The Sun.
London, England, 1865-02-11 00:00:00

11EN T.

Mr. H. LEWIS asked the Home Secretary whether it
was hiS intention to produce a measure rendering it obliga-
tory that in future the plans for theatres and all other
places of public amusement should be submitted for approval
to an architect, to be appointed for that purpose by the
Government, &c. ?

Sir G. GREY said that there was no intention to intro-
duce any such bill at present. The Lord Chamberlain had
adopted very stringent measures within the last three years
respecting the construction of metropolitan theatres and
the securing adequate means of egress. Similar means
might be taken to prevent accidents in music halls and
provincial theatres.
TRANSPORTATION TO AUSTRALIA.

Mr. MOOR asked whether it was the intention of Go-
vernment to discontinue the transportation of criminals to
Australia, and, if so, at what period such discontinuance
would be commenced?

Mr. CARDWELL said, from the papers laid on the table
of the house, it was apparent that the Government pro-
posed to recommend to her Majesty the discontinuance of
trans-British criminals to Australia, and that the same

uld talc

effect in three years.
THE RIVER TYNE PILOTAGE,

In reply to Mr. IroDGso
Mr. M. GIBSON

.1 that a bill on this subject would

be introduced next week.
JUDGE COURSAL,

Mr. PEACOCKE asked the Secretary of State for the
Colonies whether Judge Coursal in Canada had been dis-
missed in consequence of any communication from the Go-
vernment at home ; if so, whether such communication
was made at the instance of the Government at Washing-
ton.

Mr. CARDWELL said he had received no official infor-
mation on the subject, and if the gentleman in question had
been dismissed, it had been by the Governor-General of
Canada acting on his own responsibility.
REVISION OF TURNPIKE TOLLS.
Ig reply to Mr. IVEsTEns,
Sir G. GREY said it was not intended to introduce a bill

on the subjec
RIGHTS OF

TALOODARS AND CULTIVATORS OF

OUDE,

Lord STANLEY asked the&retary of State for India
whether the inquiry now being carried on into the respec-
tive rights of the talookdars and cultivators of Oude is in
pursuance of instructions issued by him ; and whether he
would lay on the table any correspondence has passed on
the subject?
Sir C. WOOD, who was very indistinct, was understood
to say that the policy of Lord Canning on this subject
would bo adhered to.

IRON-CLAD SHIPS.
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE asked the Secretary to the Ad-
miralty to lay Admiral Dacres' report on the iron-clad
chips in the Channel fleet upon the table of the house.
Lord C. PAGET said the report alluded to could not be
laid on the table at present, although it had been received.
THE CONVENTION BETWEEN ENGLAND AND
THE -UNITED STATES.

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply,
Sir J. WALSH asked the First Lord of the Treasury for
fnformation relative to the circumstances which have led
to the notice by the Government of the United States of
North America to terminate the convention under which
England and the United States mutually engaged not to
fit-out naval armaments upon the Canadian lakes ; also re-
specting the abrogation of the treaty of commerce between
the provinces of British North America and the United
States by the late Lord Elgin; and moved for all papers
and correspondence connected with these subjects.
The hon. baronet entered at some length into details
to show the importance of this subject. He contended that
the greatest advantages had resulted to this country, as
well as Canada, from the convention which it was now
sought to set aside, and that a spirit of great hostility
existed, both in the Northern and Southern States of
America, in regard to this country, arising from the neu-
trality which it was thought expedient to adopt in regard
to the belligerent States.

Lord PALMERSTON said that he did not intend to
enter into any discussion as to the present state of the re-
lations between the United States and this country, as he
did not consider such discussion be conducive to
the public interest. (Hear, hear.) would
cisaid there had been
two arrangements entered into betweenthisr country andthe
United States. The first was in 18 ,Wand it related to
Thatbe kept on
the limitation of the naval force which
etinoent was not
the coasts of the United States and Caarranadhaags
a convention, but merely a formal
There
was a treaty in 1854, which was a treaty of reciprocity.e
With regard to the first arrangement it was merelyof
temporary character, and the desire on the part of the
United States to terminate it did not prove hostility to this
country. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the treaty of 1854
Government had received no official communication on
the subject, and if such were received the papers would be
laid on the table, and he appealed to hon. members not to
be influenced by paragraphs that appeared in the American
newspapers, or to suppose that they represented cor-
rectly the views of the Government of that country.
COMMIT TEE OF SUPPLY.
The house then went into committee of supply, and
passed the usual general resolution in regard to the
estimates.

