The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-26 00:00:00

AN ITALIAN PROCLAMATION.

in the performance of the transport service. Therefore
with respect to the first part of the recommendation,
namely, that the transport service should be separated from
the victualling department of the Admiralty, under which
it was now placed, he thought it was, as a mrtter of prin-
ciple, good and sound, and so far he was glad his hon. friend
had called attention to the report. The War Department and
the Admiralty were agreed on that portion of the recommen-
dation, and when the proper time arrived they would be
ready to adopt measures for carrying them into effect. But
there were two other departments concerned—the India-
office and the Colonial-office. With respect to the India-
office, his right hon. friend at the head of that department
thought that for the present it was not advisable to make
the change proposed. He did not dispute that ultimately
it would be an advantageous one, but was of opinion that
the abandonment of the system of shipment of men and
stores from India under the separate management, and with
the facilities which now existed for it, was a measure to the
immediate adoption of which he could not agree. Then
there was the third question, with respect to the abolition
of the Emigration-office, and the transfer of all business
connected with emigration to the Colonial-office. He believed
it was the opinion of the noble duke at the head of the latter
office that the proposed change could not be adopted in
such a manner as to give satisfaction to the different colo-
nies. Though it was possible the recommendation might
be a wise one, still there might be, on further considera-
tion, serious objections to it. Under these circumstances
he trusted his hon. friend would be satisfied with the
assurance given, that the Government was on the whole
favourable to his views, and though not at present ready
to carry them into effect, they were nevertheless taking
steps for the purpose. They had further appointed a com-
mittee of members of the Admiralty and the War Depart-
ment to frame a plan in accordance with the views which
had been expressed. He believed his noble friend the
Secretary to the Admiralty had asked for a sum in the navy
estimates for the foundation of a board of that description.
He trusted, however, that the house would see that the
question was purely an executive one, and that the hon.
gentleman would consent not to press his motion to a divi-
sion, but leave it to the discretion of the Government.
. . _

The Earl of DERBY gave notice, on the part of the
Marquis of Normanby, that on Thursday next he should
call the attention of the noble earl the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs to a proclamation of a very extraordi-
nary nature which had lately been issued in the Neapolitan
territories.

Earl RUSSELL asked where the proclamation was to
be found.
The Earl of DERBY said he was about to ask the noble
earl whether he had received any information respecting
it. He had seen it in an Italian newspaper, and it was to the
effect that after a given day no person was to set foot within
a certain boundary, that all houses, farmhouses, cabins, and
hovels were to 4be levelled, and also that all inhabitants
of every house, farm house, or ether building in which
more than one day's food was to be found, should be
treated as brigands and shot. (Laughter.)

Earl RUSSELL said he had received no information
from her Majesty's Minister or Consul at Naples
on the subject, and he should therefore feel obliged
if the noble earl would furnish him with a copy of ithe
proclamation to which he referred.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SPEA.B.ER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were read a second time :—Cirences-
ter District Roads, Norwich Corporation, and Scottish
Northam, jaueLio.-.
GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ELECTIONS.

Sir F. Baring, Mr. Walpole, Mr. H. Herbert, Mr. Ker
Seymour, and Mr. Bonham Carter were sworn at the table
as the general committee of elections.
PETITIONS.

