The Press.
London, England, 1857-08-15 00:00:00

THE PRE S S, AUGUST 15, 1857.

dinner on the bill of fare is cheap. Nobody would dine upon the
joint and a pint of stout at the " Star and Garter." Nor would the
proprietor of such establishment ever take the trouble of making
these cheap dinners good. All these are difficulties which it is
perhaps possible to overcome by a combination of peculiar talents
with great industry and honesty. But the combination is so rare
that we despair of the result being accomplished.

Our attention has been directed to the proceedings of the House
of Commons last week in connection with the Leases and Sales of
Settled Estates Bill. Sir THOMAS MARYON WILSON. lord of the manor
of Hampstead-heath, and, freehold proprietor of two farms known as the
Finchley-road Estate, by an omission in the terms of the will under
which he inherited them, being unable to build on the property, has re-
peatedly, and, though the judges had reported in his favour, unsuccess-
fully, endeavoured to obtain a private Act of Parliament enabling him
to do so. By a bill carried last year by the Attoraey-General it was
provided that persons similarly circumstanced should be able to avoid
the expense of an application to Parliament by conferring on the Lord
Chancellor the power of entertaining these appeals and deciding them
at his own discretion. But, with the view of enabling the Metropolitan
Board of Works to purchase Hampstead-heath. within the year, a
clause was introduced into the Bill disabling all such persons as
had previously been refused a private bill by Parliament from renew-
ing their efforts in the Court of Chancery. The Metropolitan Board
having neglected to avail themselves of this opportunity to purchase
the property, a Bill was introduced this session by Mr. WHITESIDE to set
aside this clause, and came on for the second reading on Tuesday,
August 4th. The debate was adjourned, when the Bill was finally
carried by 77 against 59. Sir F. BARING, Mr. E. P. BOUVERIE, Mr. H.
FITZROY, Sir G. C. LEWIS, Sir JOHN RAMSDEN, and Mr. JAMES %VILSON,
voted in the majority, besides Sir JAMES GRAHAM and various influen-
tial members of the Conservative party. The Attorney General, on
the introduction of a slight alteration by Mr. WHITESIDE, gave in his
adherence, and the matter appeared to be settled On the following
morning, however, after one o'clock, when the Bill was in committee, a
motion was made " That the Chairman do now leave the chair." This
was opposed by the votes of the Right Hon. E. P. BOUVERIE, Sir G.
CORNEWALL LEWIS, R. LOWE, W. N. NIASSET, Sir JOHN W. RAMSDEN, and
JAMES WILSON, as ve 11 RS by Sir W. G. H. JOLLIFFE, &C. Notwith-
standing this, by the votes and exertions and the influence of the
whippers-in, were six members of her Majesty's Government placed in
a minority, and a blot upon English legislation continued in existence
by a majority of one. It is curious to examine the votes secured on
this occasion by Lord MULGRAVE and Mr. HATTER against the members
of their own Government. Out of the .15 votes, of which the majority
consisted, there were 2 new members, scarcely half a dozen of whom
had heard the discussion on the second reading. Parliament legis-
lated in respect to Sir 'l'. M. WILSON'S land by compelling him to give
up part of it for the Finchley-road, which passes through the estate
from north to south, and part of it for the Hampstead Junction Rail-
way, which crosses it from east to west. Yet they now refuse him
permission to turn the property to the best account by devoting it to
purposes which we are assured would never interfere with Hampstead-
heath in the slightest degree. The farms are his own freehold, but
the heath is common, and he can no more pretend to build upon it,
says Mr. WIIITESIDE, than "on the top of St. Paul's." Under these
circumstances Mr. HATTER'S manoeuvre certainly seems both dis-
creditable and unaccountable. No explanation, however, will, we sup-
pose, be vouchsafed, though we doubt if public sympathy will not
be thereby turned more in favour of Sir T. M. WILSON than it hitherto
has been.

We cannot compliment the authorities at Dublin on the skill
shown in trying to detect the murderer of Mr. Ltrri.v.. On the verdict
of the jury we have nothing to say, but that we take for granted no
other finding could be expected in the evidence laid before them.
Even on the facts as stated by the Attorney-General, supposing that
they all had been proved, it would have been difficult to have expected
a verdict of " Guilty ;" but when Mrs. STOLLEN informed the police
that part of the money was hid in a certain place (which she correctly
indicated) we think that means should have been taken to allow the
accused man to commit himself. Instead of that, SPOLLEN was pre-
maturely denounced ; and it was only to be inferred that, whoever
may have been the murderer, all connecting links would have been
removed with the exception of the bloody booty. There was an over
whelming case of suspicion of the gravest kind, but still only suspicion,
against STOLLEN ; but the circumstantial links failed in many places:
and we think that the Attorney-General overstated his case, which
was weak in several points. The padlock, sa much relied on by the
Attorney-General, might have belonged to any one, and the evidence
of the prisoner's children was not reliable. STOLLEN'S character is
not cleared by the verdict; and it is an extraordinary cirzurnstance
that a wife should have accused her husband of such a crime, and
furnished remarkable evidence, and yet that the case should have
failed. A certain amount of indirect feeling was shown at Dublin for
SPOLLEN. It was desired that he should be convicted only on the
proof; and he ha-I no reason to complain of the trial. The judges
were most impartial and painstaking; and Mr. BREWSTER, ill his
speech to evidence in the Crown, assumed a judicial tone. When the
authorities were first informed by Mrs. STOLLEN of certain facts,
STOLLEN should have been placed (as many innocent persons had
previously been in this identical ease) under strict surveillance, and
it is not impossible that another issue might ha ve been presented.
The eminent counsel, Mr. BREWSTER and Mr. FITZGIBBON, were not
retained until the Crown had committed itself by at once accusing
SpoLLEN. _

TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION