The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-18 00:00:00

THE EXHIBITION BUILDING.

The Duke of RUTLAND then rose to put the question
of which he had given notice relative to the purchase of the
International Exhibition building. He thought it would be
a decided mistake to purchase the building, either on the
grovnd of usefulness or economy. 11, would be altogether
impossible to adapt the building, supposing the purchase
was effected, to the purposes for which it was intended.
Experience had always shown that attempts to convert large
buildings for purposes of an opposite nature for which they
had been erected had resulted in signal failure. As far as
economy was concerned the purchase was quite out of the
question, and instead of the building being offered at a
very advantageous figure he thought the price asked was
far more than its value, because it was only worth as much
as the materials of which it was constructed would fetch in
the market, and that he supposed would not exceed
£30,000. It had been been said that the architectural
features of the building were to be improved by
covering bricks with a coat of stucco, but nothing would
convert it into a sightly structure. Ile thought the best
thing that could be done was to remove the building alto-
gethr, and to erect an entirely new one, adapted to the
purposes for which it was intended to alter the one now
standing. The noble earl concluded by asking his ques-
tion, which related to the state of the foundation of the Ex-
hibition building.

Earl GRANVILLE said he regretted the noble lord had
not stated the precise nature of his question when he put
his motion on the paper. With respect to eco-
nomy, the noble earl thought the house was
scarcely competent to deal with the question.
He thought it would be the better plan to get the very best
professional advice upon the matter that could be obtained,
and be guided by that. With regard to taste, he did not
profess to be passe,,sed of any great taste, but he understood
the picture galleries that had been erected were the finest
in the world. In reference to the question of the noble
duke, he did not i link it would be necessary to raze the
the building to the ground before it could be made either a
permanent or suitable one for the purpose proposed.
The Earl of DERBY said he should like to know, as the
ground upon which the building stood was to be sold for
£120,000, why a vote in the other house for its purchase
was only taken t. r £67,000.
Lord REDESDALE said it appeared to him the simple
question was should the building be removed or or allowed
to remain. He thought the best thing that could be done
was to let the contractor clear the ground, because no
amount .4 money would ever make it an ornament or at-
traction to the metropolis.
The Earl of HAR 0 WICKE said it was decided to pur-
chase the building, of which very little could be said by
way of admiration, they would buy a bad article, and all
the money that would be spent on it would never make it
a good one.
The Duke of ARGYLL said it was entirely a question of
evidence, With respect to ihe value of the materials, that
depended on the time the contractors bad to remove them.
After a few words in reply from the Duke of RUTLAND,
the subject dropped.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Charing- croon bridge, New Millford docks, Oswes-
try and Newtown railway (branches), Bradford, akefield,
and Leeds railway, Shrewsbury and Welchpool railway,
Evesham and tiedditch railway, Ashbourne, budbury, and
Yoxall bridge, and Ulloxeter and Collingwood road, E,r-
martine and Buchan railway, Great Ncrth of Scotland
railway, London, Brighton, and South Coast railway, and
Mid Dent railway bills were mad a second time.
•
[LEFT SITTING.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS—This Evening.
The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a third time :—Athenry
and Ennis Junction Railway (Extension of Time)—Bishops
`Waltham Railway—Galway Water—Kettering and Thrap_
stone Railway—London and North Western Railway (Ad-
ditional Powers) Midland Railway (Bristol Line)—Mist-
ley, Thorpe, and Walton Railway—and North British
Railway (Wansbeck Railway).
The Great Eastern Railway (Steamboats) Bill was read
a second time.
LONDON (CITY) TRAFFIC REGULATION BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. AYRTON moved that the bill be read a second
time this day six months. He objected to the bill, because
under the guise of a private measure, it sought cuormous
public powers. The measure would give the city' power
over the traffic on the other side of Temple-bar • but strictly
speaking this proceeding would affect the trade allover the
metropolis. It song it to introduce exceptional legislatien,
whereas what was proposed to be accomplished should be
effected by a public measure of a far more general character..
Mr. MASSEY was surprised to find so stanch an advo-
cate of local self-government as his hon. and learned friend
opposing a measure which would confer upon the city of
London simply power to regulate its traffic with a view to
the public convenience. He hoped if this bill were per-
milted to go to a private committee that none of its provi-
sions would be impaired by the nui•ance of street music,
crawling cabs, and improper loiterers in the streets,
Mr. CRAUFURD supp rted the bill, which he consi-
dered indispensable for the better regulation of tke traffic
of the City, In the course of a ver3 short time there would
be three railway termini within the confines of the City,
and the public convenience would be jeopardised, unless
the powers sought by the bill ware conferred on the City.
Mr. LOCKE was an advocate of municipal institutions.
He would have been better pleased if the bill had been
extended to the whole of the metropolis. He greatly ob-
jected to committees of five, because they worked a great
deal of mischief. The bill should have been introduced
as a public measure. He criticised the provisions
with respect to cabs and the delivery of coals,
as in the one case not worth legislation, and
in the other as constituting a system that would increase
the cost of coals from is 6d to 2s 6d per ton, As the bill
was couched in the form of a private measure, the parties
who would be chiefly affected by it would have no locus
standi before the select committee.

Mr, COX supported the second reading, believing that
some of the clauses would center great advantages on the
public.
Sir G. GREY said the bill was only part of a plan of
legislation pursued for some years by the house. It would
be a great boon to the metropolis. He advised the house
to read the bill a second time, and probably subsequently
it would be well to consider its provisions in a committee of
the whole house. _

Sir J. SHELLEY opposed the bill. If the city was so
anxious to rem ye all obstructions to the enormous street
traffic, why was not Temple bar removed P The bill, to be
effectual, should be ext,nded*o the whole of the metropolis.
Atter a few words by Mr SCULLY,
Mr. AYICTON withdrew his amendment.
The bill was read a second time.

Sir J. SHELLEY gave notice that he should to-morrow
move that the bill bo referred to a select committee of
fifteen.

POLAND—THE KNOUT.
Mr. SCULLY gave notice that tomorrow he should ask
the First Lord of the Treasury whether the statement in
the second edition of the limes of to-day to the effect that
a Russian eneral in Poland had issued an ordinance that
all Polish ladies attiring themselves in mourning should be
punished with the knout, was authentic.
Mr. FORSTER gave notice that he should move an
amendment to the motion of the hon. member for King's
County (Mr. Hennessy) to the effect that her Majesty be
thanked for the papers presented to the house, and that she
be solicited to signify to the Emperor of Russia that his
violation of the treaty of Vienna iu regard to Poland will
lead Great Britain to withdraw from the contract then
entered into.
SPITHEAD FORTS.
Sir M. PETO asked the First Lord of the Treasury when
he proposed to bring in a bill on the sutbojeicnttroofdaucloe a loan for
fortifications, and whether he proposed to re-commence the
suspended p
dedLoirEkas osfTtoheNSphiothpeeaddslhoorrtstl;
on the subject. He would then enter into an explanation,

THE SEVERN DEFENCE.

In reply to Sir W. MILES,
Lord PALMERSTON said that the Government had
bought the land, and meant to erect a battery upon it, but
no 'vote would be asked for the current year.