Some petitions were presented against the Revised Code
of Education and the Highways Bill, praying that when
any hon. member was counted out the debate should be
resumed at the next sitting.
TRANSPORT SERVICE.
Mr. CHILDERS asked the hon. member for Sunderland
(Mr. Lindsay) if he would not postpone the following
motion, of which he had given notice :—" That, in the
opinion of this house, her Majesty's Government ought to
adopt measures to carry into effect the recommendations of
the select committee of this house appointed in 1860 to in-
quire into the transport service, or at least such por-
tions of the report of 1861 as were unanimously adopted
by the said committee ?"
Mr. GRIFFITH gave notice that he would ask a ques-
tion on the subject of the alleged ill-treatment of the
Italian Consul at Malta.
CHARITABLE BEQUESTS IN IRELAND.
In reply to Mr. Emotion,
Sir R. PEEL said that the subject had been under
notice of Government, but as he was at present advised it
was not intended to introduce any bill on the subject.
THE QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
Mr. M'EVOY asked the First Lord of the Treasury,
if her Majesty's Government intended to make any proposal
to Parliament, in accordance with the suggestion of the
Secretary for Ireland, respecting the erection of a College
in Dublin in connection with the Queen's University ?
Lord PALMERSTON said that no such proposition had
been brought under the notice of Government.
ACCIDENTS COMPENSATION BILL.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL asked the member for
the Tower Hamlets whether he would have any objection
to defer the second reading of the Accidents Compensation
Bill until Wednesday, the 19th day of March ?
Mr. AYRTON said that he would postpone the bill in
accordance with the wishes of the right hon. gentleman,
but he trusted that the right hon. gentleman would be in his
place when the bill came on for the second reading, and
that in the meantime his views in reference to it under-
went a change. (Laughter.)
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir F. SMITH said that as a member of the committee
he could not but express his regret that two years should
have been allowed to elapse since the question had been
considered and reported upon, and before anything was
done with regard to it. He understood and believed that if
the recent American difficulty had not been removed a
transport board would have been established; but who knew
how soon they might be again under the same difficulty ?
He could not urge the subject too strongly on the attention
of the Government, for he need not say that if they did not
reform their establishments in a time of profound peace,
they would be sure to be thrown into confusion at the
breaking out of war. (Hear.)
Mr. KINNAIRD and Mr. JACKSON having advised the
hon. member for Sunderland not to press his motion,
Mr. CHILDERS called the attention of the house to a
grave omission in the report, whick demanded the conside-
ration of the Government. His hon. friend (Mr. Lindsay)
did not seem to be aware that a great part of the expense of
the Emigration-office was borne by the colonies. Tbat be-
ing so, it became a serious question for them to determine
whether they would be prepared to transfer the Emigration-
office to another department having nothing to do with the
colonies, or to hand it ever to the colonies themselves. He
hoped the Colonial-office would be careful, and consider
well what the effect of the proposed scheme would be, be
fore they adopted entirely the recommendations in the re-
port of the committee.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he thought he had stated that the
Colonial office objected to the amalgamation on colonial
considerations, for the reasons just stated by his hon.
friend. It was the opinion of the Colonial-office that the
union of the two functions was not expedient.
Mr. LINDSAY replied—The relations of the Colonial-
office with the colonies would remain the same if his pro-
posal were adopted as they were now. As the Government
admitted the principle, and intended to carry it out to some
extent, he should withdraw the motion.
The motion was then withdrawn.
CONSOLIDATION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL

Mr. BENTINCK moved the following alteration in the
57th paragraph of the rules, orders, and forms of proceeding
of the house :—" If it appear on notice being taken, at the
close of the speech of any member (such notice not
to be taken during the time that any member
is addressing the house), or on the report of a
division of the house by the Tellers, after four
o'clock, that 40 members are not present, Mr. Speaker do
adjourn the house without a question first put till the
next sitting day ; and the name of the member who has
taken such notice, and also the name of every member pre-
sent when the house is counted, shall be taken down.by the
clerk of the house, and published on the following day in
the votes and proceedings." He contended that under the
existing practice injustice was done to hon. members, and
the progress of public business was retarded.
Mr. KNIGHTLEY seconded the motion.
Sir G. GREY hoped the house would not accede to the
motion, and argued that every reasonable latitude was
afforded to private members to bring on their motions. He
drew attention to the fact that Government never placed a bill
on the paper for Wednesday, when itwould interfere with
the bills of private members. (Hear, hear.) He thought
the effect of counting out was rather salutary, as it tended
to induce hon. members to compress their speeches into
reasonable limits.
Lord R. CECIL supported the motion, the object of
which he contended was merely to secure the courtesy to
every hon. member of having an opportunity to finish a
speech which he had commenced. He strongly deprecated
the practice of an honourable member being per-
mitted to• move that the house should be counted
out, without due publicity being given to his
name. He thought such secresy was injurious to public
business, and most unjust to private members.
Mr. PAULL opposed the motion, and he thought that
no hon. member would shrink from the responsibility
of placing his name to a motion for "counting
out," merely because he had the privilege of
going behind the Speaker's chair and making such motion.
lie for 'one would not feel disposed to avail himself of such
privilege as exercising the constitutional right of moving
that the house should be counted out when there were not
forty members present.
Mr. EWART supported the motion.
Mr. B. OSBORNE, on the part of the house, declared
that in a count-out there was no feeling of hostility towards
any member, and he referred to his hon. friend (Mr. A.
Smith), who had been counted out five times in one
session, as an illustration of what he stated, so far
as his own personal feelings were concerned. He thought
the services rendered by the " counters out" were very
valuable—(laughter)—and he objected to that meritorious
body being dragged into publicity. (Great laughter.)
Mr. BENTINCK replied,
The house divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion .. 43
Against
Majority —l76
The motion was accordingly negatived.
TRANSPORT SERVICE.
Mr. LINDSAY then brought forward his motion on
this subject, which we have given above. He contended that
that there was necessity for a great alteration in the present
system. In the three years ending 1856, no less than
£16,000,000 had been expended by the Admi-
ral y in the service. He referred to the ad-
vantages which resulted to the country by the
establishment of an organised system in regard to this ser-
vice, by which £1,000,000 on the public expenditure was
saved He alluded to the Transport Board, which had been
the means of effecting this saving. Having analysed the
composition of the select committee which had been
appointed in 1860 to inquire into the Transport Service, he
contended that the house were bound to adopt the recom-
Inendation of that committee.
Sir P. SMITH seconded the motion.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that there was a time when Go-
metta were accused of too great a desire to create new
departments and new boards, and when the principal func-
tions of
of Cove Independent members were to restrain the appetite
ivbyirliTte:lte for wasteful expenditure of that description
y hapdaitirvonage in new appointments was increased.
Now the
edte see a new state of things arise. The
creation of new
branchesrecommended
a of the Government was not unfre-
quently
Y committees and individual mem-
bers, and it not unfre
creations
fell to the lot of the Govern-
ment to decline the
on of those new branches. He '
was himself in that position,
report of the committee of lad Re quite admitted that the
tecostareaession was a well consi-
dered rEport, and that its
aneandations were worthy of
the consideration of the hou
notulttimately of adoption
by the Government, but he was
°f
fce act on them.
position to say the Government woulad at t moment in a
hits recommen-
The hon. gentleman said that the result
might. be ne-
cessary would be that the work now done
would be done then by three. He thought it yl5 personr
to create a board, but he confessed that
ence of changes of that sort did not lead him to anticipate
atiLeferi. paa4
that the services of the 15 ether gentlemen who were
to be superseded would be dispensed with, and that a re-
duction of the different departments would take place to
that extent. He thought the house would expect that if
the new department were created some additional persons
would have to be appointed, and some additional exrenses,
incurred, although he did not dispute the conclusion of his
bon. friend that increased efficiency would be obtained, and
ultimately increased economy in the expenditure of the
public money. His experience of the late transmission of
troops to Canada had convinced him that our present
system admitted of improvement, and that there were
a confusion and a conflict of authority which
though they had not led to any inconvenience during
the recent transmission of troops, still had a ten-
dency to Produce errors ill the shiament of stores and

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVE NI NG, FEBRUARY 26, 1862.

