93. A report by the Improvements Committee emphasised that the intention all along had been to extend Victoria Tower Gardens and the Government’s decision to give up a small part of the existing Victoria Tower Gardens and five houses in Abingdon Street required for the scheme was conditional on the provision of a garden, as was Westminster Vestry’s contribution of £100,000. It noted that it would not be justifiable for the Council to claim a concession from the Government but keep a discretion to either lay the land out as a garden or to build on it. The report also stated that Parliament would be certain to reject the bill given that the private syndicate’s plan was rejected because they proposed to build on the land: “From what we have stated it will be seen that the amended scheme approved by the Council was based on the laying out of the land as a garden, that the Government contribution of the strip of the Victoria-tower-garden and the five houses in Abingdon-street was on the same basis, and that the Westminster Vestry made it a condition of their promise to contribute the £100,000. It could not for a moment be contended that the Council would be justified in claiming from the Government the concession of this strip of the Victoriatower-garden and the five houses in Abingdon-street, leaving it open to the Council either to lay out the land between the road and the river as a garden or to build upon it at its discretion. It is certain that a scheme to build on the land would not obtain the sanction of Parliament, as the scheme introduced by the syndicate was rejected because it was proposed to so deal with the land. We have accordingly expressed to the Parliamentary Committee our unanimous opinion that the land should be kept as a garden, and we have asked that Committee to insert the necessary clauses in the Bill. … The scheme for which parliamentary sanction is sought, however, will, after deducting the contribution from the local authority and allowing for amounts to be received by the levying of an improvement charge, cost the Council only about £300,000. For this sum a great public improvement will be effected, completing the most important of the very few remaining links in the embankment of the Thames from Blackfriars to Chelsea, widening the approach to the Houses of Parliament and Lambeth-bridge, and getting rid of the reproach which Millbank-street now presents, and greatly improving the district between this street and St. John’s Church. We feel therefore that we are fully justified in asking the Parliamentary Committee to advise the Council to insert the necessary clauses in the bill making definite provision for 34