The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-14 00:00:00

'TEE SUN, LONDOV, WEDNESDAY E V ENING, JULY 14, 1858.

LEASES AND SALES OF SOU LED ESTATES
BILL.
This bill was read a third time ani p issed.
NISI PRIUS COURT, &c. (IREI AND BILL.
This bill was read a third time and p %lased.
INCIJ MBE RED ESTATES (WEST l :.LADIES) BILL.
The report on this bill was received.
The house adjourned at a quarter to eig it o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMNIONS-(YZ'iTERDAT.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Lords' Ameedments to the Victoria Station and
Pimlico Railway Bills were agreed to.
STEARNE'S CHARITIES BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
STANDING ORDERS REVISION.
Colonel W. PATTEN moved the appointment of the
follow Select Committee for revising the Standing
Orders :—Colonel W, Patten, Mr. Henley, Sir James
Graham, Mr. Fitzßoy, Mr. E. P. Bouverie, Sir J. Y.
Boiler, Mr. Wrightson, Sir R. Ferguson, Mr. Lockhart,
Mr. B. Carter, Mr. J. A. Wynne, Mr. E. Egerton, and

Mr. Sholefield. —Agreed to. -
GLASGOW COLLEGE ESTATE BILL.
Mr. C. FORSTER moved the following resolution :
"Teat it be an instruction to the committee of selection,
that they have power to appoint the committee on the
Glasgow College Estate Bill to meet any day not earlier
than seven clear days after the second reading, on three
days' notice being given of the meeting of the committee
on the bill.—Agreed to.
SALE OF POISONS BILL.
Numerou4 petitions were presented. against the Sale
of Poisons Bill.
POLICE FORCE (IRELAND) BILL.
The Lord Mayor of Dublin, in his robes of office, at-
tended at the bar of the house, and presented a petition
from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commo❑ Council
of the city of Dublin, against the Police Force (Ireland)

Bill.
Mr. GROGAN presented a petition signed by 22 of
the members of the Corporation of Dublin, in favour of
the Police Force (Ireland) Bill. He also presented an-
other petition, signed by many leading persons in Dublin,
to the same effect.
Mr. VANCE said he had a petition to present from
Dublin in its favour, but in consequence of some infor-
mality in it he would defer its presentation till to-mor-

row.
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD presented a petition from
Dublin against the bill, signed by several thousands o'
the inhabitants.
MR. G. H. RYLAND.