frequented Kensington-gardens, but he found a
large number who had never penetrated their
centre. (Laughter.) The road would proceed along that
broad gravel walk, and if made those who now
used the walk would have an opportunity of Walking
in two avenues on each side of the road, which would be
much pleasanter. (Laughter.) These av dimes would be
planted with trees, and look much prettier than the gravel
walk. The road would commence at Lancaster-gate on the
north, and terminate at the wrought-iron gates in Rotten-
rowin gdoinsttahnet soonue-theighltthwor a quite
mile cta:c of the Serpentine, be-
ArOM it. The road at the
bottom would be 40 feet.ldefre With the walks which the
pedestrians wid:e,
and at the tor, of the slopes
8
(Laughter.) If he desired to pass
through ofeet.
It
the
nowwouldpa r.k
h not
took,
couldi go by the avenues, and if he
t
wished to cross the road he could do so by light bridges
which would be tonstructed for the purpose ; so that
although the number of places where pedestrians might
cross would be diminished, there would still be ample pro-
vision for pedestrians to cross. Then he did not believe
that the noise and dust would have any serious effect on
the enjoyment of the people. The read would not interfere
with Rotten-row ;it would not interfere with the carriage
drive—as in both cases the new road would pass underneath.
The new road being in a direct line would form a shorter
communication between Paddington Station than any alter-
native road which had been proposed. The other road which
had been spoken about was a similar sunk fence, beginning
at the northern part of the ha-ha and crossing the river,
and following the boundary between Hyde Park and Ken-
sington Gardens. The great difficulty of adopting that
road was crossing the Serpentine. If, as Mr. Page proposed,
in that place they were to have a tunnel under the Serpen-
tine, he thought it would be disagreeable. If they were to
have a new bridge it would be unsightly, as they would
have two bridges near each other of different elevations.
A third plan was to widen the present bridge, but he be-
lieved that would cost £20,000. The road he proposed had
this advantage, that whatever be the amount of annoyance
to arise from the passage of vehicles, it would in the case
of the middle walk in Kensington-gardens be felt by the
emallest number of persons, because that was the least fre-
quented part, whereas the boundary between Kensington-
gardens and Hyde-park was the most frequented. The bill
proposed that the road should be made by the Metropolitan
Board of Works, and that the expenditure should be de-
frayed out of the proceeds of the penny coal duty, which
had been accumulating since 18.59. By the act of the 8 and
9 Vic., that duty was to accumulate for some metropolitan
improvement which Parliament might hereafter direct ; and
it was quite open for Parliament, therefore, to say whether
that fund should be devoted to this purpose. It had received
the sanction of the vestries. Other districts might object
to such an appropriation of the money ; but the real ques-
tion was whether the road he proposed was not the most
urgent and most desirable work that could be undertaken
at the present time for the improvement of the metropolis.
He did not think the parishes would defray the cost, even
if they had the legal power to do so. The Metropolitan
Board of Works considered that the expense of making the
road could not be properly thrown on the taxes they were
authorised to levy. Therefore he thought practically the
question was whether they were to have a permanent road
or not. If it could not be paid for out of the penny coal
duty they could have no road. As particularly devoted to
the interests of the park he had no particular desire for this
road. (Hear, hear.) If he looked only to the interests of
those who frequented the park they could do perfectly well
without the road ; but if they were to look to the improve-
ment of the metropolis, to public utility and advantage, this
was an improvement which ought to be made. It had been
stated, with regard to the interests of the Exhibition, that
the permanent road could not be made in time to provide
both the temporary accommodation required this year and
the permanent accommodation which would be required in
future years. If they could combine the wants of the pre-
sent year and the wants of future years in the same road,
they would be economising the expenditure of the public
money. A question was raised on a former evening as to
the time in which the road could be made. Now, he could
state that several engineers of the highest authority had
stated that such a road as he had described could be made
in two months, and an eminent contractor would engage to
make it in three months, on the condition of not getting a
farthing for the work if it were not completed within the
time. If the bill he proposed had been received with the
favour he anticipated, and if it had been allowed to pass
rapidly, he had no doubt the road could have been com-
pleted by the Ist of June ; but his expectations had
not been realised. Advantage was taken of the slender at-
tendance to force on a division, and thus to cause a delay of
four days. As there might not be time to make a perma-
nent road, he had inserted in the bill powers to make a
temporary road at a comparatively small expense, and the
question for the house to decide was really between the
permanent and the temporary road. In any case a tempo-
rary road must be made in order to give a northern access
to the Exhibition.

munication wanted that would be a great advantage and
convenience to the public at large ; here is a fund that is
not now applicable to any other purpose—that cannot be
applied except by act of parliament. And we ask parlia-
ment to apply it to this purpose of great public convenience.
(Hear, hear.) _ _

