Lords Sitting of 22 July 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Turnpike Acts Continuance; Fortifications (Provision for Expenses); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2); Weights and Measures (Ireland) Act (1860) Amendment; Copyhold, &c. Commission.
2a Indemnity; Thames Embankment; Jamaica Loan (Settlement); Merchandise Marks; Turn-

643
pike Trusts Arrangements; Windsor Castle (Bakehouse).
3a Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation; Inclosure; Industrial and Provident Societies; Council of Medical Education.

COLONIAL FORTIFICATIONS.

  EXPLANATION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONregretted to have to trouble their Lordships with a matter of personal explanation; but the noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonies having disputed the accuracy of some figures he had given in the Debate on Colonial Fortifications on Friday evening, and as his statement might possibly have given rise to some misapprehension, he was anxious to state at the earliest possible moment, having ascertained the facts, what those facts were. It would be recollected that on the occasion referred to he stated that there had been a considerable increase in several successive years in the public expenditure as connected with the class of Estimates commonly called colonial. His statement so far was perfectly accurate; but it had no direct bearing on the point at issue, namely, colonial fortifications, nor did he draw any inference from the figures he quoted bearing upon the subject, or intend to make any accusation against the Government. The figures he quoted were perfectly correct, and had been taken from official sources; but he felt that as they were quoted they might have given rise to some misapprehension. If he was understood to mean that those figures expressed the total aggregate expenditure under that particular class of Estimates for several successive years, he had nothing to vary or correct; but if he was understood to say (and he feared he had been so understood) that these figures represented the civil colonial expenditure of this country for several past years, that would be an incorrect impression and would lead their Lordships into error. These Estimates comprised not only colonial, but likewise consular and diplomatic expenditure. But he was wrong in this—that until he had an opportunity of looking into the official documents he was not aware how very large a proportion of those charges were brought into the consular and diplomatic side of the account. The figures he gave were the sums total of these combined services, and not those belonging to the civil colonial service only. He therefore asked permission to withdraw the statement he had made in so far that
  644
  these charges were confined to the civil and colonial expenditure, but not as to the figures quoted being the totals as they appeared in the Estimates.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: My Lords, after what my noble Friend has said, I should be perfectly content, so far as I am individually concerned, to leave the matter as he has now placed it. But there are some interests which are more important than anything which relates to an individual, and this is one of them. There is a very general impression abroad that the colonial expenditure of this country has been for many years greatly increasing in all the departments, and that impression the statement made by my noble Friend on Friday last, considering the position which he held under the Government of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) was calculated to strengthen. When my noble Friend made that statement, being taken by surprise by a reference to colonial expenditure on that occasion, I could only tell the House that I felt certain that my noble Friend was inaccurate, and that he was mixing up with the civil colonial expenditure a great many other charges included in the Civil Estimates No 5. I said, at the same time, I was quite certain that so far from the civil expenditure of the colonies having increased since 1856, and being still increasing, it had been diminishing, although not very rapidly, for some years past. I was perfectly accurate in what I stated on that occasion, although I spoke only from recollection. The statement made by my noble Friend was, that the Civil Colonial Estimates were in the year 1856 £320,000, and that they had swelled until in 1862 they had grown to the enormous amount of £937,000. In these figures my noble Friend had, as I supposed, not confined himself to the civil colonial expenditure, but included such items as Treasury chest, £242,000; captured negroes—bounty on slaves, £55,000; commissions for suppression of the slave trade, £10,000; consuls abroad, £167,000; services in China, Japan, and Siam, £86,000; North American boundary commission, £40,000, and other such charges. Not one of those charges has any more connection with the expenditure of the colonies than with that of the Home Department. Commencing with the year 1856, my noble Friend stated the colonial expenditure for that year to be £320,000. My Lords, the real amount is £122,000, and this in-