Capt. VIVIAN moved an address for copies of all
papers and correspondence, or extracts of correspon•
dente, between the Imperial Government and Govern-
ment of Canada, from let June, 1855, relative to the case
of Mr. Geo. H. Ryland, formerly clerk of the Council in
Canada, including Lord John Russell's despatch of the
20th July, 1855, together with instructions issued to
Chief-Justice Carter to examine and report upon the
case, and his report thereon, with accompanying papers.
—Agreed to.
EAST INDIES (EDUCATION).
Mr. J. B. SMITH moved for a copy of all correspon-
dence on the sui,ject of education, between the Court of
Directors and the Government of India, since the 19th
day of July, 1854, not already presented to Parliament,
until the latest date at which such correspondence was
known in this country.—Agreed to.
THE LOSS OF THE VARNA.
In reply to Mr. ROBERTSON,
Mr. HENLEY said his attention had been called to
the circumstance referred to. He had had a copy of the
ship's protect sent to him, and it appeared from
it that the waster of the ship died, and the mate,
who held a certificate of service but not
of competency strictly under the provisions of the law,
succeeded him. The protest stated the mate was not a
navigator, and he was unable to take observations, but
it did not appear that the vessel was lost in conse-
quence. Inquiries, however, would be made into the
subject.
NEW ROADS AND NAVIGABLE CANALS IN
INDIA.
Mr. CHEETHAM asked the President of the Board
of Control why the return respecting new roads and
navigable canals in India, ordered by the house last
session, had not yet been laid on the table ?
Lord STAN LEY said it VIM found no sufficient
materials existed in this country out of which the return
desired could be compiled, and in consequen:e an order
was sent to India to obtain the information required.
He bad received a letter from Col. Baker, Secretary to
the Public Works in India, in which he called upon all
the local authorities in every part of India to furnish the
required details. Probably the disturbed state of the
country had caused the delay, but as soon as he received
the information referred to, he would lay it upon the
table of the house.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY COMMISSIONER.
Mr. VANSITT.:A.RT asked the President of the Board
of Control, whether it was his intention, considering the
important duties of the office he now holdsi-to continue
any longer Commissioner for the University of Cambridge?
Lord STANLEY said that when he took office at the
commencement of the year he proposed to his brother
Commissioners to resign, but it was their unanimous
wish that he should continue one of the Commissioners,
and he complied with it. (Hear, hear.)
THE JEW BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL said—Sir, a certain bill some
time ago passed this house—though from some delay it
has net yet come down again from the other house—
and I think at this period of the session it is important
that the house should be aware of the course which I
propose to pursue with respect to the Oaths Bill, and
also with respect to another bill which is now before
the House of Lords, I believe, though I am not sure
whether it has passed its third reading. I beg to move
the adjournment of the house in order to enable me to
make the explanation which I think necessary of the
course which I intend to pursue. The house is perfectly
aware that for some years—nine years, I think—they
have agreed to bills for the relief of her Majesty's Jewish
subjects, and for admitting them to offices and to hold
seats in Parliament on condition of taking the oaths
with the omission of those words which Baron Roths-
child declared not to be binding on his conscience.
Though those bills were recommended to the House
of Lords by great authorities in that house, yet they
failed in obtaining the assent of that house. But at the
end of last year, after the bill had been again rejected
by the House of Lords, a committee was appointed on
my motion, in order to consider whether this house had
not the power to crder that a member might be admitted
on making a declaration, and without the necessity of
taking the form of oath, the substance of which would
be embodied in the declaration. In the course of the
sitting of the committee, of which I had the honour
to be chairman, very able arguments were made on both
sides, but more especially the late Attorney-General,
Sir R. Bethell, enforced, with great legal learning, the
opinion that this house was able to administer a (facia
ration to a person objecting, as a member of the Jewish
religion would, to take the oath, and that that declara-
tion would be sufficient to admit him to a seat in this
house. A narrow majority of the committee decided
aeainst the advice and opinion of the late Attorney.
General, but there were many persons who supported
it, believing that the opinion was right ; more especially
three members of the present Government—the Chan-
cellor of he Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty,
and the President of the Board of Control—were in
favour of the view taken by the learned eentleman. If
a motion was made by the late Attorney-General, it was
stated to be the intention of the First Lord of the Ad-
miralty to move a resolution that, though it was com-
petent for this house to receive a declaration in lieu of as
oath against that, it was not advisable to use that power
until other constitutional remedies had been exhausted.
It appeared to me, though I was not called on to give
au opinion in the committee, that that was the right
and true view of the questioo before us, that the legal
power was in the House of Commons, but that it was not
expedient to use it until the house had exhausted all con-
stitutional remedies. This opinion appears to have bad
great weight with the house. In the present session
Baron Rothschild, being a person who had not taken
the oaths, was appointed a member of a select commit.
tee. A bill, similar in purport to the other, but calcu•
lated, it possible, to meet the objections entertained by
the House of Lords, was sent up to the otoer house, but
was rejected by a majority of 39. After this took place
the very grave question seemed to have made great im-
pression on the minds of many members of the House of
Peers, and I have communications from some of those
peers who seem to have been much affected by the diffi-
culty, not to say danger, by woich this matter was eur-
roundsd. If a ruaj rity of this house resolved tt at a declare •
tion should be substituted for an oath, in accordance a ith
the motion of the hon.and learned member for Aylesbury,
it was impossible not to see that other and serious difficul-
ties might arise. I am inclined to believe that after that
the courts ofcommon law would have been disposed to think
that the authority of the house would have been E uffi
cient fur the interpretation of the act of Parliament. But
the contrary might have been the case. The Lord Chief
Justice of England, indeed, went so far as to suppose
that he might be imprisoned by the House of Commons
for having delivered an opinion contrary to the opinion
of the house, and that the people rising in insurrection
would have delivered the Lord Chief Justice. (Laughter.)
But silo wing that to have been rather a stretch of ices.-
givation on the part of the Lord Chief Justice, and that
the house would not have gone to that extremity, still
it is obvious that if the House of Commons had come to
a resolution that Baron Rothschild might take his seat
on making a declaration, it would have been incumbent
on the house, having taken that step, to have defended
their member, us far as circumstauces admitted, from
any injury sustained, whether by the judgment of a court
of law or otherwise, in consequence of his doing his duty
as a member of this Lowe. That state of things would
have had an injurious effect upon public testing. Al-
though this house is the supreme power in the country,
which I think noth.ng could resist, the exercise of that
power of seating a member would have been attended
with uo little disturbance of the public mind and inter-
ruption of public business. We must all bear in mind
that it is no longer like those questions of privilege which
existed on former occasions when the house was strag-
gling against the undue exercise of the prerogative of
the Crown. On the contrary, in the present day the
House of Commis has so much power that the tendency
of the public mind is that the house might absorb the
power of
.the State, or at all events more power than be-
longs to it, and the courts of law are filled by indepen-
dent judges, whose opinions would have weight. There-
fore I say the. conflict between the house and the courts
of law would no longer be what it was in former times. I
believe there would hardly have been any mode of settling
this question, supposing the Houseof Commons to be de-
termined to protect their member and the judges proceed-
ing to enforce their judgment; there would have been no