COMMITTEE OF BANKS OF ISSUE.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
fell • owing resolutions :.--1. ThAt it is expedient to make n
for empowering pro-
from county banks of issue to obtain relief
certain
of a
ertaiinn
crestrictions, upon payment from time to time
Ration payauheartge in respect thereof. 2. Any compen-
sation
bank y the Bank of England to any such
notes shall bo re .for. the determination of its right to issue
gdomPaniiloout of the Consolidated Fund of the
United Kin
adopted
Britain and Ireland. These re-
solutions had been
the foundation of a bill which a committee, and were to be
not
th he would afterwards intro-
podrtantbear in any material or tan-
gtiilblclee.
maTnhneerporonpt7hsellimdi
question of the issue of bank
notes. It was not a measure r
would it interfere with the exisetrrding a currency bill, nor
rangements made with banks.
new means of
It gwPrivileges or legal ar-
Fairpt of all he
facilitating the business of banks of Tsulsudeabe.ct
would remind the committee that the
4-,,q in the possession of the of 1. 844 left the
ed, without giving them the they
,_,:inee of that possession for any agissur-
„,sing on them a limitation with respeyetiovtehil
of the issue they were entitled to make. The belle_
the power of issue was left in their hands, but cell_
cod with that benefit were serious burdens and restric-
ens, and, consequently, some of the banks possessed of
he power of issue were so hampered in their banking func-
- restrictions, that they showed a disposition

issuers of bank r
had theratofore

Ace of tl

quantity

tions by thos,

to escape from the operation of them. About three years
ago an application W;IS made to the Treasury for the re-
moval of the restrictions imposed by the act of 1844. •The

answer of the Treasury was that they could not undertake
to consider the restrictions referred to without also consi-
dering the regulations with respect to the issue, because
both departments were correlative in the view of Ihe act of
1844. Another application was made to him on the part of
the National and Provincial Bank. That b ink was invested
with the privilege of issue to a considerable amount, and
its operations were large and widely diffused over the
country. That bank signified to the Government its willing-
ness and desire to purchase a release from the restrictions of
the act of 1844, by modifying its issue. Of course, so far as
that bank was concerned, it did not belong to the directors
to speak on behalf of parties other than themselves. But
finding no reason to decline the consideration of the ques-
tion proposed, he felt that it would not be possible to ask
Parliament to pass a bill allowing that particular issuing
bank to place itself under a new condition without
offering similar facilities to other issuing banks. These were
the circumstances which led him to propose the resolutions
upon the table of the house. Those resolutions did not
require any extended explanation, but he would say briefly
what were the leading particulars with regard to the differ-
ence between the present position of the banks of England
and Wales, and the new conditions of all issuing banks
acting under the proposed arrangements. By the present
laws bank of issue was prohibited from carrying on business
in London, it was also prohibited from the issue of notes in
London, and if it was a joint-stock bank it could not issue
notes within the radius of 65 miles of London, nor could it
extend itself to a greater number of partners than six, nor
could it amalgamate itself with any joint-stock bank. The
present issuing banks were looking to the intervention of
Parliament, whenever Parliament should think fit to deter-
mine their power of issue, which they possessed since 1844,
for a statutable title in the way of compensation. Those
banks were also under the restraint that they were not
permitted to transfer the right of issue which they held from
one issuing bank to another. Under the bill proposed the
National and Provincial Bank would have power to open
an establishment in London to pay their notes, but not to
issue them within three miles of it from any part of England
or Wales. Being a joint-stock bank, they would be released
from any restrictions as to the number of partners. And
another proposal of the bill was, that banks acting under
its provisions shall take a lease of the right of issue for a
certain number of years, and that right shall only be taken
from them on the payment of a certain compensation.
Those banks coming within its provisions shall have power
to purchase the right of issue of other bankers, and it so
far altered their issue that all existing banks could dispose
of their right in this respect. They must also pay to the
State, as compensation for stamps on their notes issued, £2
ss. per cent. on the amount, to be ascertained in the manner
prescribed by the bill. These were its principal provisions,
but there was another as to the mode of issue in cases
of bankruptcy. In the event of any bank included in its
provisions becoming bankrupt, the bill allowed a certain
sum for compensation for its amount of issue, to be paid by
the State and chargeable on the Consolidated Fund. These
were the principal provisions of the bill, and it was there-
fore unnecessary to detain the committee at any greater

Length.

