MR. COWPERsaid, that as the solicitor to the Board of Works was paid by salary, he would receive nothing with regard to this Bill. As to the second question, the Act of last year provided that any surplus existing from the London Bridge Approaches Fund should be paid to the Treasury and become part of the Thames Embankment Fund. What that surplus was had not yet been decided, some items being disputed; but the Committee was quite safe in enacting, that when the Treasury should decide what the surplus was, it should be added to the Thames Embankment Fund.
§ In answer to Mr. W. WILLIAMS,
MR. COWPERsaid, that the expense of the low-level sewer was kept quite distinct from those of the embankment, and would not come out of the coal duties. The expense would be defrayed out of the main drainage rate.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHremarked that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had fallen into the hands of the most expensive Parliamentary agents in London, as he knew Messrs. Rose, Baxter, and Norton had charged for lithographed circulars as if they were manuscript. He had tested these charges by litigation leading to a reference to arbitration, and the result was a curtailment of their charges. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had bribed a Member out of his seat. ["Order !"] Well, what was he to say? The noble Lord, with that tact which distinguished all he did, offered an inducement to an hon. Member which resulted in his vacating his seat, and finding an opportunity for bestowing the seat on an official of his own Government. He had intended to put a question to the noble Viscount on the point; and only let him off for one reason, 1523 and that was, that having understood the salary of the selected person to be £2,000, it came out that it was only £1,200, and he thought it hardly desirable to disturb the repose of the noble Viscount for such a trifle.
MR. COWPER, in reference to the expenses, remarked, that there was an understanding between the parties concerned that the bill of costs should be taxed by an officer of the House.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, Messrs. Marchant and Pead, who appeared before the Committee as agents for the Bill, according to the Law List, were solicitors at Hertford.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 47 to 54, inclusive, were also agreed to,
§ Clause 55 (as to Street between Whitehall Place and Wellington Street).
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that this clause had reference to the street between Whitehall Place and Wellington Street. He wished it to be understood that there was a strong feeling in the Committee that the street was a downright mistake, and that its creation would give rise to endless claims for compensation. The evidence before them was, that the street ran in a wrong direction, and he hoped the matter would be discussed in another place.
MR. COWPERcould not agree that the Committee considered the street a mistake. If the matter had been discussed, he thought the reasons in favour of it would have satisfied the Committee that they would have been quite right in passing it.
§ Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 56 to 71, inclusive.
§ Clause 72 (Disposal of Reclaimed Land in which Crown interested).
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, this clause and Clause 77 would enable the Crown to lease the land reclaimed from the foreshores, and charge its tenants what it thought fit. The foreshores were at present useless, but the metropolitan ratepayers were going to render them of great value; and inasmuch as all persons, from the highest in rank to the lowest wharfinger, had been called upon to make sacrifices in order to carry out this great improvement, he thought the Crown, instead of taking the utilized land for its own advantage, should join in making a sacrifice for the common good. He had expressed this opinion several times, and had divided the Committee, although always in a 1524 small minority, and on one occasion in a minority of one.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he thought the metropolis had great reason to complain of the Treasury, which had declared it would not, directly, contribute anything towards the embankment. On one point there existed considerable misapprehension in this House, and still more out of doors. It was not remembered that, in so far as this embankment touched on Crown land, it was not competent for the Committee or for the House to deal with the question, except in the way indicated by the Crown; and therefore the Committee were in the dilemma of having to take the embankment exactly as the right hon. Gentleman proposed it, or of putting a stop to it altogether. They had therefore no alternative except to take the course which had been actually pursued. On the part of the metropolitan taxpayers, he thought they had a right to complain of the hard terms which were put upon them by the Government. Certainly the inhabitants owed nothing to the Government and the Chief Commissioner for his interference with the embankment, because he was convinced, that if the Metropolitan Board had been allowed to propose it, they would have got better terms from the Treasury, and would have saved £300,000 in the execution of the work, while the public would have got all that they legitimately desired, and all that would be ultimately necessary. The Government, however, said, "The inhabitants of London shall embank the Thames, and shall pay the Crown for any supposed interest it may have in that part of the river." It was true that some of the land in front of the Crown estates was absolutely vested in the Crown; but then it was only a dirty bank, and surely, if the inhabitants paid the cost of an embankment there, and thus made the Crown land more valuable, the Crown on its part ought to contribute something. He felt sure, that if the matter had been fairly put before the noble Viscount, and he had been told that the inhabitants were about to spend £1,500,000 upon this embankment, he would have released the rights of the Crown in this foreshore, as the contribution which the Crown made in consideration of the great improvement to the Crown estate through this alteration. Instead of this, everything bad been exacted. They were now compelled to take the Bill exactly as it was tendered to them regarding the Crown estates.