  645
  cludes every item that can be brought under the head "Colonial Expenditure." Your Lordships will see how liberal I am in my admissions when I include among the colonial charges such items as the "Emigration Office," which is really kept up much more for the convenience of the inhabitants of this country than for those of the colonies. The amount of the item is £10,000. I have also included a sum of £4,200 for Bermuda, which is a military garrison. My noble Friend stated the amount for 1862 to be £937,000. The real amount for the civil colonial charges is only £113,000. The grants for 1862 display a great excess over those of 1861, but that excess is wholly caused by two special items—namely, £55,000 for the purchase of Vancouver's Island, and £79,193 for British Kaffraria arrears. If these sums were added, they would swell the grants to £247,648; but deducting them, as they are not fairly chargeable to the year, the total amount is only £113,000, instead of £937,000, the sum stated by my noble Friend. One word more, my Lords. I stated, on a former occasion, that these colonial expenses were gradually diminishing. In 1856, the grants for colonial purposes were £123,000; in 1857, £185,000; in 1858, £141,000; in 1859, £183,000; in 1860, £163,000; in 1861, £112,000; and in 1862, £113,000. I think therefore I have clearly shown to your Lordships that though I was unprepared at the moment to answer my noble Friend, I did not deceive your Lordships as to the real facts of the case. I should not have thought it necessary to enter into the subject if I did not know that a mistaken impression has existed in the country on the subject of those colonial charges.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONthought his noble Friend the noble Duke might have been satisfied with his explanation. The gist of that explanation was, that he feared he might have led the House to suppose that the civil colonial expenditure amounted to £937,000; and that if he had done so, he wished to correct that impression. But he could not assent to the correction of the noble Duke. His (the Earl of Carnarvon's) statement was undoubtedly incorrect, in so far as it might seem to warrant an inference against civil colonial expenditure from the figures he had quoted, but was not so incorrect as the noble Duke would now make out. Many of the items which
  646
  the noble Duke would now deduct, he (the Earl of Carnarvon) thought he was perfectly justified in treating as expenditure for colonial purposes. For instance, there were items in the years 1860–1 and 1861–2 for expenses connected with the Zambezi and the Niger. In the year 1860–1 there was a sum of £6,330 for North American exploring, and in 1861–2 a sum of £60,000 for expenses in connection with the North American boundary, which were obviously charges incurred for colonial rather than British interests. There was a sum of £247,600 set down as the total of Classes V. and VII. for the year 1862–3. Adding to that sum two items of £1,500 and £40,000 for the Niger and the North American boundary, they had a total of £289,000, instead of 113,000, for the present year. When these and similar items were included in the amount of civil colonial expenditure, it would be found that this expenditure had not only not decreased, but had been annually increasing.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEthought he had said nothing whatever to reflect on his noble Friend. In referring to what had been stated by the noble Earl on a former evening, he had not depended on his own memory only, but had referred to the report in The Times. Up to within the last two years the several colonial Estimates were included in two different Votes.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwished to know how it was that the diplomatic and consular Votes were mixed up with the colonial.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEwould draw his noble Friend's attention to the fact that there were several different headings, such as "colonial," "consular," and "other foreign services."

THAMES EMBANKMENT BILL.

  [BILL NO. 187.] SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that it had long been considered a most important undertaking to embank the river Thames. That embankment was now rendered more necessary by the adoption of the scheme for carrying the low-level sewer by the side of the river, rather than breaking up the Strand for that purpose—a course which could not