After a few further explanations by the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER, in reply to Mr. CAVE and Sir H. WIL-
LOUGHBY, the resolutions were agreed to.
HER MAJESTY'S REPLY TO THE ADDRESS.

Lord PROBY appeared at the bar and read her Majesty's
reply to the Address of the house, in which she said—" I
have receivedwith much satisfaction your loyal and dutiful
Address. I thank you for the assurance you have given
that you will direct your earliest attention to measures of
public usefulness, and you may rely on my desire to pro-
mote the happiness and prosperity of all my subjects."
BANK OF IRELAND (CONSOLIDATED FUND).
The house next went into committee, when

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
following resolution—" That the remuneration to the Bank
of Ireland for management of the public debt in Ireland be
paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland from and after April 6, 1865."

The resolution was agreed to, alter some remarks by Sir
H. WILLOUGHBY.
COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then asked leave to bring
in a bill to supply means towards defraying the expenses of
providing courts of justice, and the various offices belonging
thereto, and for other purposes. He trusted the time had at
at last arrived when courts of justice would be provided
worthy the dignity and honour of the country. (Hear.) It
was a common saying that questions of considerable im-
portance took a considerable time for discussion before they
were adopted, and he believed this was one of them. It had
been thirty years before the house, and he might remind them
that the first person who introduced the subject as a matter
of great public convenience and economy was no lawyer,
but the veteran reformer and economist, the late Joseph
Hume. In the year 1836, after the destruction by fire of
the Houses of Parliament, he took notice of the then existing
condition of their courts of justice, and urged that it would
be for the public convenience if all the courts of law were
built in one neighbourhood. The question had also been in-
vestigatedby three several committees of that house—one in
1841, another in 1845, and the third in 1862. ARoyal Com-
mission was also issued in 1860, consisting of Sir J. Cole-
ridge, the late Sir G. C. Lewis, Vice-Chancellor Wood, the
present Queen's Advocate, and other eminent persons. They
examined the whole question carefully, and made a report
which was of a most satisfactory character, recommending
a measure which he (the Attorney-General)hoped he would
now for the last time propose for the adoption of the house.
As to the nature of the evil, the actual accommodation now
given was in all respects insufficient for judges, for barris-
ters, solicitors, jurors, or witnesses. It was a loud and con-
stant complaint for the last 30 years, and especially at the
present time in the case of the Divorce Court, where for
want of accommodation witnesses were obliged to walk up
and down forhours and hours together on the flags in West-
minster Hall. The same want of accommodation existed in
the equity courts at Lincoln's-inn. There were two Courts
of Appeal, three Vice-Chancellors' Courts, and that of the
Master of the Rolls in Chancery-lane, which were totally
insufficient for the purposes for which they:were intended.
They had become since additional Vice-Chancellors were
appointed absolute hovels without any accommodation
whatever. (Hear.) Things were not much better at
Guildhall, and this want of accommodation, together with
the dispersion of the courts in various localities, and a
separation from the various offices, created an amount of
inconvenience which could hardly be understood by the
house, and should be put an end to as soon as possible.
The solicitors were in a worse position than the bar, owing
to the dispersion of the courts, and when they were concen-
trated legal business would be done more rapidly, and conse-
quently with greater economy. He supported this opinion
by quotations from the report of the commissioners of 1860,
showing that everybody would be benefited by the concen-
