cannot be doubted that children in a pauperized parish more easily learn pauperism, as in a parish where the people are more industrious and moral they will more easily acquire industrious and moral habits; but it is wholly a factitious, and, I believe, a hopeless result, that is aimed at when you attempt to disguise from people their status and position, and expect thereby to create in them a new character. Although, therefore, I do very much regret it when I find a parish pauperized, and although I very much regret to find that there is so much bad example, and look upon it as a happy thing where a person is brought up in a parish where there is no pauperism or immorality, I will still say that in my opinion it is a necessary and a proper thing for a child, in order that it may know its real position, and that it may make practical efforts to benefit itself, to know if the truth be so that it is a pauper; and then when it has that knowledge, I think it should have also those facilities which may be legitimately afforded to it consistently with other arrangements, to enable it to remove itself from that class.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.

Report of the Select Committee (of the House of Lords) appointed to consider and report whether, by any Alterations in the Forms and Proceedings of this House, the Despatch of Public Business can be more effectually promoted. THE Committee was appointed on the 8th February, 1861, and nominated the 11th, as follows:-The Lord Chancellor, Lord President, Marquis of Salisbury, Earl of Derby, Earl Stanhope, Earl Grey, Earl of Ellenborough, Viscount Eversley, Lord Rollo, Lord Boyle, Lord Redesdale, Lord Colchester, Lord Somerhill, Lord Wynford, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Lord Chelmsford, Lord Lyveden, Lord Llanover, and Lord Taunton. The committee sat four days, and. after having communicated with the committee of the House of Commons, through Sir Charles Graham, chairman of the committee of that House, and Viscount Eversley, chairman of the Lords' committee, on the 7th May, reported as follows:

That the committee have met, and considered the subject-matter referred to them.

The committee are of opinion that the forms and practice of this House are well calculated to prevent delay in the passing of bills, or in the transaction of other business. But the House has had frequently to regret that bills have been sent up by the other House of Parliament at so late a period of the session as to render it impossible to give them that full consideration which the public interests require. That this is not a novel complaint is proved by the Standing Order of the 5th May, 1668, and the subsequent proceedings of this House.

It appears to the committee that two modes of remedying this evil may be suggested; either that some portion of the legislation which now originates in the House of Commons should commence in this House, or that some alteration should be made in the forms and proceedings of the other House, which would enable it to devote more time and attention to legislative measures during the early part of the session.

The committee would observe, that independently of financial measures, which begin as of course in the House of Commons, the representative

character of that House renders it expedient that some other classes of important bills should first be discussed there; and should be reviewed rather than proposed in this House. It is obvious that the course of proceeding by which such measures may be so expedited in their passage through the other House, so as to allow of their full consideration by the Lords, and to enable the Commons and this House afterwards to give due attention to any amendment which may have been proposed there must rest entirely with the House of Commons itself. In pursuance, however, of the power given to them, the committee directed their chairman to place himself in communication with the chairman of the committee in the Commons on the business of the House, with a view to facilitate the cooperation of the House of Lords in any arrangements which might require the joint action of the two Houses: they also authorized him to make the following suggestions:

1st. That it is expedient, in certain cases, to adopt an abridged form of proceeding with reference to bills which shall be again brought before this House after having been passed by it, in the immediately preceding session of the same Parliament.

2nd. That the bills in respect to which such abridged form of proceeding may be adopted, shall be mutatis mutandis the same bills which this House may have passed and sent to the other House, and as to which that House may have resolved that there did not remain time for their due consideration in the session in which they were received.

3rd. That on a resolution being moved, that it is expedient again to pass, and to send to the other House for its concurrence, any such bill, the question shall be put whether the House will agree to the same, and on such resolution being agreed to, the bill to which it relates shall be forthwith sent to the other House for its concurrence, without any further question being put or any debate allowed.

