The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-26 00:00:00

RETURN.

Sir BENJAMIN HALL moved for a reborn of the
financial proceediega ti the Metropolitan Paving and
Lighting Commissioners; which was agreed to.
Mr. HUME moved for an address fur copies or ex-
tracts of all correspondence which might have taken
place during the years 1848, 1849, and 1850. between
the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury, the
Irish Government, and the Chief Baron of the Court of
Exchequer in Ireland, relating to the subject of the office
of crier of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland; and copies
of all other papers, letters, treasury minutes, or opinions
of law officers of the Crown, on the same subject.—
Agreed to.
The Hort. MEMBER &so moved for an address for
copies or extracts of the correspondence that had taken
place between the Government of D-nmark and the
British Government, respecting the purchase of a fort
and terra .:ry on the Gold Coait.—Agreed to.
NOTICES OF MOTION.

Mr. H. BERKELEY gave notice that his relative,
Mr. Grantley Berkeley, would, after East r, move fur
a Committee of the whole House, t-) consider the pro-
priety of imposing a duty of Ss. on foreign wheat; sod
that he would also make a similar motion relative to the
exclusion of slave produce from our markets.
ADVERTISEMENT DUTY.

Mr. EWART gave notice that he would bring on his
motion for the repeal of the advertisement duty on the
21st of April.
RECEN,,V TRIAL ON THE WESTERN CIRCUIT
FOR THE MURDER OF A WORKHOUSE GIRL.
Mr. FIIZROY said a report had appeared in the
public journals of yesterday of the trial el two persons
in the west of England, before Mr. Justice Talfourd,
for the murder of a young person, the details of which
had excited the indignation and horror of the public.
Unfirtunately, through some legal informality, the per.
petrators of the horrors to which he referred had es-
caped without punishment; but in the course of the in-
vestigation it appeared that the master of the work-
house from whom the girl had been procured, not only
failed to discourage the treatment she had received, but
actually incited the perpetration of further barbarit'es.
The question which he wished t) ask of the President
of the Poor-law Board was whether he had given. or
intended to give, directions fir • most searching inves•
tigat,ion into the conduct of the master of the work-
house?
Mr. BAINES replied, that the Poor.law Board had
thought it would he unbecoming to take any steps with
regard to the two persons implicated in the transaction
while they were in the hands of the law, but they deemed
it necessary to direct a most searching inquiry into the
matter, and he could assure the Hon. Gentleman that it
would be prosecuted to the utmost.
BRIDGEWATER HOUSE.

Lord DUNCAN moved for a copy of any application
for permission to build walls in the Green-park in front
of Bridgewater-house, and also any minutes or other
documents relating to the garden attached to Bridge-
water-house, which have been passed or considered by
the Commissioners of her Majesty's Woods and Forests.
He was exceedingly anxious to explain with regard to
this motion, that it was by no means a persoral matter,
nor was it in any way intended to reflect upon the
Noble Earl who was immediately concerned.
He believed that the encroach ment on the Green-park
was made without the knowledge of the Noble Earl, but
it was made with the knowledge of his architect, who
was anxious to make an Italian garden before the house.
He was exceedingly sorry to hear that the architect, who
was also an officer of the Woods and Forests, had not
)et made his report on this subject, because it con►inced
him that any party might make encroachments on the
Green-park and a number of weeks would elapse before
the Commissioners of Woods could take any notice of it.
The lease was granted in 1795, but it was quite clear
from what Mr. Fordyce, who was then the manager of
the Crown Lands, had stated, that the right to make
this encroachment was never even contemplated by the
lease, and really something ought to be done in this
matter, or the opinion that Crown lands consisted of
property upon which anybody was at liberty to make
attacks would gain ground. He was therefore anxious
to know, in the first place, who had granted permission
to make this encroachment, and to whom was it that the
permission had been conceded?