  647
  fail to be attended with the greatest possible inconvenience to the whole traffic of the metropolis. Various schemes had been from time to time proposed for carrying out the design of the embankment, but they had all failed, until in 1861 measures were adopted by the Legislature for the purpose, which had rendered the present Bill necessary to enable them to be carried into effect. He trusted that the present plan would be more fortunate than its predecessors, and that the result would be to render our noble river once more that object of beauty and pleasure that it was to our ancestors.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, that under ordinary circumstances he should have remained silent, and he only troubled their Lordships now because his name had been brought forward, both in Parliament and in public, in a most unfair manner in connection with this subject. He was not going to offer any objection to the Bill, nor did he object in any way to the embankment of the river; but he thought he was entitled to a few words of explanation in order to set himself right with their Lordships, by placing before them the exact position in which he stood in respect to the matter. As their Lordships very well knew, he was one of the lessees under the Crown of some property situated on the bank of the river at Whitehall, a short distance from Westminster Bridge. A good many years ago—in 1837—long before the question of the embankment of the Thames was started at all, he applied for a renewal of the lease; but very shortly afterwards the question of the improvement of the river, and the best means of remedying the inconvenience occasioned by the overcrowded state of the Strand, and the constantly increasing state of the traffic, was started, and the consideration of his application was deferred until this question of the embankment should have been settled. Upon several occasions he renewed his application; but so much delay was interposed, that he had almost despaired of getting a renewal of the lease at all. At one time the decision was delayed owing to the doubts as to the carrying-out of the embankment; at another, from a question as to the site of the new Westminster Bridge. At length—he believed in 1842—a Commission, of which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Newcastle) was chairman, was appointed to report on the Embankment of the River Thames.
  648
  After a delay of two years the Commission reported in favour of a scheme for embanking the Thames, which contemplated the formation of an Embankment from Blackfriars Bridge to Scotland Yard, and a road from Scotland Yard to Whitehall. That recommendation was made after a full inquiry, and without any attempt on the part of any one that he knew of to bias the minds of the Commissioners either one way or the other, and he and the other Crown lessees rested under the impression that, as far at least as the road was concerned, their recommendation would be acted upon. But the House of Commons did not depart on that occasion from its almost invariable practice of throwing over the whole of the recommendations of the Commissioners; and when, in 1861, another Commission was appointed to consider how far these improvements could be carried into effect, so as to relieve the crowded streets, a memorial was presented by the Crown lessees to the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests, praying the Board to take into consideration the position of the lessees with respect to the injury which was lkiely to be done to their property. On the part of the Woods and Forests Mr. Pennethorne, their official architect and surveyor, and Mr. Norton, a surveyor of great eminence, with whom he (the Duke of Buccleuch) was not personally acquainted, on the part of the lessees, were examined before the Commission, and gave evidence; and Mr. Pennethone then stated that, in his opinion, a better line of road could be made than by continuing the road by the side of the Thames from Whitehall on to Westminster Bridge. That plan, in his opinion, was open to grave objections; the road would have to be made on a considerable incline, and coming on to Westminster Bridge just opposite the Speaker's house, the two lines of traffic would be at right angles. Not that it would signify about two streets being at right angles; but it was apprehended, that as two great lines of traffic would pass along these streets and here meet together at right angles, and on a steep incline, great inconvenience, if not actual danger, would result. The object being to have a continuous line of traffic in the direction of Victoria Street, Mr. Pennethorne suggested that it would be better that the road should be continued through Scotland Yard and Whitehall, across the end of Parliament Street, and right on to Victoria Street. When the