remedy but the determination that the house would proceed •
with no other business until their member was protected,
and thus stopping both branches of the Legislature until
the power of the House of Commons was ratified by law.
If that be so, I think that izreat credit is due to those
who in the House of Lords have introduced and sane-
tioned a measure which may prevent this embarrass-
ment, and do at once that which might have been ob-
tained after a long and dangerous struggle. On the 31st
May the Earl of Lucan proposed an amendment by
which this difficulty would have been removed. I think
it unfortunate that that amendment was not taken into
consideration, and the Oaths Bill amended in the man-
ner proposed. The House of Lords have, however,
taken another course, intending, no doubt, to arrive at
the same end. Instead of adopting that amendment
proposed on the 31st May they resolved to insist on
their amendments in the Oaths Bill, and appointed a
committee of conference. A bill was afterwards intro-
duced to give each house the power, if either of them
should think fit, on a declaration being made by a Jewish
member of Parliament that he had conscientious objec-
tions to taking the oaths in the form in which they now
stand, to relieve him from using the words "on the true
faith of a Christian,'" and to let him take his seat. The
former bill did a good deal more than that, because it
allowed persons of the Jewish persuasion to hold all
those offices for which the oath of abjuration was now
required, by omitting the words, " on the true faith of
a Chri-tiara," except only those few offices which could
not be held by a Homan Catholic. The bill introduced
in the House of Lords is not, certainly, a concession of
the whole principle of religious liberty, for which the
House of Commons contended ; but at the same time it
is a practical solution of a very grave question, and as
such it is my intention, when that bill shall come down,
to move the second reading, and to endeavour to carry
it through all its stages. (Cheers.) I hope that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow me to take

precedence on Friday next, so that it may be read a
second time on that day. There will then be room for
discussion, and a division if it is thought proper ; and if
there is a majority of the house in favour of the bill, I hope
to be allowed to proceed with it rapidly, a favour which
is sometimes allowed at this period of the session, so that
there may be no further difficulty in the way of its pass-
ing. But then I come to the question of how the Lords
have dealt with the bill sent up by this house ; for, sin-
gularly enough, they not only have not concurred in the
clause as to the relief of the Jews, but, 'nstead of that,