Lord J. MANNERS hoped that his right hon. friend
would, for the future, confine himself to the discharge of
his own most important public duties. And he made that
observation because the right hon. gentleman had told the
house distinctly that, as far as he was the guardian of the
royal parks, he had no wish to see this particular road
made. (Hear. hear.) Let the house support the right hon.
gentleman in the discharge of his duty. Taking a wider
view, however, and regarding this as a metropolitan im-
provement, his right hon. friend wished the house to sup-
port him in making the road. But great metropolitan im-
provements were now, by Act of Parliament, delegated to a
different tribunal ; and if this were a measure of that charac-
ter, it was for tho Metropolitan Board of Works to decide
whether it should be undertaken or not. (Hear.) No doubt,
if a metropolitan improvement interfered with any of the
public parks, the right hon. gentleman was justified in
seeing, and even bound to see, that nothing was done to
prejudice those interests of which he had charge, but the
duty of the Metropolitan Board was definite, and ought not
to be transgressed as it was now attempted to be trans.
gressed. He now understood that the Government
would not persevere in that portion of the bill which dealt
with the question as a permanent metropolitan improve-
ment, but they still resolved to have this as a temporary
road. The nJble lord said that a temporary road ought not
to be charged to the parishes, and therefore that this bill
should be adopted by the house. The noble lord asked why
should the parishes make or maintain the road ? The only
answer he could give was that that was the law of the
land. (Hear, hear.) But he thought it had yet to be'
proved that this temporary communication was necessary.
There was no great likelihood of a greater number coming
to London this year than there was in 1851, and it was
quite probable that the roads that were found sufficient in
1851 would be sufficient in 1862. Admitting, however,
that this was not so, and that sane temporary provision,
such as that proposed by this bill, was necessary, if a
few hundred minds were required to provide temporary
accommodation for the Exhibition, let the right hon. gen-
tleman bring in an estimate for the money. It would then
be voted, and there would be an end to the matter. (Hear.)
Lord FERMOY complained of the course which had
been pursued by the right hon. gentleman in mixing up
the question of providing a road across the park with a par-
ticular crotchet of his own, which had perilled that very de-
sirable object. On the north of the parks there had grown up
a property which was now rated at more than £BOO,OOO a
year. The inhabitants of that part of the metropolis were
exceedingly anxious for a communication with the south,
but so distasteful was the right hon. gentleman's project
that rather than consent to it they would prefer not having
a road at all. (Cheers.) He thought that those persons
had good grounds for complaining, as he (the noble lord)
complained, of the right hon. gentleman's obstinacy.
Mr. B. STANHOPE observed that if we had anything
worth showing foreigners in our metropolis it was the parks
and Kensington-gardens; aad he protested against a scheme
which would utterly ruin them. (Cheers.)
When the hon. gentleman resumed his seat a great num-
ber of members rose, but
Mr. COWPER obtained possession of the house. He
said that he felt in the position of a camel whose back had
been broken by the last feather ; for it was what had fallen
from the noble lord who had just spoken that had deter-
mined him. He perceived that the feeling of the house
was so strong against the permanent road that he should
only be wasting time to insist on the scheme any longer.
He ventured to observe that it was within his province to
propose a measure relating to the royal property ; and that
it would have been beyond the jurisdiction of the Metro-
politan Board of Works to do so. He might add, however,
that he had received a vote of thanks from that board for
the plan he had proposed, and he thought, therefore, that
he had a right to expect the cordial support of the metro-
politan members. (A laugh.) Finding that his anticipations
were not realised he would move that the chairman leave
the chair; and he would then consider the other branch of
the subject, namely, the arrangements to be made for the
temporary passage of vehicles across the parks. (Loud
cheers.)
The CHAIRMAN then left the chair.
SUPPLY.

The report of supply was brought up and read.
In committee ou Exchequer Bills (Consolidated Fund),
resolutions were agreed to on which to found a bill.'
CONSOLIDATED FUND (973,747) BILL.

This bill was read a second time, and the house adjourned
at a quarter to U.

.ESSAYS AND RE VIEWS.