  649
  question came before Parliament this Session, the Crown lessees took it for granted—at least, he did for one—that that plan of Mr. Pennethorne's, being the only one which they knew anything about, would also be submitted to Parliament. The lessees were perfectly aware that even this scheme would interfere injuriously with their property, on account of the noisy thoroughfare which it would create, but they saw that it was not so bad as having a road interposed between their gardens and the river. It was a choice of two evils, and naturally they chose that which they deemed the lesser. However, another plan was submitted by the Commission to the Lords of the Treasury, who declined to give any opinion as to which would be the preferable line—that by the river side or by Whitehall—not wishing, as they said, to prejudice a matter which was to come before Parliament. The lessees of the Crown did not petition against the embankment of the Thames—they never dreamt of such a thing—but they did object to have a road carried between their property and the river, and they thought they had shown that there was another plan which, on public grounds alone, was preferential, although it did to a certain extent injure their property—they chose what they considered the least of two evils; and believing that the adoption of the road carrying the embankment on to Westminster Bridge was not of such public convenience as to warrant interfering with their rights, they had considered that the line of route had been settled by the plan of Mr. Pennethorne; but after what had passed they certainly expected that two schemes would be presented to the Select Committee, one that recommended by Mr. Pennethorne, the other that now before the House. To their great astonishment, however, they found that one scheme, and one only, was to be submitted to the Committee—that which recommended for adoption the plan of carrying the embankment on to Westminster Bridge by a road constructed between their property and the river. That was the scheme which was embodied in the present Bill. That being so, a Motion was made in the House of Commons for the production of the Correspondence on the subject for the purpose of getting Mr. Pennethorne's proposal officially before them. On that occasion the First Commissioner of Works, who was the Chairman of the Committee, stated that the
  650
  Correspondence was very voluminous, but that he would look through it and see whether it was necessary to produce the whole of it. In the Select Committee, also, his (the Duke of Buccleuch's) counsel applied for the production of the Correspondence. On the next morning, however, the Chairman said that it contained nothing important or material to the case, and therefore refused to produce it. The lessees felt that it was of great importance that the alternative scheme should be brought under the notice of the Committee, and the only way in which it was now possible to bring the matter before the Committee was to call before them Mr. Gore, Mr. Pennethorne, and others, in order to prove the plans and the Correspondence which had taken place between the officers of the Crown and the lessees. This was accordingly done, and Mr. Pennethorne's scheme was thus laid before the Committee. It was afterwards said that that course was taken at the last moment, and completely took the Committee by surprise; but the fact was, that it was what was desired most earnestly by the lessees, and every effort was made by them to have it produced, but their attempts were always rendered futile. At last a Motion was made in the House of Commons to the effect that the Correspondence should be produced, and was carried against the Government. Only a portion of it, however, had yet been produced, and therefore he was addressing their Lordships under considerable difficulties, because the Correspondence which he wished to refer them to was not yet in their hands. He might, no doubt, have made the absence of these papers a ground of objection against proceeding with the second reading of the Bill that evening, but at this period of the Session such a course of proceeding would be most injurious to the Bill, and all he wanted was to state to their Lordships that he conceived that his name had been made use of in respect to this Bill in the most improper and unjustifiable manner. As to the attacks in the newspapers, he did not care one farthing about them, whether they assumed the shape of anonymous articles or anonymous letters; but he did wish to put himself straight with their Lordships, and to say that he did not wish to make any obstructive opposition to the Bill before them. He was quite ready to admit that the embankment of the Thames was a work of very great importance, and

