SECOND READING. (Hansard, 11 March 1863)

MR. COWPER
moved the second reading of the London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Bill.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
intimated that he should oppose it in a subsequent stage, if a Bill were not introduced to embank the south side of the Thames.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he hoped that that opportunity would not be lost of placing the finances of the metropolis on a more satisfactory basis. If the accounts were brought into a consolidated shape, he believed loans might be effected on the credit of the metropolis on much more economical terms.

§ MR. DOULTON
observed, that he had formerly stated that there was a great discrepancy between the estimates of the en- 1314 gineers and the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. The estimate of the right hon. Gentleman's engineer was £460,000; that of the engineer to the Metropolitan Board, £690,000; showing a difference of £230,000. Since he made that statement the former estimate had been advanced to £500,000, and the latter reduced to £620,000, leaving a difference of £120,000. He wished also to state that he should oppose that part of the Bill which proposed to hand over to the City of London the fourpenny coal duties.

§ SIR JOHN SHELLEY
said, he wished to ask when the evidence which was taken before the Royal Commission on the new street would be in the hands of Members?

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he wished to ask whether the Bill was to be referred to a Committee of five or of fifteen Members?

MR. COWPER
said, that he proposed that the Bill, being a hybrid, should be referred to a Committee of fifteen Members, one half to be named by the Committee of Selection, the other to be selected on account of their special local knowledge; and he thought that after it had passed such Committee it should be referred to a Committee of the Whole House. The evidence taken before the Royal Commission, if not then already in the hands of Members, would be delivered immediately. The difference of estimates to which the hon. Member for Lambeth had referred arose from a difference of opinion, not as to the value of property to be taken or the cost of works, but as to the line of the street itself. No engineer belonging to the office of Works was employed on those works; the engineer of the Metropolitan Board of Works had the direction of the Bill.

§ MR. TITE
said, that the alteration in the two estimates of the Metropolitan Board of Works was caused by giving up a portion of the scheme involving an improvement in Thames Street.