wished to ask a question of the right hon. the President of the Poor Law Board, with respect to a trial which took place on the Western Circuit before Mr. Justice Talfourd, a report of which had appeared in the public journals. Two persons were there charged with causing the death of a young girl whom they had obtained from the neighbouring workhouse at Bideford, in the capacity of a servant. The treatment this unfortunate girl had received, had excited feelings of indignation and horror in the breast of every person who had become acquainted with the affair; but through some informality or legal technicality in the proceedings, the perpetrators of these horrors had totally escaped punishment. In the course of the proceedings an allegation was made, or rather not denied, that the master of the workhouse at Bideford, Thomas Surnam, bad not only failed to discourage, but had actually excited and encouraged, these two monsters to further barbarities, if possible, towards this unfortunate girl. So much so, that upon one occasion, when the poor girl was unable to carry a pail in consequence of the barbarities which had been inflicted upon her, the workhouse master, when informed of her inability to do so, brutally said, that "that they ought have broken a stick about her back," This was denied by the master of the work- house; but he refused to state what were the expressions which he actually made use of. The question which he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman was, whether any directions had been given, or, if not already given, whether any were intended to be given, for a more searching investigation into the conduct of the master of the workhouse with respect to these transactions?

said, that so long as the subject was before the ordinary criminal tribunals of the country, the Poor Law Board considered that it would have been unbecoming to have taken any steps in the matter. As soon, however, as they had received a report of the trial, they thought it right, in the exercise of the general authority possessed by the Board over the masters of workhouses, to direct the fullest and most searching inquiry into the conduct of the workhouse master of Bideford, as connected with the transaction. He would assure the hon. Member that that inquiry should be proceeded with without delay.

, referring to the question under this head, which he had put yesterday to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury, moved for a copy of any application for permission to build walls in the Green Park, in front of Bridge Water-house; also any minutes or other documents relating to the garden attached to Bridgewater-house, which had 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 personal matter, nor was it in any way intended to reflect upon the Earl who was immediately concerned. He believed that the encroachment 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 of the Woods and Forests had not yet made his report on this subject, because it convinced him that any party might make encroachments on the Green Park, and a number of weeks would elapse before the Commissioners of Woods and Forests could take any notice of it. The lease was granted in 1795, but it was quite dear 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 the permission had been conceded?

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 Bridgewater House, or on 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 tar from suffering any inconvenience, he felt great pleasure in seeing the rise of a palace the most splendid and most perfect in point of architecture which could be found in this metropolis, and which only wanted a suitable garden to make it a complete residence. He remembered the time when the Green Park was a receptacle for filth, and abounded in nuisances; when it seemed as if nobody owned it, and it was a disgrace to the Crown to have it called Crown property. He thought that the public were much indebted to the Earl of Ellesmere; for gardens of this description, instead of being an inconvenience, were a source of much public pleasure and enjoyment. If, therefore, it should be found necessary to modify the terms 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.

observed that the speech they had just heard ought to be regarded as a speech in favour of 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 palace 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 diminished to very small dimensions indeed.

said, that the hon. Member for Dorsetshire had complained that the noble Lord the Member for Bath had not based this complaint on any allegation of individual grievance. He (Sir B. Hall), as one of the metropolitan Members, had to thank the noble Lord for bringing, not only this matter, but many others connected with the public parks, before the House. Great complaints had been made to him in reference to this matter, and he had himself been requested more than once to bring the subject forward. He agreed with the hon. Member for Dorsetshire that Bridgewater-house was the greatest ornament to the metropolis that at present existed. But he believed that it would have been impossible for the public to see it, if the intention of the architect had been carried out. Even now, the wall which had been complained of was as high as the railing of the Park, or, at all events, there was a difference of a very few inches. Holes had been drilled in the coping for rails, and it had been intended to place on the top of the wall a railing, which in process of time would have been covered with boards or slates, and the public would have been entirely excluded from the view. He had heard of encroachments in Hyde Park, near Apsley-house; and there was a plot of ground near Albert-gate also, which was formerly open to the public, but which was now railed in.

