HC Deb 10 July 1862 vol 168 cc211-4

Order for Consideration read.


said, he had to move the following clause:— It shall not be lawful for any person to use a locomotive engine propelled by steam along the streets or roadways constructed under the provisions of this Act. He regretted the First Commissioner of Works allowed that clause to be struck out of the Bill. It was in contravention to the arrangement between the Benchers and the First Commissioner of Works, that no locomotives propelled by steam should be allowed to pass between the river and their gardens.

Clause (Prohibition against Use of Locomotives along the Streets) brought up, and read 1°.


said, that the Benchers seemed to be under great apprehension that locomotives would be passing along the embankment in front of their gardens. He had told them that he did not think a special clause was necessary, as there would be in the Bill a general prohibition of locomotives in the roads of the embankment. However, he had no objection to restore the clause, as it certainly formed part of the arrangement.


said, that the locomotives were most useful, and their construction was being daily improved upon. They were at present under the strict supervision of the Home Office as far as respected the rest of the metropolis, and he did not see why the same rule should not apply to their use in the proposed new streets. He regarded the clause as a piece of mischievous and retrograde legislation; and it would be most incongruous that there should be one law in regard to these engines applicable to one part of London, and a different law applicable to the rest. What the Benchers had asked for was to be relieved from railways between the river and their own property, and it was now proposed to give them a different thing, for which they had not asked.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

The House divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 100: Majority 10.

Clause read 2°, and added.

Clause 8 (Works authorized).


said, he wished to propose an Amendment which would increase the width of roadway from 100 feet to 130 feet, as he thought the public should have a larger share of the land taken from the river, which was a public highway.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 35, after the words "one hundred," to insert the words "and thirty."


said, he must object to the Amendment, as 100 feet of width would be sufficient for the traffic, and the addition of thirty feet would increase the expense of maintaining the roadway, and would unsettle the arrangements already made.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put and negatived.

Clause 14 (Power to enclose and fill up Bed and Shore of River).


said, he wished to add a proviso giving power to the Metropolitan Board of Works to raise (excepting only at Whitehall and Temple Gardens) the height of the roadway on the embankment to a uniform level of fifteen feet above Trinity high-water mark.

Amendment proposed, At the end of Clause 14, to add the words "Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent the Metropolitan Board of Works from raising (excepting only at Whitehall and Temple Gardens) the height of the roadway on the Embankment to a uniform level of fifteen feet above Trinity high-water mark, should they consider it necessary, for the effectual development of the Metropolitan thoroughfares to give facilities for increased communication by additional bridges, from the North Embankment to any future one on the South Side.


said, that if the level were raised in the manner suggested, it would be impossible for persons passing along the embankment to pass either under or over Waterloo Bridge.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

Clause 27 (Power to appropriate Land or Easements in respect of River Frontage).


said, he wished to move an Amendment to give protection to the owners of land on the line of the embankment who were willing to sell that portion of their property not required for the purposes of the Act.

Amendment proposed, At the end of Clause 25, to add the words "Provided always, That where the owner of any wharf or premises on the line of the Embankment, which shall be injuriously affected by this Act, shall be inclined to sell or part with his interest in the whole of such wharf or premises, the jury or arbitrator shall assess the value of, and the Board shall be bound to take and pay for the whole interest of such owner in such wharf or premises, although it may not be found necessary to take the whole for the purposes of this Act.


said, he thought the proviso unnecessary, as the case would come under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.

Clause 34 (Chief Commissioner of Works to approve designs).


said, he wished to move the omission of the 34th clause, which empowers the Chief Commissioner of Works to place a veto upon the designs for erecting buildings on the reclaimed land on the line of embankment.

Amendment proposed to leave out Clause 34.


said, he hoped the House would consent to omit the clause from the Bill.


said, he thought the clause ought to be maintained.


said, he could not see why the Chief Commissioner was so anxious to assume this responsibility.


said, the clause was only carried in the Committee by a majority of one; and had it not been for the belief that the Metropolitan Board of Works did not object to it, it would not have been carried at all.

Question put, "That Clause 34 stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 90: Majority 6.

Other Amendments made.

Bill to be read 3° To-morrow.

House adjourned at half after two o'Clock.