they ommitted this clause, because they thought, as they
might fairly in the exercise of their privilege think, that
the object might be better provided for by a separate
bill ; yet instead of so stating, they have given all the
reasons why no bill of this kind should be admitted at
all. (Hear, hear.) Certainly that is a course that might
be said to be insulting to the House of Commons.
(Hear, hear.) I have heard it said, and on the highest
authority, that it was not intended as an insult to the
House of Commons, but at all events it is a course which
puts this house in some difficulty, and, still more, shows
a singular inconsistency in the majority of the House of
Lords. I will read what I have had put into my band
as one of the reasons of the Lords for not agreeing to our
amendments. Because, without imputing any disloyalty
or disaffection to her Majesty's subjects of the Jewish
persuasion, the Lords consider that the denial and rejec-
tion of that Saviour—
Lord J. MANNERS—I rise to order. I wish to know
whether these reasons are before the House of Commons f
Lord J. RUSSELL—No, the bill and the reasons
ought to have been sent down, but they have not been
sent. But long no Lord C.lstleretigh quoted the House
of Lords' proceedings, and when he was interrupted he
stated that the House of Lords was a court of record,
and no member could Le interrupted in reading what
they have placed on record. (Hear.) On the votes of the
House of Lords are the reasons I have mentioned, and
one of them declares to this effect. (Cries of" `Read,
read.") I will, at all events, read the last words of the
reason—" That the denial and rejection of that Saviour
in whose name each house of Parliament daily offers up
its collective prayers for the Divine blessing on its coun-
sels constitutes a moral unfitness to take part in the
legislation of a professedly Christian community." I
cannot understand that they have any moral unfitness
for such duties, and the Lords, at the same time that
they state these reasons, send down a bill by which Jews
are to be allowed to take part in the legislation of a
Christian community. I own that it appears to me that
it is a question whether the course ought not to have
been to have placed resolutions on oar journals, without
answering these reasons of the Lords, so as to give our
reasons for not taking any notice of those reasons of the
Lords, that as the House of Lords have passed a bill to
carry into effect the admission of the Jews to Parlia-
ment, it is not necessary to consider the reasons of the
Lords. (Rear.) I think some record of that sort might
be advisable for the sake of our own consistency. We
might prefer insisting on our original bill, or we might
concur in the amendments of the Lords. In proposing
the course which I have stated, however, I am propos.
ing that which I think it is our duty to take, so as to
agree as far as possible in the practical made by which
we may obtain our object and agree as far as possible
with the other house. If the whole question were involved
in this bill we could not do otherwise than insist on the
principle of religious liberty, but when the House of Lords
only passed a measure partly dealing with the question
and admitting the Je we, I think that we ought to agree
to the settlement of a question which has been so long
agitated. At the same time, I should rejoice for my
own part if, having relieved the Protestant D.ssenters and
the Roman Catholics from their disabilities, we had con-
summated the principle that religious differences should
be no objection to a man holding any civil position. (Loud
cheers.) I believe that the majority of this house was
right on that subject, though the House of Lords is still
in darkness. (A laugh.) Yet they may, when aJ ew sits
in the House of Commons, put the question in a more
consistent form than is done by the measure now before
them. I beg therefore to move the adjournment of the
house, and to apologise to the house for having so long
detained them with this explanation. (The noble lord
resumed his seat, but no member of the Government
answering, he again rose and said, "I ask the right hon.
gentleman whether he will allow me Friday l ")
Mr. DISRAELI said though this bill had not yet
reached the house, he fet it his duty to answer the ap-
peal of the noble lord. Since the house had placed at
the disposal of the Government all the time usually en-
trusted to private members, he thought that for business
of public importance they might make an arrangement,
such as was suggested. He would, therefore, give the
noble lord Friday.
Lor J. MANNERS said he had risen to interrupt be-
cause he believed, and still believed, that the noble lord
was out of order—(hear)—in referring to a subject not yet
before the house. He also rose in consequence of the
unseemliness of the course pursued. It was impossible,
he thought, for a debate to have arisen now without the
greatest possible inconvecieoce. He would not further
allude to what the noble lord had said than by saying
that as a member of the committee he had referred to,
he did not think the statement of the noble lord was per-
fectly correct, He had heard—unless kis ears deceived
him—with great surprise, that this house was the sue
preme power in the country, and against which there
was no other power which could presume to contend. He
was not aware until he heard the statement of the noble
lord, that.either by law, or by habit, or in fact, that house
was the supreme power in the country. (Hear.) If these
words had escaped the noble hastily and unad-
visedly, he had nothing further to say about
it, except that he did not, for one, concur in
that view, and he hoped that the house would not allow
it to go forward that it concurred in such a view of its
own powers as that giveu by the noble lord.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, as to the point of order, he
believed he was perfectly right —(hea.)—that the votes
of the Lords were matters of comment in that house. It
was a very different thing to comment on speeches made
in the House of Lords. The noble lord bad said thit
his account of the proceedings in the committee was
incorrect, but he bad not said in what it was incorrect.
If it were incorrect he should have been glad to be cor-
rected. He had said that the minority were in favour of
Sir R. Bethell's opinion, and that in that minority were
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the
Admiralty, and the President of the Board of Control.
He believed those were facts. He said that the late At-
toruey-General had spoken with great ability, and he
did not believe that anybody who heard it would deny
that it was a speech of very great ability. The noble
lord further thought that he had stated inadvertently
that this house was a power which no other power con'd
control. If the house were once resolved to use its power
and the public supported them, if they said that they
would not pass the Mutiny Bill, and would not vote a
shilling of supply—(hear)—it would be impossible for
any power within the constitution to resist the expres-
sion of their wish. He ought to have said that the house
was bound to exercise its power with the greatest mode-
ration and deliberation, but the house having been duly
elected by the people, showing the confidence of the
people, they had power which no other power in the state
could resist. (Cheers.)
The motion was withdrawn.
DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IN THE GULF
OF BOTHNIA..
In reply to an appeal from Sir J. PAKINdTON,
Mr. CRAWFORD postponed his motion relative to
the appointment of a Royal Commission to inspire into
the complaints made by certain of her Majesty's sub-
jects of the destruction of their property by her Ma.
os J' ty's feces at Uleaborgand the Gulf of Bothniaduriog
the late war.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would name an early day for its discussion.
SUPPLY—NATIONAL GALLERY.
On the motion that the report of the committee of
supply be agreed to,
Lord ELCHO called attention to the report of the
commission on site of National Gallery. He suggested
that a room was required for the national collection of
pAinzings, The Royal Academy who occupied one-half
of the building, should have notice to quit. That would
give the space required for the national collection. The
Royal Academy had no right to the space they occu-
pied, and it was the duty of her Majesty's Government
to resume posses,ion
• of that portion of the budding.
That would -aye an outlay of money for a new building,
Mr. CONINGETA NI referred to the nature and coil-
stitutran of the Royal Academy. It was a private
society enjoying the privileges of a public body, and it
occupied, to the injary of the public, a portion of a
public building, intended for public purposes. It en-
joyed privileges exceedingly injurious to the arts, and,
being a voluntary society, it was irresponsifeo to my
party in the State. He condemned the mode of instruc.
tion pursued by the Royal Society.
After some semarke from Mr. LOCKS KING,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
something must be 'done to provide adejuate aceouinio.
dation fur our national collection and its enlargement.
At present they were deprived of receiving legacies from
the want of room. There was no• necessity for further
inquiry, and so far as the National Gallery was con-
cerned, her Majesty's Government at the proper time
would submit a measure for affording the nefAssary

amount of accommodation. Her Majesty's Government
accepted, however, the responsibility of providing ac-
commodation for works of art generally.
Mr. SEYMOUR, regretted the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had not stated it was the intention of her
Majesty's Government to get rid of the Royal Academy
from the National Gallery.
After some remarks from Mr. J. EITIIIT and Mr. J.