MR. COWPERsaid, that no money was to be paid to the Crown for the foreshore in front of the Crown property. The bargain which had been made was this:—As to the land between Whitehall Stairs and Richmond Terrace, the Crown gave up its right to embank this shore for its own profit, together with all claims to the land which was required for the roadway, and all claim to compensation for damage done; and in return it would get no money, but only the reclaimed land. He was advised that this was a fair arrangement, and better terms would not have been obtained in any other way. As regarded the foreshore not in front of Crown property, the Board of Conservancy were to have their rights valued, and one-third of the amount would go to the Crown. That also, he believed, was a perfectly fair arrangement.
§ LORD HARRY VANEsaid, that when these clauses were proposed in the Committee, they were thought to be rather sharp practice. The feeling of the Committee was, that all parties being called upon for some sacrifice, the Crown might well forego its claims to the foreshore. But, on the contrary, these claims were put forward in the most marked manner. That there was to be no money payment in respect of the foreshore in front of the Crown estates made very little difference. The Committee had certainly thought that it would have been better if the extreme rights of the Crown had not been so hardly pressed; but they could not help themselves in the matter, and had no resource but to accept these clauses.
§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHrose to protest against the assertion that the Crown had a right to embank the river in front of its own property without an Act of Parliament to empower it to do so. He was of opinion that all that had been recovered from the Thames ought to belong to the public.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHthought the exaggerated pretensions on behalf of one element of the Constitution were offensive to the House of Commons. Few persons could be aware of the trickery that had been practised, or would believe that, after a Committee had made a careful investigation, at the last moment the Crown, or some one in its name, should bring forward clauses and make their adoption imperative. Such a course was offensive to that House, and placed the name of the Crown in an odious light.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he had always considered that there had been sharp practice in this mattter—that after all discussion had closed, at the last moment, they should be told that the Crown had a veto. He regretted that the Crown. should have been mixed up in this matter in this manner; but it was a fact, that the only individual in the metropolis who would make no sacrifice for this great metropolitan improvement was what was commonly called the Crown, but really it amounted to nothing more than the efforts of one or two offices who were anxious to support their dignity and importance. He had divided the Select Committee twice unsuccessfully against these clauses, and the only reason why he refrained from dividing the Committee on the present occasion was, because he understood that a kind of understanding existed upstairs, that unless these clauses were passed, the consent of the Crown would be withheld from the Bill. [Mr. COWPER: Yes.] He should be sorry to imperil a useful measure by such a course; for he believed that a great work was about to be made, but badly made. He had always felt that it was a great object to make the Thames Embankment, in order to construct the low-level sewer without injury and ruin to many persons in the Strand and Fleet Street; and therefore, although he thought the scheme badly devised and badly engineered, he would not undertake the responsibility of preventing its completion.
§ SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that the feelings of the Committee bad been accurately described by the noble Lord (Lord Harry Vane), but they were told by the Chairman that any alteration of the clauses would be fatal to the Bill. He agreed that the Crown should not be placed in this invidious position. Mr. Gore, doubtless, was desirous of protecting the interests of the Crown in the department over which he presided, but there were interests which could not be estimated by any money value.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that having read the correspondence that had taken place between the Departments, he could not see that Mr. Gore had done anything more than follow out the instructions of his superiors at the Treasury. It had been said that this was an unusual interference on the part of the Grown; but nothing could be more common than the announcement in that House of the con- 1527 sent of the Crown to Bills which, if such consent were not given, could not be passed. There was nothing new in the exercise of that right, and he did not know that the Treasury had exercised it now in any manner inconsistent with the claims of the public.
§ The Chairman having put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," Mr. DARBY GRIFFITH only declared himself in the negative: Whereon the Chairman declared the Clause agreed to.
§ Clause agreed to; as were likewise Clauses 73 to 76, inclusive.
§ Clause 77 (Crown Lessees to have Option of taking Lease of reclaimed Land adjacent to their Properties for Terms of their Leases).
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHcomplained that the lessees along the river were to be charged for the land reclaimed from the river and added to their premises, though the lessees only require the land they already possess.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 78 (Limit of Width of Footway on Crown Land).