Sir DE LACY EVANS seconded the motion.
Mr. BANKES did not know whether the Noble Lord
made this motion on the ground that the embankment
would prove objectionable or injurious to the neighbours
who resided near to Bridgwater-house, or ou public
grounds only. If it were based on the former of
these grounds the motion was perfectly justifiable;
but if on the latter, he as one of the public
must be allowed to say that so far from suffering any in-
convenience from this encroachment, he thought it
would give an advantage to him, and the public gene-
rally, one of the most splendid palaces in point of
architecture, which would prove an honour to the coun-
try and an ornament to the park, and instead of this
garden and embankment being likely to result in an
annoyance or a nuisance to the public, he thought it
would turn out to be a source of delight to him. He
was old enough to remember when the Greens
park was a receptacle for filth. and a dis-
grace to the Crown, but now it was a
place of beauty, and an agreeable resort for the public;
and gardens of this description, instead of being an in-
convenience, were a source of much pleasure and enjoy-
ment to the public. therefor*, it should be found
necessary to modify the t-rins of the lease to authorise
the completion of the garden, which was all the palace
wanted, he, for one, was quite ready to support any
enactment for accomplishing that object.
Sir DE LACY EVANS observed, that the speech
they had just heard ought to Lo viewed in the light of
being favourable to the motion, for it was just that
simple want of a garden to complete the beauty of the
palace which was likely to prove so injurious to the
public. If they allowed this encroachment to be
made on that principle, where was it to end? The
payee required a small garden; well, other structures in
the same neighbourhood might require gardens, too ;
and ultimately the Green-park, which was considered
to be one of the lungs of the metropolis. would be di-
minished to very small dimensions indeed.
Sir B. HALL said that the Hon. Member for Dorset-
shire had complained that the Noble Lord the Member
for Bath had not btvod this complaint on any allegation

of individual grievance. He (Sir B. Hall). as ore of the
metropolitan Members, had to thank the Noble Lord ;or
bringing not only this matter, but many others con-
nected with the public parks, before the House.
If the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Dorsetshire,
wished to know whether any complaints had been made
to the metropolitan M tele rs on this subject, tie beg,. (1
to assure the Hen. Mernher that complaints had beet
made to him (Sir. B Hall) in reference to this mutter,
more than once: anti ho himself had been regeettd
bring it before the House.
Lord J. RUSSELL admitted that it was a matter of
the highest importance that the public should be gua-
ranteed the enjoyment of the open air in every part of
the public parks, but he could not think that what in
this case had been alleged as a complaint had been aey
pubic inconvenience.—(Hear.) He certainly was sur-
prised to see that a wall was rising which seemed as it
it were intetelee to make the garden of Bridge-
water-house entirely private. He understood,
however, the Commissioners of Woods and
Forests had interfered, and that upon their remonstrance
the design, which was en original plan of Lord Ellesmere,
was abiudoned, and this lower wall was begun. With
respect to this wall, which was some two feet high in
one piece, and four feet in another, he (Lord J. Russell)
did not think it would be any impediment to the publie
seeing the house or any exclu,ion of the air. But
in the original :ease there was a clause prohibiting
the building of a wall in that pace. He believed, how-
ever, there was no clause prubibitieg any mound of earth
being raised there, or the placing of shrubs on that
mound of earth.— [SIr. HUME—" Yes, there is."]—But
he owned he did think the lower wall, b ing in itself
an architectural ornament, would be more appreciated
by th• public than any consideration of excluding
the air from the garden. He agreed
with the Honourable Mewl. er for Dorset hire

that this building was a very great ornament to the me-
tropolis. It seemed to him (Lord John -Russell) to be
built in very great taste; and he never walked in the
Green-park that it did not attract his notice as being a
very great ornament to the metropolis. Unlike the man
who bought a beautiful picture, or a fine statue, which
he placed in his own house, and exhibited to a few per-
sons, they bad in Bridgewater-house a beautiful piece
of architecture, erected in a public place, for the enjoy -
ment of eery person who walked or drove near the place.
He thought that the public were very much iadeb,ed to
the Earl of Ellesmere for the improvement be had made.
In the former arrangement of the park the eyes of the
public were offended by a piece of scrubby ground,
which was now transformed into a very pleasant view
by that Noble Lord's improvement. He was sure that
persons walking upon that same piece of ground must
derive much gt eater enjoyment from that walk now than
ever they had done ff ow that scrubby piece of ground.
He was sure that the public had no right to complain of
the iraprovemeets which had been made. At the same
time he thought that the Noble Lord was
quite right in bringing these things before the
notice of that House; but still in this case he had
no right to complain.
Mr. HUME was sorry that the Noble Lord had thought
_ _