All encroachments upon the space set aside in the parks for the healthful recreation of the people must of course be prevented; but in the case to which the attention of the House had been directed, nothing of that kind had occurred; indeed, on the contrary, all that had been done was for the public advantage. It was true that as he was walking in the park some time ago he saw a wall being raised, as if for the purpose of making the garden of Bridgewater-house more private, which, if carried up higher, might have obstructed the view from the Park, and impeded the free circulation of air in the particular locality; but the Board of Works immediately interfered, and, upon their remonstrance, the intention of carrying the wall higher, which was not part of the original plan made by the Earl of Ellesmere, was immediately abandoned. The wall, as it now stood, being of the height of two feet in some places, and four in others, offered no impediment to the free circulation of air, nor obstruction to a view of the gardens and house. Although Lord Ellesmere's lease contained a clause prohibiting the building of a wall, there was no covenant in it which prevented the raising of a mound, and therefore, if the Government were to insist upon the stringent enforcement of the terms of the lease with respect to the wall, the Earl of Ellesmere might be driven to raise a mound, which he could carry as high as he pleased. In that case the public would be the loser by a rigid adherence to the terms of the bond. Like the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, he thought the now house was a great ornament to the metropolis; it seemed to be built in very good taste, and he never walked in the Green Park without having his admiration attracted to it. A man who bought beautiful pictures and fine statues kept them in his house, and only the few persons who were admitted to his society had the privilege of seeing them; but he who erected an admirable specimen of architecture in a public place presented an object of enjoyment to all. Far from finding fault with the Earl of Ellesmere because an attempt had been made to erect a higher wall than was desirable (which, however, was not in accordance with his Lordship's wishes), he felt that the public was indebted to that nobleman for making a handsome addition to the buildings of the metropolis. It was a matter of surprise to him that any one could complain of the enclosure between Apsley-house and Hamilton-place. It was a scrubby piece of ground in which the public never walked. The people now walked along the same paths which they had always used, and had the pleasure of seeing the once scrubby piece of ground converted into a beautiful shrubbery. The Government was desirous of consulting the convenience of the public, as regarded the parks, in every respect, and in proof of this he might refer to the well-kept footpaths which were made in them. The noble Member for Bath was justified in having called attention to the subject, but it was perfectly clear that, in the present instance, there was nothing of which the public had any reason to complain.

said, that the Government ought to deal with the rich and the poor alike. No poor man would be allowed to make such encroachments, and he did not see any reason why any should be allowed in this instance. These encroachments were illegal, and the Treasury had not the power of sanctioning them. He thought the public were much indebted to the noble Lord the Member for Bath for calling the attention of the House to those circumstances. He had no desire to reflect at all unkindly upon the Earl of Ellesmere, who had shown a great wish 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." The lease under which the property was held was granted in 1797; and in that there was a prohibition not only for the wall but for the embankment. He contended it was the duty of the Government to remove all that had been put up to the inconvenience of the public. The embankment was decidedly illegal, and he would also venture to suggest that the encroachments made by the Duke of Sutherland on the opposite side were also illegal. No Act of Parliament had been passed to enable the Duke of Sutherland to make these encroachments, and he hoped that his noble Friend the Member for Bath would follow this Motion up by calling upon the Attorney General to remove the existing nuisances.

