The Express.
London, England, 1862-07-08 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESD#Y EVENING, JULY

The 78th clause, limiting the width of the footway, was
struck out, in consequence of the rejection of clause it
The other clauses In the bill were agreed to, with a few
amendments.
Mr. A YRTON said he wished to move an additional
clause, which he considered • mere act of justice. The
societies of the Temple had preferred • claim far greater
than that of the crown or of any other proprietors on the
banks of the river, and it bad been coooeded to them. They
were allowed to become the exclusive proprietors of all the
land reclaimed in front of the Temple-gardens at the public
expense, excepting what was required fur a reed. Every
other person who had any of this land added to his river
frontage was to pay its full value, but the beechen were to
get theirs free of 'Mead, and yet the embankment would be
maintainedaodkeptio reperat the expeosecithe ratepayers.
They were told the other night that it wax mere form to
talk about the exclusive use of the land, because the
beechen always admitted the public to their garden. But
that was not the case on Sundays, at any rate. A notice
was even put up on the gates of the Inner Temple Garden,
"No person admitted without an order." Would, then, the
committee permit the bill to per as it was, on the faith of
the representation that the garden was open to the public?
He trusted that they would adopt the DOW clause which he
now proposed, namely, that in cue the benchers of the
Inner or Middle Temple 'herald not admit the public to
the use of this land which it was admitted would
be vested in them as trustees under this bill,
under such regulations as they might adopt, subject to the
supervision of the crown, then that the land should go over
and become vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works,
'under the provisions of the 28th erection of the act which
relate to lands held for purposes of public recreation.
The clause having been reed by the Chairman,
Mr. LOCKE said he was surprised after the magnificent
elation of his boo. and learned friend, to find that his clause
amounted to so little. His hon. sod learned friend had gone
down to the gardens after attending chapel on Sunday, and
found that there was no admission except by order. But
orders were freely granted to respectable families in the
I guighbourbood, and on summer evenings the public were
admitted at stated periods without let or hindrance. (hot
now.) He was told it was not so now ; but at any rate it
bad been very lately, and the admission by orders was con-
tinued. Thebenchers were bound to keep up the garden,
and to keep it up at their own expense.
Mr. H. LEWIS hoped that the whole of the Temple-
garden was about to be included in the clause. They were
about to have • valuable river front, sad he thought it
would be a great improvement to the bill if parliament
were to impose such regulations on the benches' as would
prevent their "hutting up the gardens from the public.
Mr. M. SMITH said it was a mistake to suppose that a
valuable river front was about to be given to the benchers
of the Temple. In fact their river treat was being taken
away hum them. They were merely about to receive
some strips of laud for which they could not obtain one
farthing of rent. The gardens bad always been kept in
order, and certainly were considered to contribute to the
adornment of that part of London. When it was said that
they were the private property of the touchers, the fact
was that nobody in London used the gardens so little as
the benchers, who were nearly always absent. But the
benchers were not so fastidious as bad been described ; they
admitted those dirty children from poor neighbourhoods of
whom the hon. and learned member (Mr. Ayrton) spoke so
contemptuously the other night as being likely to play about
on the embankment between Whitehall and Westminster-
bridge. (Hear. hear.) Mr. Thackerav, who bad witnessed
these gardens the other night filled with sow 400 poorchil-
dren, bad expressed his pleasure to him (Mr. M. Smith) ;
and said it dui his heart good to see it. There was no
churlishness on the part of the heathers respecting admis-
sion ; then why, he asked, should they be interfered with
in their rights of ownership which they had exercised now
for centuries" There were Do private gardens in London to
which the pubic ware so freely admitted as the Temple
Gardeos. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CO PER said he sympathised with his boa. and
learned friend (Mr. Ayrton) in the object he had in view; but
he did Dot think that the clause would accomplish that
object. He proposed that the regulations which might be
adopted by the Benches should be over-ridden by the sanc-
tion of the crown. That would be only giving an additional
power to the crown, which seemed to be unnecessary. If the
restrictions at present adopted were, in practice, a wise and
kind regulation towards the public, as they seemed to be
adopted mainly for the preservation of the grams and flowers,
he did not think the matter of sufficient importance to war-
rant the iatroduction of the clause.
The committee then divided :
For the clause
Against it
The preamble was then agreed to.
On the motion that the bill be reported,
Sir J. SHELLEY made • personal explanation with
reference to an imputation which he conceived had been cast
upon his veracity by Mr. Cowper in the matter of the re-
solution.
Mr. COWPER said he considered that Sir J. Shelley had
acted unfairly towards him, and bad taken • liberty with
his name, and he admitted that he was v angry.
The bill was then ordered to be reported, and the house
resumed.
FORTIFICATIONS (PROVISION FOR EXPENSES)
BILL.