The case of the Rev. I. Fendall v. the Rev. H.
B. Wilson was resumed, yesterday morning, in the
Arches Court, before Dr. Lushington.
Dr. Phillimore, in opening his arguments on the
part of the promoter, observed that the special dif-
ferences which distinguished this case from that of
the Bishop of Salisbury v. Williams, were few,
and he should therefore avoid as far as possible any
repetition of the arguments, upon certain great
branches of the subject common to both cases, which
he addressed to the court on the former occasion.
He should only briefly, if at all, touch upon the
question of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,
or upon the meaning of the words in the articles
relating to the canonical books of Scripture, both
which points had been discussed at very great
length, and illustrated with numerous authorities
on both sides, in the case of the Bishop of Salisbury
v. Williams. The first point of distinction was, as
Dr. Deane had pointed out, in the promoter of the
judge's office. Mr. Fendall was proctor for the
clergy of the diocese of Ely, and he proceeded by
letters of request from his diocesan, the venerable
and, he regretted to say, infirm Bishop of Ely, who
was now in his 84th year. Another special circum-
stance in this case was that while in common with
the case of the Bishop of Salisbury v. Williams, the
defendant claimed for the clergy the liberty of
denying the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,
and denying that by the Word of God was meant
the Holy Scriptures, there was in Mr. Wilson's
essay a direct statement of the wish of the writer to
be free from all the fetters which at present the
formularies of the Church imposed upon him, and a
suggestion amounting almost to an invitation to
other clerks in holy orders, or candidates for holy
orders, to subscribe to the articles of religion in a
sense thoroughly and entirely different from that
which the composer of those articles intended. This
opinion, with the extract in which it occurred,
were set out in the articles for the purpose first, of
charging that such opinions were an offence per se
by a clerk in holy orders ; and, secondly, as show-
ing the animus and intention with which this part
of the essay was written. In maintaining and pro-
mulgating doctrines which were not consistent with
the plain grammatical and generally understood
meaning of the formularies, Mr. Wilson was acting
a dishonest and a treacherous part towards the
Church of England. Attenticn had been drawn to
the fact that the promoter was not proceeding in
this case under the statute of Elizabeth. The
reason that in this case, as in the case of Dr. Wil-
liams, the prosecution chose rather to proceed
under the general law was that it gave greater
scope to the lenity and mercy of the court—that if
these proceedings had been taken under the statute
of Elizabeth, and they had succeeded, no option
would be left to the court as to the sentence it
would have to pronounce. Authorities had been
referred to by defendant's counsel to show that
others had entertained opinions which they con-
sidered might justify the writings of Mr. Wilson,
and his learned friend had:appealed to the court not
by its decision in this case to bind the clergy down
to formularies which could not conscientiously be
literally observed. But it was not within the pro-
vince of the court to consider whether the formu-
laries of the Church were or were not too stringent,
and in the case of " Burder v. Heath," the court in
giving its judgment declined to open doors for dis-
cussion which the Legislature had closed. Great
importance had been attached to the fact that in
the articles there was no positive direction that
every part of the Scripture must be believed to
be the Word of God. Such a declaration would
never have been thought of, for without the Bible
there could be no Church, and the whole of the
articles were framed upon the acceptation of the
whole of the Scriptures as inspired by God. The
very object of the collection of the books of Scrip-
ture in the Bible was to exclude from the teaching
of the Church uncertain stories and legends, and
retain nothing but the pure Word of God. The
contention of his learned friends was that the Bible
was partly the Word of God and partly the impure
word of man, and that a clergyman was not bound
to accept the whole as the Word of God. A clergy-
man was then at liberty to question the literal
truth of any part of the Scriptures he pleased, and
with this teaching what he wanted to know was
what was to become of the uniformity of the
Church. Proceeding to refer in detail to the articles
of indictment, Dr. Phillimore addressed his obser-
vations in the first instance to those articles which
relate to the subscription of the clergy. He de-
scribed the object of the writer in the extract
quoted in these articles as to get rid of the bondage
of subscription and to substitute a system of greater
liberty. Mr. Wilson proposed to set at nought the
first five articles of religion, which were the most
solemn of the whole 39, not by a direct contradic-
tion, for that might incur the penalties of the
statute, but as the essayist expressed it by "pass-
ing by the side" of them, though they contained
such doctrines as the incarnation of our Lord and
the Holy Trinity. These might be doctrines which
a clergyman of the Church of England was at liberty
to entertain, but he should be surprised if any
judgment of the court should sanction such a
liberty. This evasion by Mr. Wilson of his sub-
scription, in which he invited others to follow him,
was contrary to principles of common honesty, and

Mr. AYRTON asked for further explanation respecting
the heights of the bridges, and the nature of the road.

Mr. COWPER said the engineer he had consulted pro-
posed to make flat girder bridges. He did not propose large
headways, as he could carry the road as low as he might
think necessary to clear the surface.