said, he wished to correct, in the first instance, the statement made by the hon. Member for Montrose with respect to Sutherland-house. In the Committee which sat last Session, under the presidency of the noble Lord the Member for Bath, a most rigid inquiry had been instituted into the rights under which these alleged encroachments had been made, and it was discovered that a great many nuisances had been removed, without any prejudice to the interests of the public. With respect to the garden belonging to Bridge-water-house, a portion of it was the Earl of Ellesmere's freehold property, and a portion of it had been assigned to him by lease subsequently to the report of 1797. The hon. Member for Montrose said that the Treasury had no right to grant a lease. He (Mr. Hayter) was at issue with him there. It was proved before the Committee that they had power to grant leases, subject to certain restrictions. With respect to the wall which had been erected in the first instance, that was certainly inconsistent with the covenants of the lease, and with the intentions of the Earl of Ellesmere. Immediately upon complaint being made, the wall was reduced, and the present wall and embankment did not form any impediment to the public view, and, if removed, would injure the regularity of the architectural outline, by exposing a hollow. Notwithstanding this, he admitted that if the bond was to be enforced, the wall must be removed, to the great injury of the public; and if the public would have an injury done to them, at least it ought not to be said in that House that it was for their benefit. No doubt the public were entitled to a nuisance, if they chose to have it. It did not follow, because Mr. Fordyce had made a report, that the covenants of an existing lease were consistent with the observations and suggestions in that report. He had, however, seen the lease, and according to his interpretation of the instrument, it was extremely doubtful whether the Earl of Ellesmere had not the power to raise a large embankment, which might exclude the public view altogether. Besides, Mr. Fordyce's report did not bear the interpretation put upon it. It did not refer to the view from the Park, but merely said there should be an uninterrupted view from the adjoining houses. Had he been aware that a discussion would have taken place on this subject, upon an unopposed Motion in fact, he would have come down with the lease and other documents; but this was manifest, that it would be a great public injury if the strict letter of the covenant were insisted upon.

thought the Government was right in not resisting the Motion; but he hoped it would be understood that it was not for the interests of the public to insist upon the strict right; for if the proposed improvement should be removed, it would be a great public injury. Much had been said as to encroachments upon the Park. The fact was, that in this case there was no encroachment at all. There was really nothing in issue but the question of a breach of a covenant in a lease. Part of the garden was the freehold property of the Earl of Ellesmere; and if he was animated by the curmudgeon spirit of a desire to exclude the public, he might erect a wall there as high as he pleased, whilst, by the terms of the lease, he could plant trees upon the other part if he chose. But the Earl of Ellesmere was moved by no such sentiments. The noble Earl was admitted to have done a public service by the erection of so magnificent a building; he had, at all times, shown himself a liberal patron of art; and in the arrangements of this very building he had gone to considerable expense in providing a separate entrance for the public, to view his magnificent collection of paintings. It was quite right that the interests of the public should be jealously watched, in order that no encroachments should be permitted; but if the Woods and Forests, whether at the instance of the noble Lord or any other individual, were induced to construe the terms of the lease according to the strict letter, he was sure they would be doing an injury to the public. No private landlord, under such circumstances, would object to his tenant making improvements that were really a great embellishment.

, in reply, said it was clear the Earl of Ellesmere was not aware of any encroachment having been made. It was certainly the duty of the Woods and Forests, or their officers, who were paid high salaries, to look after these matters. But they knew nothing of them, and Mr. Pennethorne's examination before the Select Committee was most unsatisfactory in this respect. He was, for example, asked where was the boundary of the Park at this particular point; and his reply was, "That is more than I can tell." It appeared from this, that the officers of the Woods and Forests did not know the boundaries of the Park. If they had done their duty he should not have brought this matter forward; but he was very glad to hear the noble Lord at the head of the Government say, that in walking past he had discovered the wall to be higher than necessary. The question was, whether, under the lease, there was any power to build the wall at all. In his opinion the lease contained no such power.

, in explanation, said he had stated that there was no such power in the lease.

