HC Deb 31 July 1862 vol 168 cc1055-61

Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to, as far as the Amendment in page 24, After Clause 56, insert Clause (D).

Page 24, After Clause 56, insert Clause (D), the next Amendment, read 2°.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, that at this point of the Bill he begged to make a few remarks. The members of the late Select Committee on the Bill considered they had some right to complain of the course pursued by the Government. The House would remember that on a previous evening he had occasion to state that in the Select Committee a discussion took place on the proposition to make a street from Hungerford Market to Wellington Street, and strong opinions were entertained by some members that the street was not required—that it would cost a vast amount of money, and that difficulties would arise respecting the way in which the street should be constructed; and it was understood by a majority of the Committee that the House would have the opportunity of discussing whether or not it was advisable that the street should be constructed. The course taken was to propose a clause whereby the Metropolitan Board would be bound not to com- mence the works of that street until all the other works for which the Bill provided had been completed, and that clause was carried without a division. The other House, which disposed of this Bill in a day, struck out the clause without any inquiry as to the reason for its insertion. The Committee of the Lords did not seem to understand why it should have been put into the hands of the Board; but he was sure, that if the matter had been explained to them, they would have seen the justice of the course taken in inserting it. The scheme of embankment had been brought before the public in a most unusual manner. The plans were not before the public, who knew nothing whatever of what was going to be done; and he was positive that the whole thing would be found to be a "take in;" that this "stupendous undertaking" would turn out to have been much mismanaged; that the trade of the district would be unnecessarily destroyed, and that money was about to be expended without regard to the public benefit. The accusations made against him, of sacrificing the public interests for the sake of currying favour with a noble Duke were beyond his comprehension, as were also all assertions of corrupt motives on the part of the Committee. Whether or not these proceeded from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) or his office, whether the right hon. Gentleman sent notes to The Observer as he did to writers on The Times, or he did not, it was his (Sir John Shelley's) duty to protest on the part of the public against the way in which this Bill had been promoted. It began in a job, and would end in a job; and in two or three years the public would find out whether their money had been well spent, or their real interests considered. He moved that the House disagree with the Lords' Amendment striking out the clause.

MR. COWPER

said, he was not surprised that the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster should betray the fondness of paternity for this clause, because it was the only one which he had succeeded in introducing into the Bill. The desire of the hon. Baronet was to prevent the making of this street; but the only result of the retention of this clause would be to delay and embarrass its construction, and to inflict hardship and injustice upon the persons whose property had been scheduled, but who would have to wait for the completion of all the other works before they could get paid for it. He believed that the clause was not opposed in the Committee, because of its being thought to be unimportant and insignificant; but after it was passed he received a letter from a tenant of the Duchy of Lancaster, who held considerable property which would be taken for the street, and who complained of the hardship which this clause would inflict upon him. He desired that the subject should be brought under the notice of the Committee of the House of Lords; and that Committee, taking, as he thought, a very reasonable and sensible view of the matter, omitted the clause from the Bill. He did not think the House would be disposed to disagree with the sensible course taken by the Lords with respect to this clause. The hon. Baronet had taken that opportunity of again complaining of the whole scheme. He should certainly not attempt at that moment to enter into a discussion of such a subject on the consideration of an Amendment; but he was prepared to abide by the verdict of public opinion. When the hon. Baronet concluded by saying that this Bill had begun and would end as a job, he must forget that the same observation had been made over and over again with respect to the opposition to the Bill. The opposition to the Bill had begun on personal grounds, and ended in the discomfiture of the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster and the other opponents of the measure. As to the Bill being a job, he was quite unconscious of anything that could afford the shadow of a ground for making such a charge against the promoters. He had been very much flattered at hearing the measure attributed to his excessive activity. He was thankful to his opponents for their endeavour to throw the responsibility of this great measure on him. But neither he nor the other promoters could have had any personal motive; while, on the other hand, all the opposition—with the exception, it must be supposed, of the opposition of the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster—had come from interested parties. There was no opposition to the scheme, from first to last, on public grounds. Every petition on which counsel appeared was the petition of an interested party. Every petition against the Bill stated some interference with private property. Therefore, the opposition, which had lasted for six weeks before the Committee, was from beginning to end an interested opposition. How that could be described as a job which was opposed by so wealthy and powerful a party, backed up by the hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster, he was at a loss to know. He thought the case was one in which the hon. Baronet ought to have looked after the interests of his constituents and of the public, instead of private interests. Had he done so, he would have been found on the side of this scheme, which had passed in spite of an opposition directed with much skill, aided by large expenditure and great personal influence.