A. SMITH,
Lord ELCHO moved the reduction of the amount for

the National Gallery by 3001., the amount of the travel-
ling
agent's salary. It was an appointment not recom-
mended by the Committee of 1853. He was not required,
and his travelling about Italy enhansed the sums the
country had to pay for pictures. He was appointed
under a Treasury minute in 1855, at a salary of 3001. a.
year, with au allowance of 6501. for travelling expenses.
He was required to keep a diary to show his activity,
and he was sufficiently active and industrious. All the
world knew who be was, for he not only put his name on
his earl, but, proud of his vocation, he added the words,
" M. Otho illiindler, expert de la Galerie Nationale de
Londres." (Laughter.) The consequence was that
the Austrian Government instructed the keepers of
galleries and the heads of religious establishments
not to allow him to visit their collections. One
" Paul Veronese," which he purchased for 2,0001.,
was valued at only 370/, The other picture by
the same artist, for which the country paid 14,0007.,
would not in an auction-room fetch more than

vingEl..

.• _
2,5001. When he purchased a gallery the National Gal
lery would only keep one or two pictures which might
poaeess merit, and then sold the others at a loss, or sent
them to Dublin to the gallery there. For a picture,
for which the Florentine agent of Mr. Baker was about
to pay 701., the travelling agent bid first 7,000 scudi.
and subsequently 10,000 scudi, or about 2,0001. It was
thus the public money was wasted. The British
Museum, by having local instead of travelling agents,
picked up at a small expense whatever was worth secur-
ing. It was true the director of the National Gallery
himself travelled every summer, but that gentleman was
also President of the Royal Academy, and himself an
artist, and had not time sufficient at his disposal to
enable him to select the best pictures to be found on the
Continent. All these arrangements bad been made by
the hon. gentleman the member for Devonport, who bad
been a most consistent defender of the abuses of the
National Galliry, and had been gallant enough to defend
"The Woman taken in Adultery." The proposition, no
doubt, would be opposed by the late Secretary of the
Treasury ; but if he (Lord Elcho) failed in carrying it
this year he would probably be tempted to put it in a
different shape on another occasion, and to ask the house
to give the agent 1,0001. a-year, but to bind him to re-
main in this country. (Laughter.) That would be one of
the beat bargains the House of Commonly ever made for
the coutory. He concluded by moving that the vote be
reduced from 16,7401. to 16,4401,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped
the house would not suddenly terminate the career of
Mr. Mundler. He felt disposed to believe that some-
thing might be said on the other side of the question ;
but the whole subject of the National Gallery was at
present under consideration, and he felt fully justified in
stating that a great revolution would inevitably take
place in the general management of that institution.
Such being the case, he should be sorry if any harsh
steps were taken towards an individual. The whole es-
tablishment required investigation, and it would receive
that consideration which it so well deserved. This was
not a mere phrase used to deprecate division, but as the
whole question was being considered, and as they might
rely that the management of the National Gallery would
be placed on a proper footing, he trusted the house
would not consider it necessary to divide on the noble
lord's amendment.
Mr. COWPER expressed a hope that there would be
no division. The original appropriation of a sum of
money to meet the salary and expenses of a travelling
agent was, he contended, quite correct ; but, in voting
for the full grant, they were not by any means precluded
from doing all they could to place the management of
the institution on a better footing.
Mr. WILSON said that the noble lord was entirely
misinformed as regarded Mr. Mundler's power. That
gentleman had no power to purchase pictures. He merely
offered the price for them which was authorised.
The house then divided—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority --18
The amendment was consequently carried, and the re-
solution, as altered, was agreed to.
SPECIAL FORMS OF PRAYER AND SERVICE.
On the motion for going into Committee of Supply,
Mr. COWPER rose to move an humble Address,
praying that her Majesty would be graciously pleased to
take into her Royal consideration the proclamation of the
first year of her Majesty's reign, commanding that forms
of prayer and service made for the sth day of November,
the 30th day of January, and the 29th day of May,
should be annexed to the Book of Common Prayer of
the United Church of England and Ireland, to be
used yearly on the said days, with a view to the
discontinuance of those forms of prayer and service.
He thought it improper to make permanent by royal
authority services which were only intended for special
occasions. At the time those services were appointed
no doubt they gave full utterance to the feelings of those
who used them ; but now, after a lapse of 200 years,
they were altogether unsuitable. The last important
event that happened on the sth of November was the
battle of Inkerman, and though less important than the
one commemorated on that day, yet it was one which
might, at this period of time, be commemorated with
much more propriety than the Gunpowder Plot. On
these grounds, he hoped her Majesty would be induced
to reconsider her proclamation for the continuance of
those special services, with a view to their removal from
the Prayer Book.
Lord BURY seconded the motion.
Mr. WALPOLE thought it would have been better
if originally (hut it was too late now) a joint address to
her Majesty had proceeded from both Houses of Parlia-
ment, and then one answer would be sufficient. Poli-
tical services were always to be deprecated, unless under
very extraordinary circumstances. He thought the
services referred to in the motion were more detrimental
than otherwise to the Prayer Book, and therefore he
would give his hearty consent to the motion.
The motion was then agreed to.
BATTERSEA PARK.