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, that the omission of this clause followed, as a matter of course, the omission of Clause 9, and he therefore proposed that it should be omitted.
§ Clause negatived.
§ Clauses 79 to 82 agreed to.
§ Clause 83 (Viaduct in front of City Gas Works).
§ MR. WYLDthought the clause objectionable, because it would perpetuate a gross nuisance in the centre of the City of London. It would sanction the continuance of the gas works near Blackfriars Bridge. If the proposed viaduct was to be constructed, it would be a great convenience to the gas company, and they ought to pay for the improvement.
MR. COWPERsaid, that in a sanitary point of view it would be desirable to get rid of the Gas Works, but it would be rather hard to throw on the coal duties the burden of the compensation which the Gas Company would have a right to expect if they were called upon to remove their works. It was that consideration which influenced the Committee in adopting the clause. Since, therefore, 1528 the Committee had refused the great expenditure which would be required to purchase the Company's interest in their premises, it was only right that they should have preserved to them the means of carrying on their business.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, some years back the House of Commons had an opportunity of getting rid of those Works, but they came to the determination that the Company should be allowed to carry them on where they were. If the House paid for the removal of the Works out of the Consolidated Fund, it would be a very good thing to have them removed.
§ LORD HARRY VANEsaid, the Select Committee had made the fairest arrangement with the Company which it was possible to make, and the Company, on the whole, thought themselves rather hardly dealt with.
§ MR. WYLDsaid, they were going to put the Gas Company in a better position than they were before, and the Gas Company should pay for it.
MR. COWPERobserved, that the Gas Company did not think they would obtain any advantage from the change, and would rather be left as they are.
§ Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 84 and 85.
§ MR. AYRTONrose to move a new clause. He said the other day, he objected to the provision by which the Societies of the Inner and Middle Temple were to be allowed to appropriate to their exclusive use the land which was to be reclaimed in front of their gardens, except only so much of it as the roadway would require. These Societies had preferred a claim greater than any other person—far greater than that of the Crown, because the Crown was acknowledged to have a right to embank in front of its lands. But the Societies had no interest in the foreshore, except as far as a landing-place was concerned, and a landing-place was to be reconstructed for them by an express clause in the Bill. The ratepayers of the metropolis were to be compelled to make an embankment in front of the gardens, but the Temple was to contribute nothing, and yet was to receive all the surplus land. Noblemen and gentlemen had made demands, but those demands were within the limit of their rights; and if they received any land, they were to pay for it the full value. But these Societies had no right to the land whatever. He 1529 had the authority of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) for a proposition which every one would admit, that the owner of lands had no right to compensation for a view which might be interfered with. The Middle and Inner Temple were in possession of the land up to a certain point, and the land beyond that was vested in the Conservators of the Thames. The ratepayers' fund was to pay the conservators for that land, and thus the Thames Embankment fund became the owner of it by purchase. Being so, it had a right to do with the land what it pleased. They had been told that the extraordinary concession proposed by the Bill was made because the Temples, being powerful, might by opposing the Bill have prevented it from passing; but the House would not accept such a statement as a reason for doing what was wrong. The concession was also justified on the ground that the Temples would keep the reclaimed portions of land as gardens for the public; but he found that the Bill stated that the reclaimed laud not required for the roadway was for ever hereafter to be the exclusive property of the Inner and Middle Temples. As it had been said that these Societies always let the public into their gardens, he went on Sunday, between the morning and afternoon services, when the sun was shining, to the Inner Temple garden. This garden was placed in the midst of a densely-populated neighbourhood, living in the squalid misery of courts and alleys, where almost every chamber contained a separate family; and one would suppose that under these circumstances the children of the families in the neighbourhood would have been found recreating themselves in the garden; but only about six persons were there. The gardener informed him that no one was allowed to come into the garden without a Bencher's order. This proved that the words in the Bill were not mere words of form, but were words of reality. The hon. Member then moved the addition of the clause.
§
Clause—
Provided, That in case the Trustees of the Society of the Inner Temple or the Trustees of the Society of the Middle Temple shall not admit the public to use for the purpose of recreation the land by this Act vested in such Trustees, subject to such restrictions and regulations as the said Societies respectively, with the sanction of the Crown, may appoint in that behalf, then the said land vested in such Trustees respectively shall be and thenceforth continue vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works, as land
1530
within the provisions of the twenty-eighth Section of this Act,
— brought up, and read 1°.