  651
  that it was of the utmost consequence to relieve the overcrowded streets, although he did not approve of the exact manner in which it was proposed to effect that object. He could not help thinking that the present access to the City and the Strand was a disgrace to the metropolis. It was a disgrace that of all the noble structures which spanned the Thames from London Bridge to Kew only, three—London Bridge, Blackfriars, and Westminster—were free. If Southwark Bridge and Waterloo were thrown open to the public, a great relief would be afforded not only to the other bridges, but to the Strand and other streets. Every one must see that the toll on Waterloo Bridge especially deterred the traffic from passing over that magnificent structure; and that if the toll were removed, instead of a solitary carriage now and then, they would find that bridge almost as much crowded as Westminster Bridge itself, while the long thoroughfare through the Strand would be very much relieved; nor could anybody doubt, that with respect to heavy traffic, where time was not of so much consequence, much of it was deterred from passing over Waterloo Bridge by the toll. He certainly thought it due to himself to take the opinion of the Select Committee of the other House; but inasmuch as the House of Commons had chosen to overrule the decision of its own Committee, and by a considerable majority expressed their opinion that this was a case in which private interests must give way before a great public necessity, he could only bow to their decision. He had been reported as having said that nothing should ever induce him to yield; but this arose entirely from a misapprehension of the tenor of his evidence. In conclusion, he repeated that he would offer no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, and he thought it due that he should make this explanation.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I think it very injurious to the progress of business to discuss the merits of the scheme on this stage of the Bill. The noble Lord who has charge of the Bill has very ingeniously confined his remarks, in moving the second reading, to the one part of the measure on which there has never been any difference of opinion—the necessity for the embankment. To the only point on which there has been any controversy—how that embankment should be carried out—he carefully avoided any allusion. I am glad to find that the noble Duke
  652
  (the Duke of Buccleuch) has taken this opportunity of setting himself right with your Lordships and the public at large upon this matter; but I certainly think he has good reason to complain of the course which has been pursued by Her Majesty's Government. I cannot refrain from observing that that course has not been calculated to promote the public service. It has presented another repetition of that of which we have often had so much cause to complain, namely, differences of opinion and quarrels between two public Departments, and an absence of any overruling power to control their differences and decide upon their misunderstandings. Your Lordships will see from the papers which have been published that a somewhat angry controversy has taken place between two Departments of the Government, not with regard to the merits of individuals, but with regard to the merits of the scheme itself. At a very early stage you will find that the Commissioner of Woods considers that the alternative plan which he proposes, irrespective of the interests of the Crown or of the Crown lessees, was infinitely more advantageous for the public than that which received the countenance of the Commissioner of Works. I think it would not have been unnatural under those circumstances that the Government, as a Government, and more especially as they recognised the duty of taking the management of the affair in their own hands, and not leaving it to be dealt with by the Metropolitan Board of Works, I think it would not have been unnatural that the Government should have decided between these two conflicting Departments, and should have proposed in their own name a scheme for carrying out this great national undertaking. But they did neither one thing nor the other; for they professed to leave the whole matter to the impartial decision of Parliament, and then they introduced the plan which was recommended by the Commissioner of Works, and they absolutely excluded from the consideration of the Committee the plan which was sanctioned by the other Department. I think the Government ought from the commencement to have made up their minds upon the subject; and if they were not prepared to pursue that course, they ought to have left the matter to be decided by the Committee of the House of Commons. I believe it can hardly be said that in the mode in which they have dealt with the question they have held the