Sir J. SHELLEY had opposed the motion of the right
hon. gentleman the other night, because he thought that an
object in which they were all interested should not be dis-
cussed in a house of about 25 members. It was usual to
allow a bill to be brought in without opposition, that the
house might see what it was; but his right hon. friend had
given so full a description of his measure, that they had
nothing more to learn concerning it, and upon his descrip •
tion the metropolitan members were satisfied that there was
no cause for allowing the bill to proceed. And he believed,
supposing they were right in their ideas, that the scheme
was not one that ought to be supported, and he thought it
much better that it should be at once understood that the
bill would not be allowed to go on, in order that proper ar-
rangements might be made in other ways for the forth-
coming Exhibition. (Hear.) The right hon, gentleman
had rather shirked one part of the question which he brought
before the house the other night, and that was where the
funds with which this road was to be made were to come
from. The right hon. gentleman had told the house that it
was by an oversight that this sum of £32,000 was not in-
cluded in the Act of last year appropriating the proceeds of
the coal tax to the Thames Embankment, and that he
thought the money might now be employed in the construc-
tion of this road. He (Sir J. Shelley) did not believe there
was any difference of opinion as to the great advantage that
it would be to Kensington and Paddington to have access
from one side to the other. But the question was whether
the proposition of his right hon. friend was the best for the
purpose. He was anxious, if this was to be called a per-
manent metropolitan improvement, that the Exhibition
should be put altogether out of sight, and that the matter
should be carefully considered before any plan was decided
upon. If, on the other hand, it was to apply only to the
Exhibition, he thought there were roads sufficient for all
purposes if his right hon, friend only made use of them.
(Hear.) What disadvantage was there to any one at the
time of the last Exhibition, when the traffic was allowed to
go in front of Knightsbridge Barracks to the building ? If
they threw open the Marble Arch and the other reads across
the park, under proper restrictions, for cabs and other
vehicles, there would be more access to the new Exhibition
than there was to the nne in Hyde-park. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Fowler had undertaken that this road, if it were sanc-
tioned, should be opened for traffic by May; but even then
omnibuses heavily laden would be unable to draw their bur-
dens over a road recently opened for public traffic. As a
temporary road for the purposes of the Exhibition it could
not be ready in time, and as a permanent metropolitan im-
provement the matter required more consideration before a
decision was come to upon it. (Hear.) He believed that
Loth the localitiea which would bo benefited by it would be
perfectly ready to contribute to the improvement if they had
the power, and if such power were conferred the Metro-
politan Board would be justified in coming forward to carry
out the work.

Lord PALMERSTON—I so far agree with my hon.
friend who has just sat down that, ai this question has been
fully explained by my right hon. friend, and this is a full
house, we may as well declare to-night upon the motion:for
leave to bring in the bill as to wait for the second reading.
(Hear.) No more information can be given of the bill
than has been given by my right hon. friend in his open-
ing speech. This really is a question upon which the Go-
vernment have no particular interest ; it relates merely to
the convenience of the metropolis. I think everybody must
admit that there is a want of communication between that
great mass of town which lies on the north of the park and
Kensington-gardens and that increasing city—l may
almost call it—that is growing up in the south. There are
two questions involved—in what direction the road is to be
made, and who is to pay for it. My right hon. friend has
proposed a road which will be most central, and most con-
venient therefore, for those who have to pass from one side
to the other. Some persons may think that a sunk road is
less good than a road on the level, but these are matters of
opinion. A road on the level would be less convenient for
those who use the gardens, and a sunk road would be less
convenient for those who use the road. That is a matter of
convenience between two classes of persons, but that is a
question that may be reserved for future consideration.
Then as to the funds from which the cost of construction,is
to be provided. It is said by some that the parishes ought
to provide the funds, but parishes are bounded by arbitrary
lines, and why are persons living in a particular street which
is contained within the parochial boundary to contribute to
the cost, though they may not use the road, and those who
live a few streets off, and who may want to use the road to
be exempt ? If you make all those who use the road pay for
it that would be intelligible, but I cannot see the justice of
calling upon people to pay for the construction of a road
which they may never use, because they happen to live in
a parish which adjoins the place through which the road is
to go. Whatever may be the fate of this proposal we must
all agree that some additional communication with the
Exhibition should be provided. My hon. friend who
spoke last said that the passage through the Marble-
arch and through the road parallel with Park-lane would be
sufficient. The only advantage you would gain by that load
would be that you would avoid, perhaps, obstruction in the
narrow part of Park-lane but it would save nothing in dis-
tance. We should be glad to have the opinion of the house
whether they consider it desirable that a permanent road
should be made. The case is very simple. Here is a corn-

