§ MR. FIRTHasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that the Corporation of London are now preparing to erect, in the centre of one of the busiest parts of Fleet Street, an edifice to commemorate the site of Temple Bar; whether an information of intrusion under the Act 28 and 29 Vic. c. 104, will lie at the suit of the Attorney General against the Corporation of London in respect of this contemplated erection as causing an obstruction; and, whether he is prepared to exhibit such information?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, he was not aware that the Corporation had the intention referred to until he saw the Notice of that Question. It was not a matter which would have officially come before him in any way. On the Question appearing upon the Paper, however, a representative of the Corporation com- 818 municated with him; and stated that the Corporation intended to erect a refuge in the centre of the roadway where Temple Bar was formerly situated, and the effect would be that the roadway would form two roads 17 feet 2 inches wide, instead of one 40 feet in width. In the centre of the refuge there would be the memorial commemorating the existence of Temple Bar. The Corporation claimed their right legally to erect such a refuge and memorial, alleging that they had the permission of the Commissioners of Sewers and also that of the representatives of the Highways of the Strand district; while the Government, as represented by the Metropolitan Board of Works, also gave their permission. Under these circumstances, he did not consider it his duty to take any steps in the matter.