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply.
Mr. ALCOOK said he wished to call the attention of
her Majesty's Government to the expediency of offering
the surplus land in Battersea Park (100 acres) for sale by
auction, with a reserved price of 284,730/.9s 3d., in order
to refund to the Government the loans advanced for Bat-
tersea Park, Chelsea-bridge, and Chelsea embankment.
The only objection that he could conceive could be urged
against his proposition was that in 20 years' time the land
would be greatly enhanced in value, and that at present
it could only be disposed of at a loss. But were the
people of London to be taxed at the rate of 6,500/. a
year (tie estimated value of the tolls on the new bridge)
for 20 years 1 This would take from their pockets a
sum of about 130,0001., and for no conceivable purpose
except presi dug the patronage of the Chief Commissioner
of Works over the surplus land. If this land were now
sold, and the proceeds of the sale did not pay off the
debt, he felt convinced that the people of London, like
those of BirmiEghana in a similar case, would make up
the deficiency.
STATE OF THE SERPENTINE.

Sir J. V. SHELLEY said that be had intimated to
the Government that when the estimates with reference
to the parks were before the house, ho should recom-
mend that a vote should be taken for cleansing the Sere
pentine. During the hot weather it was almost as great
a nuisance as the Thames itself. The parks were under
the control of the Government, and it was inconsistent
with their duty to permit the continuance of such a large
stagnant pool, the stench from which extended all over
Park-lane and Hyde Park-gardens. Much of the water
of the Serpentine came Irons the overflow of one of the
London sewers, and from the drainage of the Kilburn
Cemetery. Considering that thousands of persons bathed
there every morning, its purification was of the greatest
importance. The experiment tried on the water in St.
James's Park by Sir Benj. Hall had proved eminently
successful, and as the expense would be comparatively
trifling, he trusted the Serpentine would be treated in a
similar manner. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. MANNERS said the hon. member was under
a delusion with regard to the land he had mentioned. Up
to that moment he (Lord J. Manners) bad received no
offer of any kind for the land, and he was afraid he
could bold out no hope he would receive any until the
offensive open sewer which bounded it was effectually
covered in. He had made &representation to the Metro-
politan Board of Works on the subject, and their answer
was, that when the general system of metropolitan drain-
age was adopted, the sewer would be covered in. When
that was done, the land would he put in a situation for
sale, and he hal reason to hope it would then become a
popular investment for building purposes. Of course.
when that event took place, it would be his duty to sell
the land fur what terms he could obtain. Bat it must
not be supposed that there would be a surplus to enable
them to do anything with the tolls. There had been ex-
tphe
en di
nedt e
ruepsot nwße
ua Bt
dt e rms ea ak
ePaaer ka
dt
dh
iet
iseuhmo
fo f 5
82, 00 00
0010. 01..1;
There
de
had been obtained 65,000/. for the sale of land to the
railway. The total Bum to be provided for was about
290,0001., and he could not hold out a hope that there
would be any surplus sufficient to enable them to make
any diminution in the charge for the tolls. With respect
to the question by the lion, member for Westminster,
he oould state that, since the application of lime, people
had been seen to drink water from the Serpentine out
of the palms of their hands—a eironinstanoe that had not
occurred for many years. So marvellous had been the
application of lime, that he applied to the Treasury for
additional advances to make farther application of lime
to the Serpentine. The subject of rectifying the
Serpentine was now under the consideration of Govern-
ment, but the hon. member was quite right in pointing
out that, till the evil results of the eewer at the north
end weee rape4iud, it would be i 1 v4il4 to ippur any
large eapenditure tor improving the Serpentine. He
hoped the Metropolitan Board of Works, or the district
board, would settle the sewer question effectually.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said he thought the proposition
of the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Aloack) was a very
reasonable one. It was only just and fair that the
public s:aould know what could he obtained for ibis
laud, and it was not likely tne noble lord would receive
any O'er until it was put up for sale.
STAMP DUTIES.

Mr. HADFIELD said it was clear that there ought
to be a revision of the stamp duties. He should like to
17433 w whit Cyovernment meant to do ?..,3 regarded the
duty upon insurano. again 4 Ide had presented
several petitions on the subject, in which it was set forth
that by a reduction of the duty the revenue would be
much improved.
Mr, HAMILTON eaid it was the intention of Goma

moat to take the revision of the stamp duties generally
into consideration,

SUPPLY.
The house then went into Committee of Supply—Mr.

_
Fitzroy in the chair.
On the vote of 3.5681. being proposed_to pay a por-

Lon of the expenses of the Ecciesias.tical Commissioners,

111 r. HUGE4ESSEN objected to the vote, which he
,bought ought to be borne by the commiesion, and paid

out of the surplus fund.