tration of the courts, the bench, the bar, the solicitors, and
the officers of the court, as well as the public at large. In
litigation nothing was more important than the saving of
time, and the present dispersion of the courts led to anenor-
mous waste of time. The remedy of course was obvious.
The courts and their offices must be brought together into
immediate proximity with the chambers of barristers and
the offices of solicitors. The right hon. gentleman cited nu-
merous authorities of the highest order in favour of the con-
centration of the courts, and observed that there was a
wonderful unanimity in the legal profession on this point,
for they knew where the shoe pinched. Two sites had been
proposed. The first was the whole site of Westminster Hall.
That idea was abandoned for want of room, and on account
of the distance from the Temple. The other was Down as
the Lincoln's-inn-fields site. When this was first proposed
in 1841, the idea was to erect the new building upon the
open space in Lincoln's-inn-fields. Lord Campbell and
others objected to this, as blocking up one of the lungs of
London in a part of the metropolis which could ill afford to
lose an open space for the free circulation and purification
of the air. The centre of the square was too small, especially
if they wanted to bring the offices there too, besides which
they_would have had to make extensive alterations and im-
provements, so that,the site would have been as expensive as
that which it was now proposed to purchase for £500,000 or
£600,000. The site ultimately selected was called the Strand
site, a large space of 7i acres, covered with houses of the
l
ofo ewehstaposeible description, between Bell-yard, on the west
thencerY-lalle' to Clement's-lane, which runs down into
Strand by the corner of Hol ell-street. The whole of
the space from the Strand to Carey-street on the north will be taken. This site will
courts and offices. Tghaecg()les.vteosfipdtlheentpyroopof rseodombuifolrdinagll
hthitde
been over and over a
in considered, and thought the
hnoisusheedmi. gahts
valued
safely rely upon the eat
by
tworxpedt
eoe
o tr
he
andon n
eg. e
6inet7ts
81v1 ea,
omas
os e:
stated
ae t es
ep
respec-
tively.
dpu arat
traivteeilyy,. thev aslumneds gagaiveinn
by
yerme 67
£703,000, the cost of the site. The cost of the
would be £750,000, making a total cost of a million buildingsanda
half. This was a considerable sum of money, but it would
be well spent in the way proposed. One of the evils of the
present system was, that it kept up the separation between
law and equity. If they would assimilate law and equity,
and give to courts of both law and equity such powers ae
all courts ought to possess, they must bring the courts
themselves together. They required to provide for a sum
which might be taken at a million and a half, of which
£900,000 would be provided by a million stock sold out at
£9O from a fund in Chancery called Fund B in the report
of the commissioners. The Government, on enquiry, found
that by the rents now paid for offices, they would save
the
Treasury by the change. £lOO,OOO is to be advanced by
Treasury on terms of repayment spread over 50 years, at
31 per cent. interest, by means of a kind of prudential fund
forme
Those C
d bygma
hn feespayablecaei funds of whicho n t h
e
spokente
courts.
were two in number. The first, the surplus fund, consisted
at the present moment of £1,300,000 stock; the second was
the surplus fees fund of £201,028 stock, being a million
and a-half of stock. Now had they a right to take this
stock? He thought there was no doubt of this. Its history
ienoa.ts:sipmeia;his. The house was aware that the Courts of
Equity administered a vast amount of property. As might
on
account
c 0; tauhunedt g robfye
suitors,aftae rrtp
ha
er ta onfdt
a greaterh
portion at
portion consisted
o f of money and
3,Tiltiat fund
stock
to them, and was
was secure as anything in thewstcaooscunkinbetvryelsoctenodguleindd
was
no less constantly increasing, and in October,
b1:16
That was the
growing thanand increasing,
£51,292.000, and it had been con-
stantlyin creasing, and was expected to do.
suitors' stock, and he had nothing to do