  653
  balance evenly, as they professed to do, between the two Departments. After a very considerable length of time, and after seeking to withhold the alternative plan proposed by Mr. Pennethorne, they were compelled to produce it; and on its production the Committee—I do not say rightly or wrongly—upon that I pronounce no decision—the Committee to which the subject was referred, and which was appointed by the Government themselves, with the addition of five members chosen by the Committee of Selection, for the purpose of obtaining a perfectly impartial tribunal, voted for that alternative plan, and against the scheme recommended by the Government. A series of insinuations and of most discreditable imputations were then cast on the gentlemen who had come forward, as they were asked to do, to give evidence with respect to the two proposals, and to state their views of their respective merits. Forthwith there proceeded from the press a number of most violent tirades, directed more especially against my noble Friend (the Duke of Buccleuch), who was only one Crown lessee among many—including also Mr. Horsman and Sir Robert Peel, all of whom had a great interest in the matter—and who had stated their case as they would have been entitled to do before a Committee on a Private Bill. The Committee decided in their favour. Again, a series of imputations and insinuations as to motives were made, a considerable amount of public excitement was got up, and the Government, I am sorry to say, in the course of the discussions which ensued, seem to have given way to that excitement, and to have rather encouraged than discouraged those hostile criticisms. It is a fair subject for consideration which of the two plans might be most advantageous to the public service and least injurious to private interests. I confess that, for my own part, if I had been in the position of the noble Duke, I should have thought Mr. Pennethorne's diagonal plan would be a greater nuisance and a greater source of inconvenience to me than the one recommended by the Commissioner of Works. But that is a matter of opinion. I must also say that I think it would be more convenient if the Government, in calling upon us to discuss a question of this kind, had laid before us a plan of the proposed works, so that we should not have to consider them in absolute ignorance of the line which the embankment is to fol-
  654
  low. I repeat that I do not profess to give any opinion with regard to the merits of the conflicting schemes. I certainly looked over the ground a day or two ago. I went to the corner of Westminster Bridge in order to see how the roadway might be carried on to the embankment, and it struck me that there would be at that point a very inconvenient incline, and an equally inconvenient meeting of two lines of traffic. Moreover, as a matter of beauty, I have always thought that the great merit of an embankment was that it should be perfectly level, and that it should present no sudden rise; but if I understand anything of the plan of this work, it will have to be raised rapidly before it reaches the bridge to a height of eleven feet, and that elevation must be supported, I suppose, by a retaining wall abutting on the river, than which I can conceive no more disagreeable effect. The House of Commons, however, and Her Majesty's Government, have decided on adopting that plan, and I apprehend that your Lordships will not offer to it any opposition. I am sure that at the same time you will one and all do justice to the temperate manner in which my noble Friend has come forward and stated the circumstances to which exception has been taken, and has said not only that he would offer no opposition to the scheme, but that he was perfectly ready to make any sacrifice of his private interest to the public convenience. And when people look back at the whole of these proceedings, I think they will see that my noble Friend has had but scanty justice dealt out to him, and that he deserved, not the obloquy which has been cast upon him, but the gratitude of the public for the frank and temperate manner in which he has stated his views and abandoned what he regarded as his own interest for the sake of promoting their advantage.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had exercised a very wise discretion in not entering upon details in proposing the second reading of the Bill, and in not introducing unnecessary topics which might have excited some feelings of irritation. With regard to the Government, they were free from blame. They proposed a plan, which was referred to a Committee, and the Committee having decided upon an alteration, the House of Commons restored the Bill to its original shape. He believed their Lordships were

  655
  all agreed that the course pursued by the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) was perfectly straightforward and honourable, and he thought that nothing could be more honourable or straightforward than the way in which he had accepted the determination of the other House and abstained from endangering a useful and important public measure by offering opposition. The scheme was one of the greatest possible importance, and he hoped now that the Bill would become, law in the course of the present Session.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that with regard to the course taken by the noble Duke in the matter, he could only state his belief that that course was in unison with the character he had borne throughout his whole life. He should, at the same time, express his regret that when the House of Commons had to decide on the best mode of carrying out that embankment, circumstances had arisen which had prevented them from considering it in the calm manner that must have been desired. For his part, he could conceive nothing more unsightly or more unsafe than the way in which it was proposed that the new road should abut on Westminster Bridge. It would there form a very steep incline, and he believed that great inconvenience must arise from the meeting of lines of traffic at such a spot, where it would be peculiarly difficult to manage horses bearing heavy loads. He therefore thought it would be better that some such plan as that proposed by Mr. Pennethorne should be adopted. But the whole subject of the inconvenience created by the overcrowding of traffic in the streets of the metropolis was one which required the most careful consideration of the Government, and he believed that the best mode of meeting the difficulty would be to adopt some such regulation as that which was employed in Paris, where all materials of great length and weight were only allowed to be carried through the streets between the hours of ten or eleven o'clock at night and six o'clock in the morning. By that means it would be impossible that we should have such a stoppage of our thoroughfares as that which he had witnessed the other day, when a long line of traffic was brought to a standstill for a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes by on enormous mass of timber, which could not be turned without sweeping the street from one side to the other.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he hoped,
  656
  in connection with the subject of the embankment, the necessity of improving Parliament Street would not be lost sight of. They could not erect the new public offices in such a street as King Street. When the proposal for building those offices was first made, he called attention to the necessity for purchasing the adjacent ground, and every year he saw some old house pulled down and a new one building up there, so that the purchase of the ground was every day becoming more expensive. The widening of Parliament Street would be a greater improvement and a greater relief to the traffic in that neighbourhood than even the embankment of the Thames. He thought it important that the question of the embankment should be considered without prejudice, for much prejudice on the subject had been excited in the public mind. He was himself convinced that the alternative plan, if carefully considered and properly carried out, would afford most accommodation to the public. He would suggest that there should be no haste with regard to the completion of the work at once. He thought it would be desirable that the first operations should be confined to the most valuable part of the plan—namely, that portion of it between Whitehall and Blackfriars Bridge. He trusted that Government would have the courage next Session to ask money for the widening of Parliament Street. It might possibly be seen by that time that that was the greater improvement of the two. Instead of rebuilding Blackfriars Bridge, he would suggest that by taking down one unsafe pier—for the rest of the Bridge appeared perfectly sound—and by rebuilding that pier and two arches connected with it, they might, probably, save £150,000 or £200,000, which might be made available for some other improvement, such as the embankment on the Southwark side, or the proposed new street, which, he believed, was now abandoned, from Blackfriars Bridge in the direction of St. Paul's and the Mansion House. One of the great objections to the embankment was the difficulty of getting to it from the West, without going down the Strand a long way. A sloping street from the end of Duncannon Street across Villiers Street and Buckingham Street to the embankment, would be a great convenience for vehicles coming from the West End; and unless that accommodation should be afforded, all that traffic which tended so much to crowd the Strand would have

  657
  no direct approach to the embankment, and must continue in its present course. It would be very desirable, in considering this question, that it should not be supposed that the whole matter was finally settled by any plan that might be adopted during the present Session, but that the public mind might be left perfectly free to adopt a better plan, if a better one should be proposed.
  LORD LLANOVERsaid, in 1856 he had the honour of presiding over a Committee of the House of Commons appointed for the purpose of considering the subject to which his noble Friend had referred, and that Committee came to the resolution that it would be exceedingly desirable that the whole of the land between Downing Street and Great George Street should be purchased. Some eminent engineers were examined before the Committee, and they were of opinion, that if the property was purchased, good interest would be got for the money expended, and that ultimately there would be a great saving when the ground was required for the public offices. A Report was made accordingly; and in consequence of that Report he was desired to issue a notice for plans for the improvement of that part of the metropolis. Rewards were offered to different competitors, and one excellent plan was produced for laying out the ground. But what had happened since? The whole scheme for the purchase of the property had been given up. The natural consequence was, that when the Government came forward to purchase a small piece of ground, up went the value of all the adjacent property. The scheme recommended by this Committee involved the widening of the street from the Treasury Buildings to Bridge Street—an improvement which would ultimately have to be made—and he hoped the Government would consider the expediency of introducing a Bill next Session for acquiring that space, whether it was to be used immediately or not. He had no doubt that the embankment of the Thames was not only desirable, but that it would be a great improvement; but if it were carried out on the north side, it ought to be carried out on the south side simultaneously, otherwise the whole of that aide would be thrown under water in consequence of the contracted passage through which the stream would have to pass. Still, he was afraid the traffic of the metropolis would not be so much improved by this scheme as was expected by many
  658
  —the greater part of the traffic which passed through the Strand came from Belgravia. He believed, that if Mr. Pennethorne'a alternative plan had been placed before the Committee of the House of Commons at an earlier stage of the proceedings, it would have been received with more favour. Their Lordships certainly ought to have that plan before them, and they would then be in a much better condition to judge of the matter. If the embankment were made as now proposed, it ought to be accompanied with the opening of a broad road up Parliament Street. For this purpose the Government should at once take steps to acquire all the requisite space, for nothing could be more costly than buying small pieces of ground for momentary use, and then being compelled to make further purchases. Every such purchase enhanced the value of the land in the neighbourhood, and in the end the Government had to pay a great deal more for what they wanted.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Lord who had just sat down, that it would be more expedient and more economical for Government to take the more extensive view which he put forward, if they could get the House of Commons to agree to it. He regretted that the plan of the noble Lord had not met with more favour than it did, but its fault was that it was too perfect and too matured. The noble Lord had proposed to lay out £2,000,000 on the purchase of the land, and to raise thereon an elaborate scheme of public offices. The largeness of the expenditure on the purchase of the land, involving, as it was supposed to do, a corresponding outlay on buildings, was the reason why it had not been adopted. He believed himself that if the land had been purchased and the present buildings left untouched till the ground was required for the laying-out of new streets, a large portion of the expenditure would be saved or recovered, owing to the increased value given to the land. He also concurred in the opinion of the noble Lord that it was more desirable, as well as more economical, to obtain large plots of ground at once instead of purchasing it bit by bit.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in reply, said, that many of the suggestions which had been thrown oat in the course of the debate were well worthy of consideration.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection afterwards.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the Consideration of the said Bill; (viz.),