Mr. WALPOLE defended the vote, and said it would
be a great hardship to deduct such a sum out of the
surplus, which went to increase the amount of small

Mr. WILSON said it was the intention of the late

Government to have considered the propriety of discon-
tinuing the vote after this present year.
Mr. HADFIELD opposed the vote, and said a church

establishment of six millions a yaar ought surely to bear
so paltry a sum as the present vote.
Mr. DEEDES supported the vote, and said more than
double the sum was expended by the commission upon
works which benefited the public.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said it was true the public
might gain advantage, but primarily the gain was to the
Church ; and he contended that the Church should bear

,he expense, He should, however, support the vote for

the present year.
Mr. V. SMITES was chairman of a committee on esti-
mates in 1848, and that committee recommended that
the commission should pav its own expenses. They did
not belong to the public, but the Church, and the latter

ought to pay them.
Mr. A. SMITH moved that the whole vote be re
duced by a sum of 3,0001.
Upon which the committee divided, when the number'
were—

For the vote
For the amendment
Majority —6
The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote was 16,3001. for the Charity Commis
sioners.—Passed.

On a vote of 20,0001. for the Encumbered Estates
Commissioners i❑ Ireland,
Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the vote, as a bill was
now passing through the house to abolish that court.
Mr. HAMILTON replied that the vote was neces-
sary to pay the expenses to be incurred up to Novem-
ber next.

Vote agreed to.
The next vote was 11,402./. for the expenses of several
temporary commissioners.
Mr. LOCKE KING objected to the expenses incurred
by the Commission for Consolidating the Statute Law,
which, though in existence for many years, really did
nothing to effect the object they had in view. The hon-
and learned gentleman, now the Attorney-General, pro-
mised in 186'6 that he would effect that consolidation