§ MR. LOCKEthought that the hon. Member's clause was a matter of very small dimensions. The public were not to be admitted to these bits of land except under such restrictions as the Inner and Middle Temple should impose, subject to the consent of the Crown; but it was not likely that the Crown would interfere at all in the business. The hon. Gentleman was told by the gardener of the Inner Temple that he could not admit persons without orders. It should be borne in mind, however, that these orders were given by the Benchers to all persons who chose to ask for them, and on summer evenings the whole public were let into the garden without any orders whatever. The Temples maintained the gardens at their own expense, and he had never before heard any complaint made as to restrictions on the entrance of the public.
MR. HARVEY LEWIShoped that the whole of the Temple Gardens were to be included in the clause. They were about to have valuable river front, and he thought it would be a great improvement to the Bill if Parliament were to impose such regulations on the Benchers as would prevent their shutting up the gardens from the public.
MR. MONTAGUE SMITHsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that a valuable river front was about to be given to the Benchers of the Temple. In fact their river front was being taken away from them. They were merely to receive some strips of land for which they could not obtain one farthing of rent. The gardens had always been kept in order at the expense of the Societies, and certainly were considered to contribute to the adornment of London. When it was said that they were the private property of the Benchers, the fact was that nobody in London used the gardens so little as the Benchers, who were nearly always absent. But the Benchers were not so fastidious as had been described; they admitted on summer evenings to the gardens those dirty children from poor neighbourhoods of whom the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Ayrton) spoke so contemptuously the other night as being likely to play about on the embankment between Whitehall and Westminster Bridge, to the annoyance of the neigh- 1531 bourhood Mr. Thackeray, who had witnessed these gardens the other night filled with some 400 poor children, had expressed his pleasure to him (Mr. M. Smith); and said it did his heart good to see it. There was no churlishness on the part of the Benchers respecting admission; then why, he asked, should they be interfered with in their rights of ownership which they had exercised now for centuries? There were no private gardens in London to which the public were so freely admitted as the Temple Gardens, and the attempt to interfere with the Societies in the management of their own property was most ungracious.
MR. COWPER, while sympathizing with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets in his desire to see the Temple Gardens used as freely as possible by the public, thought the clause proposed would not effect the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view. The public were at present admitted to the gardens under certain restrictions, which were of by no means an illiberal tendency. But now the learned Member proposed that the Crown should have the power of overriding the decision of the Benchers in that respect. That was a proposal which he did not think it would be worth while to embody in the Bill. He might add that he did not concur with those who thought that the Benchers had been exacting in their demands in connection with the proposed embankment, inasmuch as it would interfere prejudicially with the existing river frontage of their property.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 139: Majority 121.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYSir, I trust the Committee will permit me to make a few observations on a personal matter. When the proceedings in Committee of the House had once commenced, I thought it right to refrain from intruding myself on the attention of the Committee, because I desired that certain irritable feelings which had been excited in the previous discussions should be allowed to cool down. But there are some things which a man cannot allow to be said, without endeavouring to set himself right with his friends and society. It is a common saying, that an Englishman's word is as good as his bond. The Committee will recollect, that upon being called upon on a 1532 recent occasion by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Garnett) for an explanation with regard to a Resolution passed in the Select Committee relative to the production of a certain correspondence, I felt it my duty to make a statement. I considered it due to the Committee, to myself, and to an officer of the House who might have been deemed to have been wanting in his duty, to state as well as I could what were the facts of the case. When I had finished my statement, the First Commissioner (Mr. Cowper) got up in his place and declared that I had made a false accusation, and had stated that which was not founded in fact. The right hon. Gentleman at the same time stated that he did not mean to say anything uncivil. With respect to that observation, I do not think it is necessary that I should say a single word; but still the words that were uttered remain, and it is due to the Committee, to myself, and to my constituents, that I should clear the matter up, which I can do in a few moments. When the Resolution in question was carried in the Committee—carried in the words that appear on the fly-leaf issued by order of the Speaker—and when the public were coming into the room, I went from my place at the table, which was at some distance from the Chairman, and said to him, "Now that we have carried this Resolution, I hope no time will be lost in bringing out the correspondence." The right hon. Gentleman turned round to me and replied, "The Resolution extends to Hungerford market and other matters not now before the Committee." I then said, "I have heard enough of Hungerford market, and, as far as I am concerned, all I want is the correspondence relating to the Crown property." The right hon. Gentleman thereupon said, "Oh, very well, we will alter the Resolution." I objected to that, saying, "Neither you nor I can make any