right to ►peak so lightly of the encroachments which Thad
been made. No poor man would be allowed to make
such encroachments, and he did not see any reason why
it should be allowed in this instance. These encroachments

were itlegal, and the Treasury had not the power
of sanctioning them. He thought the public
were much indebted to the Noble Lord for

calling the attention of the House to these circumstances.
He had no desire to reflect at all unkindly upon the Earl
of Ellesmere, who had shown a great with that the public
should enjoy the utmost advantage that he could throw
open to them, and who had declared that, after admitting
the public to his gallery, the only injuries which had
been done to it were not from the general public,
but from the curiosity or carelessness of the " gents."
—(Laughter.) The lease under which the property
was held was granted in '97; and in that there was a
prohibi.ion not only for the wall but for the embank-
ment. He contended it was the duty of the Govern-
ment to remove all that had been put up to the incon-
venience of the public. the embankment was deci-
dedly illegal, and he would also venture to suggest that
the encroachments made by the Duke of Sutherland on
the opposite side were also illegal. The Noble Lord would
of course have the goodness to inquire under what au-
thority these encroachments bad been made. No Act of
Parliament had been passed to enable the Duke of Su-
therland to make these encroachments, and without such

.an authority it was decid.dly illegal. He thought it
was the duty of Government to remove the nuisance as
speedily as possible, and they were very
much indebted to the Noble Lord who had brought
the subject forward._

Mr. HAYTER wished to correct the statement mad,

by the Hon. Member for Montrose with respect to the
powers invested in the Noble Duke under the lease
which he holds. In a Committee which sat last session,
under the Presidency of the Noble Lord the Member
for Bath, a most rigid inquiry had taken place into the
rights under which these alleged encroachments
had taken place, and it was discovered that a great
trany nuisances had been removed, but no detriment
had been dune to the interests of the public. The Hon.
Member was certainly right in saving that the building
of the wall was illegal, but he (Mr. Hater) contended
that that erection was no detriment, but a great addition
to the interests and enjoyment of the public.
He had seen the lease, and according to his interpreta-
tion of the covenants, it was extremely doubtful whether
Lord Ellesmere had not the power to raise a high em-
bankment before the mansior, and thus exclude the view
of the public altogether.—(fie4r.) The lease. said that
. .

no shrubs or trues should be pianist-I, so as to ii,t.rrupt a
view of the park from the adjoining houses, but this did
not refer to any obstruction of the view from the park
in a direction towards the houses adjoining it. There
could be no doubt that if the strict terms of the lease

were adhered to, the structure Would be greatly injuri d,
and every lover of architectural beauties wou'd lament
the circutmtance.
Mr. S. WOItTLEY opposed the motion. I-le
agreed with previous speakers that the remcval
of the wall would be a great pubic injury, in-toad of an
improvement. The question was not one of encroach
meat, but one as to the breach of a covenant in the
lease. If Lord Ellesmere had desired to act in a cot,
trary spirit, he might, under the lease, have erected the
wall so high as to obstruct the view from the park alto-
gether—(llear, hear)—but he had no such intention.
It was publicly known that he was one of the greatest
patrons of art arid science in the country, and he had
lately gone to additional expense in erecting a separat..
entrance to his picture gallery, through which the
public were to be admitted to view his collection of
works of art.—(Llear.) It the Treasury or the office
of Woods and Forests were induced to adhere strictly to
the terms of the lease, he was convinced that they would
act contrary to the public feeling in the matter.
Lord DUNCAN replied he should never have brought
forward the subject it the Commissioners of Woods and
Forests had done their duty. The question was whether
the Noble Lord, under the lease, had a right to erect
the wall, and it wits his opinion that he had no power to
do so, but the matter would be set at rest if the Govern-
ment would famish him with a copy of the lease, as
well as the other papers for which he moved.

