The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-27 00:00:00

PROPOSED NEW ROAD THROUGH
HYDE PARK.

Last evening a public meeting was held in the
Vestry-hall, Paddington, to consider the expediency
of having a subway through Hyde-park, to connect
Paddington and Bayswater with Brompton and
South Kensington. Lieut.-Colonel Wortley pre-
sided. The Chairman announced that he had re-
ceived letters from Mr. Harvey Lewis, one of the
members for Marylebone, and other gentlemen,
apologising for their abence ; and stated that Lord
Fernley, the other member for the borough, had
been communicated with, and, as no reply had been
received from him, it was to be presumed that his
lordship was in Ireland. The gallant gentleman
then stated that present meeting had been called
in consequence of proceedings which had resulted
from a movement made by some of the inhabitants
of Bayswater to have a new road across Hyde-park,
through the Haha. He had had an interview with
Mr. Cowper, the First Commissioner of Works, and
that gentleman bid him mention to that meeting
that he saw no objection to a road or sub way'proposed
by Miss Martin, daughter of the late Mr. Martin,
architect. Mr. Cowper saw no objection to a sub
way to pass under the middle walk from Lancaster-
gate to Coalbrook Dale-gates. He had had a level of
the property taken,and found that there was no engi-
neering difficulty. He asked Mr. Cowper whether
the Government would be likely to sanction the dis-
bursement of the necessary sum of money out of the
public funds. Mr. Cowper's reply was that he
thought he could not recommend that, because the
money required would not be for an ornamental im-
provement. He pointed out to Mr. Cowper that it
would be a groat advantage, because the present
road down Park-lane, was not sufficient to accom-
modate the traffic in that direction. In respect of
providing the required road Mr. Cowper seemed
disposed to meet him and those who acted with him;
and he had been informed since his interview that
at present he was even more disposed to assist them
than he was at the limo when that interview took
place. Under these circumstances he thought they
had to consider whether they ought not to have a
direct and official communication on the subject
from the Chief Commissioner, as his communication
with him was, after all, simply a private one. The
second consideration was whether it was to be ex-
pected that the parishes adjoining were to keep up
the repairs of the road running either under or over
the Government property. Mr. Roche, in proposing
the first resolution, recommended the meeting not
to insist on any particular project. It would-be more
respectful to the First Commissioner to leave that
an open question for the present. He thought that
there could be no doubt of the necessity for a new
road. It was required at that moment, and would
be much more necessary during the Great Exhibi-
tion next year. If the Government gave the land,
he was satisfied that there was sufficient public
spirit to make the road. Some opposition might
naturally be expected. It might be said that the
proposed road would interfere with those who rode
in Rotten row; but on looking at the map he saw
that the subway would cross the row at one end.
Besides this, equestrians would have a new ride
in Kensington Gardens next Fyear. (Hear.) The
speaker concluded by proposing a resolution to the
effect that, having regard to the increase of west-
ern London of late years, and the formation of
large, populous, and wealthy districts on the north
and south sides of Hyde Park and Kensington
Gardens, which districts were at present separated
from each other, and had their traffic impeded by
want of a direct communication, that meeting was
of opinion that a public road had become an object
of urgent necessity, and should, if possible, be made
before the opening of the Exhibition. Mr. Freeman
seconded the resolution. 'Mr. Steadman moved an
amendment, stating that the proposed road was not
earnestly desired, and would be an encroachment
on the people's property. Mr. Abrahams thought
it would be quite useless to ask either the Govern-
ment or Parliament to sanction a grant of public
money for a local object like that now under consi-
deration. (No, no.) Mr. Heywood and:other gentle-
men strongly advocated,. the making of a new road.
The resolution was carried by a large majority,
only two or three voting for the amendment. Mr.
D'lffanger proposed a resolution fora deputation to
Mr. Cowper. He thought the Commissioners for the
Great Exhibition ought to contribute to the pro-
posed road. There could be no questeon that sooner
or later their must be a road either across Ken-
sington•gardens or Hyde-park, and now was the
time to move in the matter. The public would never
be satisfied with an underground subway; but he
agreed with Mr. Roche that it would not be well to
suggest any particular plan in the first instance.
Mr. Freeman must say that the people of Kensing-
ton would oppose any project for a road across
Kensington-gardens. (Hear, hear.) The resolution
for the deputation was adopted, and the meeting
soon after separated.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 26.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster after rem.
—(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Special
Jury.)
BENTLEY V. BRADY-EXTRAORDINARY LIBEL CASE

This was an action for libel, brought by the
plaintiff, Mr. Joseph Bentley, against the defendant,
a partner in the firm of Brady, Son, and Scott, so-
licitors, of King William-street, City, charging
him with getting up for his own benefit a society
called " The Society for Promoting National Edu-
cation." The libels were contained in a series of
letters addressed to various persons.

Mr. M, Chambers stated the case for the plain-
tiff, and then placed him in the witness box; when
Mr. Hawkins cross•examined him as follows :
Mr. Hawkins—Do you mean to swear there was
ever any member of the National Education Com-.
pany except yourself ?
Witness—Mr. Heywood and Mr. Darton had
given me an assurance that they would join me
commercially to be invested in books.
In books that you had published or were then
engaged in ?—Yes, partly. It was Sir John
Pakington who suggested the name should be
changed from company to society.
Who formed the society in June, 1857. Give me
the names ?—Well, begin with my humble self.
Mr. Hawkins—Oh, of course, (Laughter.)
Witness—Then there was Mr. William Cox.
Who is he ?—Mr. William Cox, of Lox's Hotel,
Jermyn-street.
Who proposed that the office of the society
should be at your office on a third floor of 13,
Paternoster-row ?—lt was not on the third floor,
then, as it happens. It was on the second floor.
Well, no matter. Who suggested it?—Messrs.
Rogers and Jackson.
Oh, they were the collectors. (Laughter.) They
had 50 per cent. for collection, had they not P—No.
Each of the two had 25 per cent.
They went together, you know ?-Irts.
Well, that makes 50 per cent., you know ; and
had they not their expenses ?—They had their rail-
way expenses, when they went to the country, and
postage.
Who appointed you manager. Was it not your-
self ?—I submitted the prospectus to Lord Ebury
and others, and they looked to me, for they had
known me long.
Who wrote your name in the prospectus as
manager ?—Very likely I did myself. (Laughter.)
Who were the auditors ?—Jackson, the collector,
was one.

Are you the author of this book P—l am the
author of "Health Made Easy for the People,"
" Wealth, How to Get and Enjoy It."
Mr. Chambers—Hand me down that last book,
I should like to have it. (Laughter.)
Cross-examination continued-1 signed the
cheques for the money in the bank, and also did
Jackson and Cheney as auditors. I was paid half a
guinea a day for inspecting schools, and also half a
guinea a day as " Parliamentary expenses" for
going about to members in reference to a motion to
be brought forward by Lord John Russell.
Mr. Hawkins—Now, did any one ever receive a
farthing from the society except yourself and your
agents ?
Witness—Yes, there was the printer's bill.
Oh, yes, of course, for printing your prospectuses,
Did Mr. G. Sclater Booth authorise you to put
down his name in his prospectus ?—Negatively he
did.

How negatively wrote to him that I should
put down his name, and he did not answer.
(Laughter.)
Have you any letter authorising you to put down
the names of the 24 patrons whom you published
in your prospectuses ?—I have not except nega-
tively. They had given their consent by giving
money.
Have you got a single letter authorising you to
use the 64 names as your committee of reference ?