The committee also suggested, through the chairman, that it would be expedient that the House of Commons should authorize some one of its members to move as soon as possible the first reading and the printing of all bills sent down from the House of Lords, in conformity with the practice adopted by this House with reference to bills sent up from the House of Commons. These suggestions did not meet with the concurrence of the committee in the House of Commons, for the reasons set forth in their report, which has since been communicated to this House. That report, however, contains certain resolutions agreed to by the committee of the House of Commons, which, if carried out, would, in their opinion, effect "changes in their own forms and proceedings, which they confidently believe will expedite the despatch of business from the first commencement of the session, and thus give to the Lords an early opportunity of considering their measures." Under those circumstances, and the committee in the Commons having made their report to the House, it appeared to the committee unnecessary to prolong their sittings; and that it would be desirable, before any further steps are taken in the Lords, to watch the effect of the alterations proposed, in case they should receive the sanction of the House of Commons.

THAMES EMBANKMENT COMMISSION.

Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into Plans for embanking the River Thames within the Metropolis.

THE commission consisted of Sir William Cubitt, Lord Mayor of London; Major-General Sir Joshua Jebb, K.C.B.; John Thwaites, Esq.; Captain D. Galton, R.E.; Captain Burstal, R.N.; Henry Arthur Hunt, Esq.; and John Robinson M'Clean Esq.

On the 22nd of July, 1861, the commissioners reported as follows:

We, the undersigned members of your Majesty's commission-appointed to examine into plans for embanking the river Thames within the metropolis, so as to "provide with the greatest efficiency and economy for the relief of the most crowded streets, by the establishment of a new and spacious thoroughfare, for the improvement of the navigation of the river, and which will afford an opportunity of making the low level sewer without disturbing the Strand or Fleet Street, and also to report upon the cost and means of carrying the same into execution"-now humbly submit to your Majesty the conclusions at which we have arrived, and the recommendations we have agreed to offer.

The nature of the inquiry entrusted to us was made known to the public by advertisement in the newspapers, and more than fifty designs were presented for our consideration; and the authors and other persons interested have had the opportunity of publicly explaining and illustrating their respective views upon the subject.

The main features of the majority of the plans are an embanked roadway on the north side of the river, and the formation of docks with the view to retain all the existing wharves; in others, railways in addition to the roadway and docks have been proposed; whilst in a few, a solid embankment and roadway without either docks or railways have been suggested. Amongst these latter is a plan submitted by Mr. Shields, some of whose suggestions appear to us to afford in a greater degree than any of the other designs, the basis upon which an efficient and economical scheme may be founded. We desire, however, to express our high appreciation of the great engineering skill and ability that has been displayed in many of those designs which contemplated the construction of docks and railways.

The wharf property between Westminster Bridge and the Temple Gardens is for the most part devoted to the coal trade. We find that great facilities are now afforded for the distribution of coal by the new system of unshipping in the docks into railway waggons, and by various depôts on the railways in and near the metropolis. We are of opinion that public convenience no longer necessitates the continuance either of the coal or any other trade in this immediate locality. We, therefore, think that it would not be expedient to construct and maintain docks for the sake of preserving the existing wharves between the points we have mentioned; whilst their removal will greatly simplify the formation of the embankment, and add to the beauty of the river. The wharf property, however, between the Temple Gardens and Blackfriars Bridge cannot, in our opinion, be so treated; and that eastward of Blackfriars Bridge is so important in a commercial point of view, that we do not recommend any interference with it.

Having regard to these and other considerations, we are of opinion that we shall best fulfil your Majesty's instructions and provide for the requirements of the public, by establishing a spacious thoroughfare between Westminster Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge, by means of an embankment and roadway; and that the new thoroughfare thus created should be continued on eastward from Blackfriars Bridge by a new street, according to the line formerly laid down by Mr. Bunning, the city's architect, from the west end of Earl Street across Cannon Street, to the Mansion House. Without such a street no relief whatever would be given to the crowded thoroughfares of Ludgate Hill, St. Paul's Churchyard, and Cheapside.

The line of embankment at Westminster would coincide with the terrace of the Houses of Parliament, and from thence to Blackfriars Bridge would nearly follow the line laid down for the Corporation of the City of London in 1841 by Mr. Walker, Captain Bullock, Mr. Saunders, and Mr. Leach. The general level of the embankment ard road would be four feet above Trinity high water. The road would commence at Westminster by an easy descent opposite the Clock Tower, and be continued on, a hundred feet in width, to the eastern boundary of the Temple Gardens; from this point the road would be reduced to seventy feet in width, and carried on a viaduct supported by piers of masonry, rising to the level of Blackfriars Bridge, so constructed as to leave a breadth of water for the convenience of the city gasworks and the adjoining wharves of about seventy or eighty feet. The spaces between the piers under the ascending road would be left available for barges to lie, and afford easy access to the water between this structure and the wharves.