On the order for gang into committee on this bill,
Sir S. NORTH 6, who had given notice of his intention
to move an instruction to the committee to vet forth in
detail, in the schedule to the bill, certain particulars, finding
that this motion would be irregular, explained his objections
to a general schedule.
Sir C. LEWIS said he could not went to all the sug-
gestions made by Sir Stafford, as he could not reconcile them
with the practice ; but he stated the extent to which he
wasprepared to go.
Mr. LINDSAY moved • resolution, "That it is expe-
dient to postpone the consideration of further expenditure
upon the proposed fortifications, authorised by. this bill,
until there have been laid before the house comas or ex-
tracts of reports from our naval attache at Pena, showing
the see of the French navy from time to time, at intervals
Inot exceeding three months, daring the yew 1860 and
1861." He complained of the large sums voted
in successive years for the navy, sums granted by the
house, be said, on the faith of exaggerated state-
ments made by the government of the extent of
the French naval preparations—the sole reason assigned for
the votes. Before the house eaactioned the proposed forti-
fications, it ought to have accurate information of the real
state of the French navy. In iron-cased vessels we are
greatly in advance of the French—we could build such
ships faster than any other country, and he contended that
it was sufficient for as to keep ahead of foreign powers for
the current year.
Lord C. PAGET said he could assure the house that the
French boo-cased navy was making very great progress and
was attaining great perfection. He declined to follow Mr.
Lindsay into details.
Mr. COBDEN said that if the noble lord who had just
spoken, and the noble viscount at the bead of her Majesty's
government, bad held the doctrine in times past that it was
unedvisable to introduce into the debates of this house any
reference to the strength of the French navy, be
should have agreed with them in the course now pursued.
But this argument was heard now for the first
time, when they all had before them official and authentic
facts by which they could prove that the statements made
by the government in times past in reference to the strength
of the French navy were entirely fallacious and delusive ;
and when we sought to remove that most objectionable
spirit of animosity which had been created towards the
French government and people by the constant appeals to
our fears on the ground that the French are making undue
naval preparations. He thought this was not the
time we should have discussion deprecated. (Hear,
hear.) This was a moment when the facts should be
fully sifted. Now, was there a man in this country accus-
tomed to public skein who bad not been led to believe,
mainly by the statement' of the noble viscount for many
years, repeated on all occasions when an opportunity was
afforded, that Fosooe had, during the reign and during the
time the present Emperor had held sway in that country,
that Frame had unduly altered the proportions of her naval
strength, which it was customary in former times for the
French government to maintain as towards our-
selves? Was there anybody in this country who
doubted that Frazee, during the time of her present ruler,
has had a larger navy in proportion to the English than was
the custom of the French government in former times? That
was the universal impression, and that was the ground on
which we had been called on from tiose to time to vote
these naval estimates during the last few years. It would
be an affectation of modesty on his pert if he were to pre-
tend that he had not had as good opportunities of having
access to every official source of information on both sides
of the Channel on this subject as the noble viscount himself.
He (Mr. Cobden) then, in opposition to all that the noble
viscount had stated in the way of general god vague asser-
tion, said that, with opportunities as great sa the
noble lord of forming an opinion on the matter, for the last
12 or 14 years the present Emperor of the French had held
sway in one capacity or another in that country, the French
navy had borne a far less proportion to the English navy
than in the time of Louis Philippe. (Hew, hear.) When
he made that assertion in opposition to the noble viscount,
he wished it to be accepted for what it was worth ; be hoped
we had now got to the end of these vague generalities
under which, to use an old legal maxim, • fraud always
lurked." (Hear, bear.) He did not ask that confidence
should be plated in his mere assertion, but he would
give to the house • statement of the outlay on the French
dockyards for the last twelve years of Louis Philippe's
reign, and for the 12 years of the republic and the
empire, down to the year 1859, being the last year for
which we had the audit and official accounts from
France. The right hon. gentleman the member for Ox-
fordshire (Mr. Henley) bad said he did not think the re-
ports of private members should prevail against the expres-
sion of the prime minister, that he knew to be facts what
he stated to be facts. (Hear, hear.) That warn a very dan.
gerous doctrine. Were members of that house to be ab-
solved from responsibility because the prime minister
made certain assertions! The prime minister was
responsible to the boon and they to the country.
In the ugly retrospect which might be taken of their past
conduct were they likely to be excused by the country in
voting these enormous sums of money without inquiry?
It was the duty of the how to see that they voted the
money on valid grounds, and that they did not net manly
on the fanciful and excited imagination of • prime minister.
He thought they might he more properly engaged in die.
cueing questions relating to the internal affairs of this
country. There was Do CUOMO' of opinion as to the nuts.
city of defending the coaster.
_Re hold that roan to be a
charkian who prolonged to bold the bosom and 'stay al

139-121