MR. AYRTON

said, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster would not press his Motion. The striking-out of the clause in question would not have any result—it would be of no consequence one way or the other, inasmuch as the Bill was so framed that it would not be compulsory upon the Metropolitan Board of Works to make this new street, and he had such confidence in their discretion that he felt sure they never would make it. Everybody knew that the Committee were unanimously against the street in question; and the Board being aware of that, and being only "empowered" to construct it, they never would think of doing anything so foolish. He must observe that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works was seldom accurate in anything he stated in reference to what passed in that House. No one accused the right hon. Gentleman of having originated the Thames Embankment. That was a scheme of twenty-five years' standing. It was brought forward by a predecessor of the right hon. Member, and had been generally accepted. The only accusation made against the right hon. Gentleman was, that the public work in view being an important one, he had done a great deal to disparage it. It was to the abuse of the embankment scheme his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster referred when he connected the right hon. Gentleman with that work. [Sir JOHN SHELLEY: Hear, hear!] His hon. Friend referred to all the abuses which the right hon. Gentleman had foisted on an important proceeding. The result of the right hon. Gentleman's interference had been, that the Thames Embankment would cost the public more than £300,000 in excess of the sum that ought to accomplish it. That large amount he had spent in buying off opposition, instead of allowing all objections to come fairly under the notice of the Committee. When the public came to see what the result of that expenditure was, and how large a portion of the improvement had been lost, they would be astonished how all that money had been spent in destroying a great public work. When they saw a long embankment at a level of four feet above high water—when they saw that the prominent feature of the Thames Embankment would be Adelphi Terrace, with its one golden inscription—when they saw the ragged look of the houses, and everything that was hateful along the roadway—when they saw a hideous appearance on a site where handsome buildings might have been erected—when they saw that every opportunity of carrying out a fine scheme had been lost in buying off opposition, which, if not bought off, would have shown the absurdity and extravagance of the right hon. Gentleman's plan, then they would be able to understand how well the metropolitan Members of the Committee, his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) and his hon. Friend the Member for London (Mr. Crawford), deserved what they would be sure to receive—the thanks of the inhabitants of this metropolis.

On Motion that the House agree to the Amendment made by the Lords— After Clause 56, insert Clause D.—No public landing place, pier stairs, or quay for landing passengers (other than such as shall be substituted for the present Adelphi pier at the site now occupied by that pier), shall be constructed under the powers of this Act on the south side of the said embankment within 150 yards on either side of the steamboat pier belonging to the Charing Cross Railway Company at Hungerford.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

said, that in asking the House to disagree to this Amendment he could not be supposed to be advocating the cause of great men. A large proportion of his constituents travelled in omnibuses and steamboats. He protested against the clause, in the interests of the public. Everybody knew that it was in order to buy off the opposition of the Charing Cross Railway Company that such a provision had been made, and he for one objected to a proposal which would have the effect of preventing the Metropolitan Board of Works from erecting—however necessary in the interests of the public they might deem it to be to do so—a landing place within 150 yards of the railway with a view of facilitating access to the steamboats, which were the most popular mode of conveyance in the metropolis. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper), he might add, must have been very much pressed for arguments when he found himself obliged to resort to tu quoques such as those in which he had just indulged; but he felt assured that when the real merits of the case were thoroughly understood by the public, as they no doubt one day would be, they would perceive how completely their interests had been neglected and frittered away by a mistaken Royal Commission and an incompetent Board of Works.

MR. COWPER

said, he was amused to hear the hon. Baronet for the first time defending public against private interests; but he was as unfortunate in his opposition now as he had been on former occasions when the measure was under discussion. The railway company had represented to the House of Lords that it would be an injustice to them if, immediately after they had constructed a new pier at Hungerford, the Metropolitan Board should have power to put another pier by the side of it, and it was upon this representation that the Lords inserted the clause. The Bill, however, left the powers of the Conservancy Board, in reference to the construction of piers and landing-places, entirely untouched. It seemed to him that the Lords were right in the conclusion which they had come to, and he should therefore support their Amendment.

MR. AYRTON

said, it was a mistake to suppose, that if the clause were allowed to pass, the Thames Conservancy Board would have all the powers to erect piers which they previously possessed. The Bill conferred on the Metropolitan Board the power of making piers and landing-places in connection with the embankment. That power would supersede the power now possessed by the Thames Conservancy, and the practical effect of the clause would be to give the Charing Cross Railway Company a monopoly of making landing-places within a distance of 150 yards on either side of their line.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

did not think that there was any doubt as to the powers of the Conservancy Board being left untouched, because the Bill contained a clause which said, that except as specially provided, all the rights of the Conservancy Board should be saved.

MR. AYRTON

But there was a clause also which enacted that the Metropolitan Board should have the power to purchase and pay for any Conservancy rights which they should interfere with; and enabled them to construct the piers and landing-places in connection with the Thames embankment. Surely this would affect the rights of the Conservancy Board.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

adhered to his opinion that the rights of the Conservancy Board remained untouched; and moreover, the clause inserted by the Lords simply said that no pier should be constructed under the powers of this Act, and did not at all interfere with totally different and independent powers.

Lords' Amendment agreed to.

MR. AYRTON

proposed to add to the clause these words— Provided always, that this provision shall not affect the powers of the Board of Conservancy to construct any pier or landing-place in connection with the said embankment.

Amendment proposed to the said Amendment, By adding at the end thereof the words "Provided, That this provision shall not affect the power of the Board of Conservancy to construct any pier or landing-place in connection with the said Embankment,

MR. COWPER

thought that such an addition was altogether unnecessary.

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

Amendment agreed to.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

inquired of the Solicitor General whether clauses having been added after the signification of the Royal Assent had been given, it was necessary that the same form should be again gone through; and whether the Crown had any veto in the matter, as the Bill affected Crown property?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, the hon. Gentleman's question had no reference to the matter before the House. The Crown had no veto at all except that which the constitution and the usage of Parliament gave to it. In the proceedings on this Bill, the usage of Parliament required that the consent of the Crown should be signified, as the revenues of the Crown were concerned. That was done; and although other clauses were added to the Bill, it was not again necessary.

Subsequent Amendments agreed to.