From Westminster Bridge to the eastern boundary of the Temple Gardens the embankment-sustained by a river wall-would be solid in its whole breadth; which breadth opposite Richmond Terrace would be 220 feet from the existing river wall. At Hungerford it would be 320 feet from the existing wharf; at Somerset House about 120 feet; and at the Temple about 220 feet. The plan accompanying this report sets forth the entire scheme.

With respect to the appropriation of the reclaimed land, we would recommend that so much of it as shall be in front of the Crown property— which will be about 120 feet in width at its narrowest part-should be laid out in ornamental gardens for the accommodation of the occupiers of the houses, and that the portion in front of the Temple Gardens, also about 120 feet wide, be placed at the disposal of the Society to be dealt with in a similar manner. The other portions of the reclaimed land may either be kept open for the health and recreation of the public, or be applied to building purposes.

We propose that communications should be made with the intended roadway from Whitehall, opposite the Horse Guards, and also from some of the streets in the Strand, and that a new street should be formed passing through the Savoy to Wellington Street. The frontages on these streets would offer eligible sites for building, as would also the inner frontage of the new road, if it should hereafter be thought fit so to utilize the ground. We, however, feel it our duty to recommend that while economy and utility in laying out and disposing of the ground should be kept in view, endeavours should be made to invest this new and conspicuous work with some elements of interest and beauty.

For the improvement of the navigation, we recommend that the existing

shoals between Waterloo and Westminster Bridges should be removed, due regard being had to the foundations of the former. Also that an uniform low-water channel of six feet in depth at ordinary spring tides, and 500 feet in width from the embankment wall, be secured, and thus the stream be more equalized in velocity. If at any future time any effect should be produced on the river from the diminution of its capacity for tidal water by reason of the embankment, arrangements may be made higher up the river by dredging, or by a tidal reservoir to compensate for the loss. The consideration, however, of this matter would naturally devolve on the conservators of the River Thames.

The embankment and street we have proposed will afford an opportunity of making the low level sewer without disturbing the Strand or Fleet Street, and at the same time facilitate the construction of the sewer eastward of the embankment.

We are not prepared to recommend the construction of an embankment on the Surrey shore at present, but if hereafter it should be thought desirable or necessary to embank any portion of it, the scheme we have proposed for the Middlesex side will not in any way interfere with it.

With regard to that part of our instructions in which we are commanded by your Majesty to "report on the costs and means of carrying the same into execution," we beg to report that we estimate the cost of the land, making compensations, constructing the embankment and roadways, and also acquiring the property in the City for, and forming the new street to the Mansion House, at 1,500,000l. This amount, however, would be reduced should it be thought right to dispose of any of the reclaimed land on the bank of the river for building purposes.

Parliament having appropriated the coal dues to provide for the outlay necessary for this great work, it only remains for us to express our opinion as to the " means of carrying the same into execution."

Looking at the magnitude of the work, the important and varied interests, both public and private, which will be affected, and the urgent necessity for its early completion, we are of opinion, that the control and management of the undertaking should be entrusted to a special commission, appointed by your Majesty, in order to ensure the speedy and economical attainment of an object so much needed by the public, and affording so favourable an opportunity for the improvement of the river and adornment of the metropolis.

This report was signed by all the commissioners except John Thwaites, Esq., who made the following protest in a letter to the Lord Mayor:

While agreeing with the report of my brother commissioners as to the line of embankment to be followed, and the general principles laid down for its construction, I regret to be compelled to protest against certain conclusions at which they have arrived, and am most unwilling to allow any individual difference of opinion to disturb that unanimity which is so desirable in the decisions of a body charged with the preliminary investigation of a work of the highest public importance. But to remain silent in the face of the final recommendation of the report would, I cannot but feel, be to betray as well the interests of the general metropolitan public as those of the board which I have the honour to represent on the commission.

If there be one point which has been affirmed and reaffirmed with unmistakable precision by every one of the several commissions and committees which have investigated this subject, it is, that the Metropolitan Board of