alteration without the consent of the Committee, and I object to any interference with the Resolution until the question has been regularly put to the Committee." I then went back to my place, and as far as I was concerned that was all the conversation that took place. I told the right hon. Baronet the Member for Petersfield (Sir William Jolliffe), who sat next to me, and other members of the Committee what had occurred. As to what passed between the Chairman and the noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord H. Vane) I know 1533 nothing; but the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdonshire (Lord Robert Montagu) has told me that he well remembers my protesting against any alteration being made in the Resolution. I can only say I believed, as I think every member of the Committee believed, that the Resolution as carried in the Committee would appear on the Minutes of Proceedings; but, as I stated in the House a few evenings ago, the Resolution as carried by me in the Committee did not appear in the Minutes, and the copy presented to me by the right hon. Gentleman was not in the words in which I proposed my Resolution. I never did consent to the alteration made in it by the Chairman; and I think it most important it should be clearly understood that the Chairman of a Committee may not take away a Resolution in his pocket, and, without bringing it back again, allow the Committee to disperse; and then, when a member of the Committee makes an objection to the Resolution as carried not appearing in the proceedings, stand up, and because he had some conversation with individual members of the Committee, charge the member who complains with not telling the truth. Emphatically, in the face of this House, I say I did not consent to the alteration. I believed the Resolution would appear in the Minutes as I had proposed it; and when I told the House that the other night, I told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied, I think the proper course for him would be to call the Committee clerk to the bar. Before I made my statement I conversed with the clerk on the subject; and if called to the bar, he will confirm every word I said. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to say anything further; but I ask the House to believe that I did not state what was untrue.
MR. COWPERI suppose one word is required from me, and I wish to explain that when I stated the accusation of the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) was not a true accusation, but was founded altogether on a mistake, what I understood him to charge me with was, that I had altered his Resolution surreptitiously, and on my own account, and not in my capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee, endeavouring to give effect to what I believed to be the unanimous wish of the Committee. I said I thought it not fair —I believe I used stronger language—I 1534 thought it not becoming of him to take advantage of the alteration in the Resolution in my handwriting to charge me with the responsibility attached to that alteration, because unsuspiciously I made it with my own hand, instead of returning the Resolution to him for the purpose of having it made. Had I handed it back to him, and said, "You alter it," we should have heard nothing more about it; but because I adopted the course of altering it with my own pen, I put myself in the hon. Member's hands. When the matter was brought under the notice of the House, I had no better means of setting myself right than by appealing to the Members of the Committee; and such of them as were present confirmed by statement—["No, no !" and "Hear, hear !"]—that the alteration was made with the consent of the Committee. [Sir JOHN SHELLEY: Not with my consent.] It was made, as I believe, with the unanimous consent of the Committee. It was because I understood it to be the unanimous wish of the Committee that the amendment should be made, I made it. The matter itself was of no importance. It occurred in a great hurry; and possibly there may have been some misunderstanding about it, and that the hon. Baronet did not hear me. But I thought it most unfair and most unworthy that any Member of this House should have taken advantage of such an occurrence to make a charge against me which, if true, would have implied that I was unfit for the society of gentlemen. I was very angry, and I feel I am getting angry again; so I will say no more. The hon. Gentleman has taken a liberty with me which I beg he will not take again; for I cannot promise that on a future occasion I would bear it so quietly.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHrose to a point of order, with reference to a matter which had occurred that evening. He had always understood that a proposition made in Committee required no seconder, and therefore no second voice when the question was put; and he was therefore surprised to find that a single voice was not sufficient to divide the House. If that were so, it would place hon. Members under as great a disadvantage in Committee as they laboured under in the House; and he therefore asked for an explanation.
THE CHAIRMANThe question was as to whether a certain clause should stand part of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman 1535 said "No." I listened to hear whether he was supported by any other voice; but I failed to find any negative but that of the hon. Gentleman. I repeated the question a second and a third time with the same result; and although it is true that a second voice is not necessary in Committee, a second teller is necessary in case of a division. Therefore I thought it unnecessary to trouble the Committee with a division when there did not appear to be a second teller.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he was glad to find the Chairman concurred with him that it was a privilege in Committee that a single Member might raise the question on a clause by calling for a division. If that was so, though no second voice was heard, tellers might subsequently appear. In his case, there were, in point of fact, tellers, and one hon. Member raised his voice with him. He did so rather feebly, no doubt, but perhaps his lungs were delicate.
§ House resumed.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.