with it on the present occasion. But, as the house would
expect, the same cause which brought in this immense
amount of money in stock, also brought into court an
immense amount of cash. Now the suitors might have
that cash invested, and there was always a con-
siderable fund of cash which the Court of Chancery
funded for suitors to whom it belonged, just as a
banking fund, tobe ready at a call. The suitor might have
it whenever he pleased, but he might have neither more
nor less. Then the Court of Chancery being possessed of
that sum, which in Oct., 1863, amounted to £2,789,608, had
dealt with it merely as the instrument of the Legislature,
and what was done was done under public legislation. In
1739, Parliament commenced a system of investment from
time to time with so much of this cash, for which they were
answerable to the suitors, as it was not then necessary to
keep at a call. A considerable sum was still to remain in
cash at theßank of England, but the Government invested
so much as might be safely so disposed of. The investment
in Oct., 1862, was £2,820,702, representing £2,464,744—
the cash kept at the Bank of England for the suitors' benefit
being almost £300,000 at call. The interest arising from
that fund was the banker's profit, and with which the suitors
had no right whatever. It was as much public revenue as
anything which came from the Crown lands or any other
sources of revenue ; and although Parliament had dealt with
it for the discharge of public liabilities connected with the
administration of justice, that was not from any obligation
to do so, but just because it was thought that that which
was received in this way was properly applicable to the ad-
ministration of justice. As he had already said, not one
single suitor had any right to take one single farthing from
this fund, and not one single suitor had received anything
beyond the actual cash paid into• court, or had demanded
any portion of profit from the fund. Parliament had con-
tinually dealt with this fund. It did so in 1744, in 1774, in
1791, and in 1810, in purchasing sites and erecting build-
ings upon those sites for offices in connection with the
Court of Chancery. But Lord Cottenham and Lord Lang-
dale, Lord Justice Turner, and Sir Samuel Romilly had
doubts as to this fund being applicable to any other pur-
pose than that of reducing the fees in Chancery. But he
(the Attorney-General) contended that Parliament had a
right both morally and legally to deal with the fund in
any way that it pleased, and if this was true as a
matter of principle, it had an especial right to so deal
with it when the purpose in view was to promote ad-
vantageously the administration of justice by bringingito-
gether the courts of law and equity upon one site. Therefore
he contended that the application of the fund in question in
the way which he proposed was much better than the sug-
gestion that it should be appropriated to the reduction of fees
in Chancery. If the fund was so applied, it would in fact only
reduce the fees four per cent. But what did the solicitors
say on the subject? Let them hear Mr. Lake in respect to it.
What did Mi. Lake say ? He said there could not be a doubt

that it would be less for the benefit of the suitor to abolish
all official fees, than to enable the solicitors: to attend to
their business in a proper way. The suitor would by that
imerovement save ten times over the amount of the court
fees, and that no practical man would entertain a doubt of
it. Mr. Field said that they were to judge of the advantage
to the suitors through the convenience afforded to the soli-
citors. The concentration of the courts would be a great gain
and capital bargain to the clients, if at the expense of
£30,000 a-year they could obtain that improvement. He
estimated the aggregate amount of property under the ad-
ministration of the Court of Chancery at any one time at
£loo,ooo,ooo,and he was satisfied in his own mind that the
advantage of each official day would be worth at least£2s, 000.
That was the evidence, not only of Mr. Lake and Mr. Field,
but of the unanimous body of solicitors. Did the house
believe that the solicitors did not know the value of the
pecuniary loss to their clients, or did he believe that their
sole object was to save the salary of a clerk or two ? He
thought their evidence perfectly reliable and more to be de-
pended on than that of all the judges and the bar put to-
gether. He now came to the machinery of the bill, and
how it proposed to deal with those charges. The Legisla-
ture would be asked to guarantee the suitors' interests
against any deficiency in the funds. The guarantee, how-
ever, would be merely nominal, for according to all ex-
perience, the incomings of the Court of Chancery were con-
stantly increasing, and in the next place, unless all the
cash were called for simultaneously, and all the stack
sold under 87, which were impossible contingencies, there
could be no deficiency. Since 1757 there had been only
seven occasions on which it had been necessary to sell any
portion of the stock, and those occurred between 1844 and
1857. At all other times the cash balances at the Bank were
sufficient to meet all demands of the suitors, and the sales
made were not on account of any actual deficiency, but to
keep up the amount of those balances for the reasonable
profits of the Bank. The guarantee was therefore only no-
minal, but it would place the suitors in the same position as
if the cash was not at all interfered with, as Parliament would
be pledged to make good any deficiency which might arise.
The whole annual charge was £45,000. At the beginning
of the present year the total amount of terminable compen-
sations was £50,469, and the rate at which they had fallen
in during the last eight years justified him in saying that
they were now likely to fall in at the rate of £35,000, and
that more than covered the interest on the whole. If,
therefore, they provided for these compensations, they more
than provided for the whole of the annual charges on that
fund. Mr. Finlaison estimated the capital value of the com-
pensations at £380,000, but assuming it £500,000 at the
outside, to provide for that they would have to sell out
£541,000 stock, taking the stock at 90, which would give
a balance of £41,000, more than sufficient to pay interest
on the extreme capitalised valuation. On the other hand,
if they were not capitalised, these annuities would run off
in the course of 18 years, and that would realise a surplus
of £154,000. That reserve would be ample for the purpose
of meeting the whole of the charges. There would more-
over be a still further relief to the suitors in the reduction
of fees to the extent of £15,000 per annum. That being the
case, the house would agree with him in thinking that this
bill was entirely free from the objections urged against the
bill of 1861, in which it was proposed to throw the whole
cost upon the country. Now only a part would be thrown
on it. A sum of £200,000 was the estimated value of

