The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-19 00:00:00

THE BISHOP or CAPE TOWN.

Mr. G. DUFF asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
under what circumstances a portion of the expenses in-
curred by the Bishop of Cape Town in his unsuccessful
lawsuit with Mr. Long were repaid to him by the Trea-
sury ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
circumstances of the case were peculiar. The Bishop of
Cape Town presented a memorial to the Treasury saying
that as he was engaged in trying a cause in which the rights
of the Crown in the colonies was involved that a certain
portion of the expenses might be borne by the Government.
The memorial was referred to the Colonial-office, and it
was there thought that the request of the bishop, owing to
the peculiarities of the case, ought to be assented to. Had it
not been so decided the Government would have had to
instruct the Queen's Advocate and the Solicitor-General to
watch the case, but when it was found that the Bishop of
Cape Town had retained the services of these gentlemen
the Crown thought the expenses which would have been
incurred by the Crown might very justly be paid over to
the Bishop of Cape Town. He was quite ready to produce
the correspondence if it was required.
Mr. H. SEYMOUR asked whether the amount would
appear in the estimates ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER told the
hon. member he had better move for the papers.
ADMIRALTY ESTIMATES.
In reply to Mr. CORRT,
Lord C. PAGET said it was quite true that the number
of marines was below the number voted in April, 1864.
The number voted was 18,000, and the number raised was
17,061, nearly 1,000 under the estimate, and not the number
the hon. member had stated in his question. The reason the
original number was not raised was accordingly the ex-
treme difficulty of procuring recruits. With respect to the
other number mentioned by the hon. and gallant gentle-
man, the number was on:y 55 under the estimate. He
should have no objection to placing a tabular statement in
the Navy Estimates which would show the state of the
force each month, distinguishing the marines from the
seamen and boys.
THE CHAPTER HOUSE.
Sir. S. NORTHCOTE asked the First Commissioner of
Works whether it would not be possible to give the public
greater facilitie3 for visiting the Chapter House at West-
minster than they at present enjoyed?
Mr. W. COWPER said the Chapter House had been
•losed since the records were removed from it. It was
not open to the public, but it could be seen by any person
desirous of doing so by applying at the office of the Board
of Works.
Mr. H. SEYMOUR asked whether greater facility could
not be given.
Mr. W. COWPER said such a proceeding would lead to
expense, but he would consider the matter.
THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

Mr. A. SMITH asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether any bill was to be introduced this session, and
when, for the removal of certain collections now forming
part of the Bt:tish Museum ; and whether such bill ought
not to be introduced before any expense was incurred in
the preparation of plans and estimates for the erection of
buildings to which the said collections were to be trans-
ferred ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the in-
troduction of the bill must necessarily depend on the time
the estimates were produced. The inroduction of the bill
before the estimates, as was the case in 1862, would be
found inconvenient, and, therefore, it would not be re-
peated. He thought it better that the discussion should
first take place when the estimates were submitted,
Mr. H. SEYMOUR asked when the estimates would be
produced.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply,
said the moment the matters between the Board of Works
and the trustees of the Museum were settled.
THE CASE OF MR. BETHELL.
Mr. FERRAND asked the Attorney-General to inform
the house by whose authority the written statement was
prepared from which, on Monday last, he read his replies
to the questions relating to the Bankruptcy Court at Leeds,
and whether he would lay it upon the table of the house ;
also, whether ho would lay upon the table the letter of
Mr. Welch, the registrar, which he read to the houseee
olnl
Tuesday last, to complete his previous statement, as
wth
as the letter of the Hon. Richard Bothell, confirming
same ?
been heard in
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he felt coriain that
such an extraordinary question had never
enpapheer saw the hon. gentle-
that house. (Hear, hear.)
s,he it to be
.his
audlentic information
man's former questions on Whthe
duty to obtain the best an
and to give it to thehouse onhis own
The memoranda he
ity.
good faith and responsibility
had collected in
the course of that duty was not, and
could not,
be considered public property ; and, therefore,
he should boldly refuse to produce it. (Hear, hear.)
The letters ho had read last night were also
not public documents, but if, between man and
man, the hon. gentleman wished to see them, he could do
so. The other letter from Mr. Bethell he could see as a gen-
tleman, but he distinctly, and on his own responsibility,
should object to produce them. (Hear, hear.)
Lord R. CECIL asked the Speaker whether letters quoted
k by a Minister of the Crown in the course of his speech
ought not to be produced if desired
Tho SPEAKER said the Attorney-General was not
bound to produce the papers referred to. (Hear, hear.)