in 18 months, and yet nothing was done up to the pre
sent moment. In 1856, several bills were laid on the
e
edTma
oonhowdi
down
fistrisuos whenst
mtimission,
niopi
s:npwhtmorohi oouni den:,
hueee
appointed
didoe
had
n dnai
table of the House of Lords but were not proceeded with,
yldnaBpogb3at
eassh again
nenc
dgo ins:atp
csseeloo:BB,totosnbo7ndy,oe
nearly
this
erhalaoyi
ndus
d2i gnohtg,ho.t
the present
uy
commission. ce an mor
conclusion, he moved that a sum of 1,861/ , the expenses
of of the Statute Law Commission, be struck out, with a
view of discontinuing it altogether.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the whole
country was deeply interested in tee labours of the com-
mission. In the last 200 years the condition of their
statute law was complained of as being in a most de-
plorable condition, yet nothing was done. From 1816
down to the present day, no less than 11 commissions
sat on the subject, presided over by such eminent men
as Sir S. Romilly, Lord Brougham, Lord Tenterden, and
others, and many valuable reports and suggestions made
on the subject. The statute book consisted, as they all
knew, of a vast collection of statutes of the different
reigns ; and many of those statutes contained matter
most opposite in spirit and meaning. He could quote
the language of judges, who complained that such was
the state of their statute book it was impossible for any
man, however learned he might be, to know what
the law of his country was. (Hear, hear.) There
were 40 volumes of statutes, and of those there were at
least 30 which contained statutes which were really ob-
solete ; and of 15,000 or 18,000 public general statutes,
some 6,000 or 7,000 were really obsolete. He thought
an embodiment might be made of those statutes iu 14 or
11 acts of Parliament, which would give a most satis-
factory oonsolidation to their statute law. The hon.
and learned gentleman then recalled the attention of
the committee to the circumstances connected with
the origin of the commission appointed to inquire
into the state of the statute law, and having paid
marked compliments to some of the members of that
commission, said down to the year 1853, after a
lapse of 250 years, and an expenditure of 200,0001.,
no successful efforts were made to consolidate
the statute law. Since then, however, the Statute
Law Commissioners had issued four reports on the
statute law, indicating that they bad selected
matter out of which a satisfactory consolidation
of the laws had been drawn up. Down to that year
there was not a single consolidated act submitted to
Parliament ; but between the year 1853 and the letter
end of 184, the Statute Law Commissioners had worked
and prepared no less than 93 bills, embracing, he might
say, all the most important subjects of the statute law
of Great Britain. Bills had been prepared by the Go-
vernment to be laid on the table of the house ; and those
hills would have been laid on the table le,fore now, but
that it was deemed desirable to submit the whole scheme
first to a select committee of the house. It was thought
by many eminent men, and amongst them by the late
Attorney-General, now Chief Justice of the Common
Pleas, doubtful whether any scheme of consolidation of
the statute law would be successful, and particularly
seeing that all attempts to consolidate those laws had
hitherto failed, and defied the efforts of the most en•
lightened men ; and, following out his opinion, he
thought that some one portion of the statute law should
be selected for the experiment ; and he truly remarked,
"If you succeed in that, you may also succeed in conso-
lidating other branches of the statute law." The chal-
lenge was accepted. Several learned men applied them-
selves to the work, and among others the late Lord
Chancellor (Lord Cranwortb) assisted in it, and by com-
mon consent the criminal law was chosen, and it was
thought if they could simplify that they could reduce the
40 volumes of the statute law to four, and they could
reduce the 40,000 statutes to a few simple consolidated
laws. Among those who deserved to be mentioned, in
connection with this great work, were Mr. Bellingden
Kerr and Mr. Grieves, who, associated with Lord
upon
hon.
and learned
iedl
noogonbkeetoeoadiii
stdgh.aseatt the
hlehve
dee.-
emWf
eennt s. l
thoseeyTd lawsha e
s and Those
ntboi otherllsnineh ahe
dmi eminent
been
eonnt
hlmea
iedn,onr
submittede
td huec reduced da
bttlehe the
House of Lords, but it was thought advisable not to
Parlia-
ment. whole
e-
of the
report upon
due to the late Government to say that they had given
selectproceed
committee
m nawith
tthtt
ee
whilemo f
ttlh ne t
House
subjectth e y
of
ff were first
consolidation.
owmnhi.tot ewldetrteo t
wasto
e
every encouragement to the commission to promote and
advance the whole scheme of consolidation. The whole
ms t a n however,
eae se a without passedh hear.)
ar
)anything away,
T owingo
s stop
p being
for him now to bring the subject
odaa
again
ant hi
ene;
combinationeabenesi before
etn
Parliament.o off
remained
IcB 5r
c 7
u,
thteo
obpneriNi.nyl
thoughtcr
impededi .
principle
ni tdAh
planabi MASON
ygt Nhr
were
sae,
,btrigreater
olsaidrnlexistence
fixed,
etp
arhrsneob war
uaelpdeor
progress of that work, after so much bad been accom-
s
plished, would be to do a great public evil, which he did
not think the house would sanction. He could only
ask the house to pass the criminal code, and at an early
period of next session the scheme would be put in pro-
gress for effecting an entire consoli:wodhfaaoetnuci
dolocdunot
nshoboefemlni
dithemstashtai
eiodsontwena,
htwiaufonatl
and
law. He hoped that a little time and confidence would
be given to the Statute Law Commission.
osdkfdnosonkinewHeonotfueohthing but take
responsibility u
never
bills
rlthe
laid
da
hk were
oe epn ro.progress
nar thrownoanindhryee ts tableha learnedn uwg t
with
gentlemankntheegth
pet since.
nrf
er.
t they would have
subj,3ct they had selected was the simplest of all, and if
tuuTtsbbl
tnv
vehohlepehaaleereTlhsnersSeunyibh.
liabeeier
should
sdilnthr tsTthgoi htoweheueybenthl
wericectethmecahr
gentleman
amttoeeonewomfl
ntar
htonhwemdei
httthohhueet
sc
iheeasHousep therermes
responsibilityoe
wdon foet
would
sLsulydoposroftbdenecsm,ots
hnoes andhl
odhnae
aiwasonnd.
theysome
e chance would
CHANCELLORwou
would
be thebortfoohmue guivh iets EXCHEQUER XifmnoCroiHedt
teEhwr Qaeat
them
Use
undeniablenEe
xeßxp
te
nhwsoespeeok d
f.
of progress.
the house would not go on considering this subject of
fttn the committee, :brtoeihmheßweitmils
labours
atbeNetdoeeE..2,r
BRINES said
They should not be diverted from the subject before
They
ea
yi thattdhwe
eywere
eh
eawndhg aatgeevd e resultrin collected
m providingums
ti g
be
etn
of
index
fillldtohewxe
this commission.
hoicfhthweasc
greatest possible service, and, therefore, their time would
of all the acts and parts of acts now in progress, and
in the ofe commission
the pisusbioln ic.
that alone would be a valuable work and likely to be of
the most essential public service. He thought the Sta-
tute Law Commission was deserving of the confidence
andapprobation
M
Mr. MELLON said there had been only one paid com-
missionerlBs3,sin(Cceriesol"
Divide.")andwastho
keeping up of that payment a likely mode of getting the
work completed I He thought if they declined to sanc-
tion that vote it would be a signifioant hint to the com-
mission.
Mr. BUTT thought that they were bestowing, peat
lahoue arid wasting large sums of money upon that
which, for any practical purposes, would never be of any
use. His hon. and learned friend told him that if they
gave him 18 months they would see the work done; but
he had told him that if he had 18 years given hire the
work would not be done. If so long had been taken
with eight bills, how lona, a period would be required to
dispose of 93 bill,? (Hear.) The subject was beset with
such insurmountable difficulties, that they could never be

overoorn,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said
that the labours of the commission had been attended
with great advantage to the public. He never under-
stood that 93 bills were to be laid on the table of the
horse at once to dispose of. It would be a woug step to
dispose summarily of the labours o;i that commission.
The canal-Ditto? I;iin divided—
kor the amendment 52
Against
Majority „. —33

The vote was then agreed to.
26,1951., salaries of the Patent-office.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS protested against the large sala-
rins paid to the officers and clerks, who had really no
thing to do. Among those thus overpaid were the Attor
ney and Solicitor-General for England and the Attorney
and Solicitor-General for Ireland. The patent fees ought
to be reduced. They were taken out of the pockets of
many very poor men. if, moved the reduction of the