the rents of the sites which would become available,
and, therefore, there remained £400,000 to be provided
for. That they proposed to raise by fees. They would
put a charge of 18d. additional upon each writ of sum-
mons, and 6s. Bd. additional upon each probate or letters
of administration over £lOO, or if the house preferred it
3d; per cent. It did not at all follow that these fees would
be contihued for any great length of time. Some of the
fees at present charged were subject to reduction at the
discretion of the judge, but a bill would be introduced in
the course of the present session providing that all court
fees should, for the future, be levied by stamps, so
that all the collection would be made with greater facility
and security. So that it became probable that before long
the suitors would be entirely relieved from these addi-
tional fees. In the meantime they would throw on the
courts which would be benefited by the concentrationpro-
posed a reasonableportion of the expense. He thought he
han now clearly shown that they had a perfect right to
avail themselves of the funds which they proposed to use,
and that their doing so would be a great benefit to the
suitor. He now submitted his bill to the house in the con-
fident hope that it would be the means of removing a great
blot from our judicial system, and of restoring something
like proportion between the dignity and majesty of Eng-
lish justice and the means secured by the country for its
administration.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said the financial part of the
scheme, by which the funds were to be provided, did not
inspire him with much confidence. He believed that a large
portion of the funds must come :out of the pockets of the
taxpayers ; and that the expense, instead of £1,500,000,
would be nearer £2,000,000, or £2,500,000.
After a few words from Mr. HADFIELD,
Mr. SELWYN likewise objected to the financial portion
of the scheme, contending that the Attorney-General had
greatly overestimated the resources to which he proposed
to resort, and he did not think the object of concentrating
the Courts so important as to justify a largo vote of public
money. He did not:oppose the introduction of the bill,
though he objected to the appropriation to the cost of the
proposed scheme of the funds which it was intended to
divert to it.

Mr. AYRT ON approved the principle of charging the
cost of the new building not upon the public revenue, but
upon funds arising from the courts themselves.
Mr. MALINS supported the proposed scheme. He
thought it would be better to take the money from the
Consolidated Fund ; but if the Government had said they
had got the money, he believed them. He described the
great inconvenience arising from the separation of even
the equity courts, and considered that the advantages re-
sulting from the concentration of all the courts under one
roof would be cheaply purchased on the terms proposed by
the Government.
The motion was supported by Mr. Denman, Mr. Bovill,
and Mr. Scully.
After a brief reply by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the
motion was agreed to, and leave was given to introduce
the bill.

Mr. COWPER moved for leave to bring in a bill to
enable the Commissioners of her Majesty's Works and
Public Buildings to acquire a site for the erection and con-
centration of Courts of Justice, and the various offices be-
longing to the same. He described the advantages of the
proposed site, bounded on the north by Carey-street, on
the south by the Strand, and on the east by Bell-yard, in
close contiguity to Lincoln's-inn and the Temple, and to
the chambers and offices of the legal profession, and he
suggested the practicability of subsidiary improvements,
affording further facilities.
Leave was given.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for leave to bring
in a bill to alter the constitution and amend the practice
and course of proceeding in the High Court of Chancery
in Ireland.
After some remarks by Mr. GEORGE and Mr. Scrux,
leave was given.

Mr. SCOURFIELD obtained leave to bring in a bill to
award costs in certain cases of private bills.
Mr. SCULLY obtained leave to bring in certain bills.
The house adjourned at half-past 10 o'clock,

RAILWAY DIRECTORS IN PARLIAMENT.--A list
prepared for Bradshaw's Manual shows that Parliament has
opened with 50 Peers directors of railway companies, and
149 members of the House of Commons ; the publication of
the names of the Board of the Metropolitan District Rail-
ways Company raises the latter number to 151, or three
among every 13 members.