TV ,•• •
Mr. HENLEY thought the House was very much in-
debted to the Noble Lord for bringing the subject under
the consideration of the House, bechuse it was quite
clear that the ittention of the parties was to build a wall
in front of the mansion. That wall was erected, but had
since been reduced in height; but there could be no
doubt that if the wall had remained fa-ilities would
bare been given to the parties to make mounds and to
plant trees and shrubs upon them.
The motion was then agreed to.
ROYAL ACADEMY.

Mr. IJUME moved for an account of the receipts and,
expenditure of the Royal Academy in each year shine 1836
when there was 47,0001. funds in hand, and showing the

amount of such funds now in hand for general
purposes. He, for one, would never vote any
sum of money for the Royal Academy as long
as they had funds themselves. He did not want to touch
their money, but he would do all in his power to prevent
them having any of the funds belonging to the public.
He thought the conduct of the Royal Academy in re-
fusing admission to the public to their exhibition without
they paid for it was anything but laudable to them.
Mr. EW ART seconded the motion.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed the motion, con-
sidering it unnecessary and uncalled for. a cer-
tainly regretted that the public admission was
not gratuitous, and he mentioned the subject to Sir
M. A, Shee; but he said it they did, they would have
many pictures injured, and some of them stolen.
He (Lord John Russell) differed from him ; but
he did not see how this House could compel the Royal
Academy to admit the public to see pictures free which
were the property of the Royal Academy, nor could he
see! how the House could compel them to give an account
of the state of their funds.
Mr. E WART said, many years ago, when the ques-
tion was whether the Royal Academy Should haveteY part
of of the National Gallery, he insisted that it h
ob-
tained a portion of the building, they becamseorfegeoinrsuiblne
but_ directly that
to its owners. When they occupied prelnise
they were a private body,
they took possesion of the NBuatitonatlhe
ritaisGallery
their private character ceased. e
was going to grant anotherabautitifnogrettohethgeraußt ,wyausl
Academy, and be contended _
made these accounts ought to baefrreeetutrrndace luitißretr
and
gnda
Free-trader generally, he was
he, for one, although: be entertained a high opinion
of its members, was of opinion
aboth tlish the monopoly
ought to be monopoly
of
Mtbre. Rl3°AyNalKAgiesmai7d ho was not prepared to support
any motion for granting public money to the Royal
Academy, and could not, therefore, support this motion,
The'llef a
ouse, however, had no right to pry into the
affairs
private institution like the Royal Academy,
though it was to be deeply regretted that the Academy had
not acceded to the proposal tothrow open their exhibition
to the public. The objection about the miniatures was
perfectly ridiculous, and ought not to have weighed in
the scale against the proposal.
Mr. HA-WES contended that the Royal Academy had
not; received anything from the public pursheh:riednhloyrtndQbiyed
they occupy the National Gallery without a considera-
tion.
'They
oegcauvpeleidlP, :tiondthiet publicthvrt, premisestherefore
could w
previously
ea'd that the exehtsnif;e removed them from their private
The funds raised by the Royal Academy were
capacity.
derived entirely from the genius and talents cf the
members themselves, and the pubic could have no
interest in their application. Tt.ey were derived
entirely from private sources, and applied to
Private purposes necessary for the promotion of art
in this country, and the House had no right
to call upon the Royal Academy to disclose the nature
of their accounts.

Sir.B. HALL said this fund was acquired by certain
payments made by the public for seeing pictures belong-
ing to the Academy, but in a building belonging to the
public. The Royal Academicians had their exhibitions
to premises belonging to the public, and therefore it
was, he contended, that this proposed inquiry should

take place. He certainly should vote with his Hon.
Friend the Member for Montrose.

Mr. HENLEY said this question turneil upon the
point whether:, or not this body was a public body.
If they held the building in e hich they exhibited
their pictures by the sufferance of the Crown, they held,
he contended, that building by the sufferance of the
people. If they held their exhibitions in a
building belonging to the public, it was from
that circumstance that most of their funds
accrued to them from year to year ; and if they had not
the use of that building they would have to erect one
for themselves, which would go a great way to absorb
their funds. He doubted „very much that this was a
public body. They had a charter, for example,
and they had been assisted by the use of public
buildings for carrying out the purposes of
that charter. If the Hon. Member for Montrose pressed
this mater to a division, he (Mr. Henley) should cer-
tainly vote with him.
Mr. NEWDEGATE could not see that this House
had any right to inquire into the funds of the Royal
Academicians, which was a private body, and as such had
a right to dispose of the produce of their own industry
as they thought proper. such a proposition, he thought,
would be a gross intractit)n of the rights oiprivate pro-
perty.
Mr. PHILIP HOWARD sairl, considering that the'
only boon the Governmet:t had ever given the artists of
England was house- room, it would be most ungenerous
on the part of the Government to exact from them 11
statement of their private accounts. Be would quote the
words of Prior, the poet, on this occasion, which were
not more philosophical than true

To Jack I owe some obligation,
But Jack unluckily thinks fit
To publish it to all the nation,
So Jack and I are more than quit."
Mr. HUME thought that the Hon. Member who had
spoken last seemed to know nothing about the matter.
When it was thought fit, the Royal Academy came for-
ward and showed their accounts, with great readiness, to
prove that they could not afford to build a place for
themselves. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies had,
with unusual simplicity, said that the Academy had re-
ceived not a farthing from the public. Why they had
bad a house worth 3,5001, in a situation which had
greatly increased their receipts, and he calculated, that
it proper management had been used, the society ought
to be worth at least 103,000/.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
Fur the motion ... „„.
Against it
Majority ... —2B
The motion was consequently lost.
INCOME TAX.

Colonel DUNNE moved for a return of the amount
of income tax paid in England, and reckoned as English
income, but which is derived from Irish property, who*
ther real property, mortgages, pensions, or property of
any other description.
Mr. HAYTER said that the Government had
no objection to furnish such information but he
did not see what purpose it could serve. •
Mr. FRENCH vindicated the object of the motion•
He thought it was quite necessary that at the present
time the financial state of Ireland should.be given forth
to the whole of the world, and that the true condition of
Ireland should be stated. •

After a few words from Colonel DUNNE,
Major BLACKALL hoped, if bis Hon. and Gallant
Friend postponed the motion, it would be on th• distinct
understtnding that, during the ensuing year, a column
giving the required information would be included in
the returns.

Mr. HAYTER replied that further information could
not be given in the returns beyond that mentioned in
the Act, but he was not prepared to say whether the
particulars required by the Hon. and Gallant Member
could be prepared in accordance with the statute.
The motion was then withdrawn.
PAVING BOARDS.

Lord DUDLEY STUART moved for an address le
her Majesty for the following return:—Return from
each of the several paving boards, or separate paving
districts, in the parish of Saint Pancras, in the count,'
of Middlesex, showing, for each of the yiars 1847,
1848, and 184 t, the rateable value of property 6
teased; the date and amount in the pound of each rate,
distinguishing the rates made for any special objects;
the amount received under the following heads
General rates or assessments; special rates; other re'
ceipts; total receipts. The amount expended under the
following heads :—For repair of roads, streets, and foot'
ways; for watering; for lighting; for salaries; for hog,
charges; for interest of debt or annuities; bonded
debt paid off ; other payments ; and total ex-
penditure. The amount of debts at the end of
each year; this rate of interest payable thereon; the
arrears of interest unpaid; the balance in hand or oler•
spent at: the end of each year; and the arrears of rates
or other arrears at the same period; stating. the titles
and dates of the existing local Acts; the number of Set"
ing trustees or commissioners; the qualification of com-
missioners; and the number of houses rated at or &bolo
the amount requirt d for the qualification of such com•
missionerF, the qualification of persons entitled to vote,
the number of meetings ,held each year; the ale
rage attendance at such meeting; tke name.
also the amount of salary or other emolument of each
treasurer, clerk, surveyor, inspector, or other officer
employed; also stating the length of roads and *WO
included in each district, the number of lamps, the num-
ber of public pumps, and the number of gates or barriers
erected across any streets or roads.—Agreed
THE TITLES OF RELIGIOUS CONGREGA-