  The LORD STEWARD (Chairman),

  The Earl of POWIS,

  The Viscount DE VESCI,

  The Viscount STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE,

  The Lord SILCHESTER;

  —agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet To-morrow, at Eleven o'Clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with Leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

JAMAICA LOAN (SETTLEMENT) BILL.

  [BILL NO. 199.] SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that the circumstances which had led to the original grant of the loan of £200,000 to the colony had been so recently fully discussed in that House, that he need not trouble their Lordships with any repetition of them. He looked upon this Bill as the complement of the measure of 1854. It would carry into effect the proposal of his noble Friend (Lord Taunton), and be attended with two important results. It would provide a certain fund, by which measures of importance of a local character might be carried into effect at the discretion of the Government; and, further, it would accomplish another most desirable object—namely, that of placing the Governor in independence of those who voted the supplies.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was not going to oppose this Bill, which he thought had become necessary in order to carry into effect the recommendations of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Taunton); but there was one point on which he should be glad to have some explanations from his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department. As he understood the measure, its object was to sanction the application of certain money to be raised under an Act which the colonists were intending
  660
  and expecting to pass, and which he had no doubt they would pass. But this Bill would not come into operation till the colony should have passed that Act. The noble Duke had suggested that it might be expedient for the colonists to avail themselves of an Act which they passed in 1860, and in respect of which a doubt had been raised. Sums of money were raised under that Act for the expenses of the census and other important objects. Owing to the doubt raised in respect of the measure of 1860, no payments had been made under it. He did not see in the Bill before their Lordships any provision by which a retrospective operation could be given to it, so that payments which had already become due might be made by the colonial Legislature. Would not a retrospective operation be necessary in order that payment might be made of certain liabilities incurred under the Secretary of State's Warrant?
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, his noble Friend was quite right. This Bill would not have a retrospective operation, but the omission was intentional. It had been considered that in a measure introduced by the Imperial Government it would not be right to interfere with money already in the hands of the colonial Government. He was not sure that the time for sanctioning the colonial Bill referred to by his noble Friend had expired. Either in the Bill which the colony would pass consequent on this measure or in some other Bill the colonists would insert a provision having a retrospective effect, in order to appropriate the money raised under the operation of the colonial Bill, in the case of which the sanction of the Crown had been suspended.
  THE EARL OF DERBYobserved, that in the course of the correspondence the objection was taken by the Treasury that in all these cases it was necessary that the legislation of the Imperial Parliament should precede that of the colonial Parliament; and what he wanted to know was whether this Bill gave its sanction to retrospective legislation; for if not, would not the same objection again occur when the colonial Legislature passed their Bill? He wanted to know whether the present Bill gave sanction to retrospective legislation.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he had ascertained that there would not be upon the part of the Treasury any objection to give the sanction of the Crown to

  661
  the appropriation of the money which had accrued during the two years; and he should, therefore, himself feel authorized to give the sanction of the Crown without again referring to the Treasury.
  THE EARL OF DERBYwas delighted to hear that the Departments had come to terms.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, Eleven o'clock.