was, the learned counsel contended, censurable and
punishable in an ecclesiastical court ; complaint
had been made in reference to the seventh count,
that the opinions charged were not a fair in-
ference from the passages quoted from the essay.
It was said that but for the insertion of the word
" mere" to describe the Saviour as a mere
moral reformer, the charge in this case could
not have been pointed. But it was necessary that
the court should consider the whole gist of the
essay, and see whether any other construction could
be put upon the passage quoted than that which the
prosecution had embodied in this article. The dis-
tinguishing doctrines of the Christian religion were
spoken of as " speculative doctrines ;" the scheme
of redemption from sin and misery was designedly
omitted in furtherance of the object of the essayist,
which was to promote the multitudinist or national
church, to prepare for which all the doctrines and
distinctions of the Christian religion were to be done
away with. With regard to the question of inspira-
tion, he had nothing to add to the arguments he had
used in the case of Dr. Williams, and he need only
say that if Mr. Wilson was at liberty to interpret
one scriptural statement as an allegory, other clergy.
men might deal in the same way with other parts
of the Scripture till, as he had said before, there
would be no uniformity in the teaching of the
Church of England.
Dr. Lushington—Then they meet you, Dr. Philli-
more, with the question, " Do you hold that belief
in the literal truth of every word of the canonical
books is necessary P"
Dr. Phillimore knew no authority in the Church
of England for denying any of the facts described
in the Bible. The next point to which he had to
draw the attention of the Court was the charge of
ideal interpretations of the Old and New Testament.
Of the system of ideology there referred to Strauss
had the unenviable position of founder ; and though
it was true, as Mr. Wilson states, that he had not
gone in this system of interpretation the lengths
that its founder had gone, yet he had adopted
enough of Strauss's principle to leave open to those
who followed in his footsteps to deny the whole of
the Gospel, and to say that the taking up of Elijah
to Heaven and the Temptation of Christ were un-
certain stories, and legends no more to be believed
than " Robinson Crusoe" or the " Arabian Nights."
It was eontended by his learned friends that the
clergy were at liberty to believe anything that was
not in so many words absolutely denied—a prin-
ciple which an ecclesiastical court could not for a
moment accept, for it was one that would permit
clergymen to preach that Mehemet, who believed in
the Bible, and claimed that his coming was in it
foretold, was the prophet cf God. If the facts of the
Old Testament were merely ideas, as Mr. Wilson
went the length of asserting, they could not get
over the dilemma which he had .put on a former
occasion, that our Lord and the Apostles were either
ignorant or were impostors. Then it was main-
tained in the essay that the miracles ascribed to
Christ—the opening of the eyes of the blind, the
cleansing of leprosy, making the dumb to speak
and the deaf to hear, the Temptation and the
Transfiguration—would have the same effect upon
the mind if they were ideas as if they were facts.
This was a theory that no one could accept—the
story of the Savibur's life could not have the same
weight and influence regarded merely as an allegory,
and it would hardly be understood that Ridley and
Latimer should have died at the stake for that which
was nothing more than the product of two ideas.
Mr. Wilson disposed of Adam and Eve as an alle-
gory; he disposed of the facts from which original
sin was derived, and then disposed of original sin
itself. It had been explained that upon this point
those to whom the essayist referred were persons
who had never heard of the Lord, and that with
regard to such he had only expressed the hope that
their ignorance would not be the cause of their
eternal punishment. But this was not a correct
statement, for the doctrine of Mr. Wilson was, that
those who had not heard of God's name could not
have original sin, a doctrine which was distinctly
and unquestionably opposed to the doctrines of the
Church of England. Passing to the fourteenth
count of the indictment, in the passage cited there
was a distinct proposition conveyed in the words,
" The Roman Church has imagined a limbus infan-
tium. We must rather entertain a hope that there
shall be found, after the great adjudication, recep-
tacles suitable for those who shall be infants—not
as to years of terrestrial life, but as to spiritual
development—nurseries as it were, and seed grounds
where the undeveloped may grow up under new con-
ditions, the stunted may become strong and the per-
verted be restored." The essayist might as well have
at once advocated the Romish doctrine of purgatory,
and certainly the words of the article, which was
directed against the doctrine of purgatory. "It is
a fond thing, vainly invented, with no authority
from the Scriptures," would apply with equal force
to Mr. Wilson's belief. This was not the first time
it had been held that though there would be a final
adjudication, all would go ultimately to the bosom
of the Creator ; it was, no doubt, a very comfortable
doctrine, but it was one that must not be allowed to
a clergyman of the Church of England to teach.
Dr. S wabey followed upon the same side.
The court adjourned till Monday next.