Then, were all the persons who had houses abutting upon the Park to have the same power? Was every man in the position of a Crown tenant to ride over the covenants of his lease just as he thought proper? The provisions of Crown leases should be effectually carried out, for modification was highly unconstitutional, and the sooner it was done away with the better.

said, it was quite clear there had been an intention to build a high wall that would give facilities to make mounds inside, upon which trees or shrubs might be planted, and so the public view be shut out. If this were allowed in one case, it might be extended along the whole line to Piccadilly. It appeared to him, therefore, that the Government ought to take care that no advantage be taken, so as to afford facilities for the erection of mounds.

moved for an account of the receipts and expenditure of the Royal Academy in each year since 1836. He expressed his regret that it was the intention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to oppose this Motion, the object of which was only to obtain such information as the House was entitled to possess. The evidence before the Committee in 1836, showed that a fund of no less than 47,000l. had been accumulated in the hands of the Academy, which he considered must now have increased to something like 100,000l. As the noble Lord had intimated an intention of providing the Academy with accommodation after its removal from the National Gallery, and a vote would be asked for that purpose, it became necessary the House should be informed as to the disposition of the funds to which he referred. The Academy had had the use of a portion of the National Gallery free of rent, from the public, yet they had been so close, and so little attentive to the great object of promoting a taste for the fine arts, that they refused to admit the public gratis to their exhibitions for a short period after the time when payment for admissions ceased. The free opening of galleries, like Hampton Court and other places, produced an excellent effect upon the public; but the Royal Academy refused to concede any such privilege to the public, although they were located in a public building, free of expense. He must say that, under such circumstances, he would never consent to vote a single shilling in their behalf, seeing that they had now nearly 100,000l. of their own arising from the proceeds of their exhibitions, unless it had been wasted; nor until he knew whether those funds had been properly appropriated. But be the sum in hand more or less, the House had a right to know what had become of it, before any claim was made upon the public purse. He admired art, but he would not support monopoly; and he must add, that he doubted whether the system which the Academy had pur- sued, had not been more injurious than otherwise to the interests of the arts.

had frequently had occasion to object to the production of returns of this kind, and he remembered one occasion, when the hon. Gentleman carried a Motion of this nature, that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth induced the House to rescind it. The hon. Gentleman had laid no ground for the Motion. He might maintain all the opinions he had expressed, that the Royal Academy did not promote art, that it ought not to be allowed accommodation in a public building, erected at the expense of the public, and that Reynolds and all the great artists connected with it were mere daubers; but how the hon. Gentleman could maintain that the House was entitled to investigate the amount and application of the money received for the exhibition of their pictures, he (Lord J. Russell) did not understand. If the House had that power, he did not see why they should not inquire into the proceeds of every exhibition in London, and ask Madame Tussaud how much she made by her wax figures—[Mr. HUME: If you gave her a house to show them in, I would.] If George the Third and his Ministers had said to the Royal Academy, "We will allow you to exhibit your pictures in rooms belonging to the public; and, in return, we will require you to give us an account of all the money you receive"—that would have been an engagement; but there was nothing of the kind. It was evident, then, though the House had a perfect right to turn the Academy out, and say, "You shall no longer have rooms in Somerset House or the National Gallery," that right, without such a stipulation, did not give the power to ask what sums they received. Those sums had not been received from the public, but from the exhibition of pictures, which, after all, were their own property. It was true the public provided the rooms in which the pictures were exhibited, but the pictures which the public went to see were the property of the artists; and it was this which governed the question. He certainly regretted the decision of the Royal Academy not to admit the public, after a certain time, without any payment whatever; but Sir Martin Shee, to whom he had spoken upon the subject, said, the Academy, upon consideration, were of opinion that many valuable works would be injured, and that miniatures would be stolen. His (Lord J. Russell's) belief was, that their opinion was wrong; for he thought the pictures would be quite as safe with the free admission of the public as with admission upon the payment of a shilling. But the pictures being their own property, he did not see how the House of Commons could have a right to say, "You must show the pictures, which are the production of your own skill and knowledge, and from which you receive your income, at the bidding of the Crown or of Parliament, for nothing; and if they are defaced or stolen, you must take the risk." Now, the House had no power to do this. The hon. Gentleman, however, would be justified, if he thought fit, to refuse to vote for a grant of public money; and if the House should be of his opinion, the Royal Academy must continue to exhibit their pictures in the present place, until the Crown or Parliament took it away; but the House had no power to ask for the accounts in question. The fact was, this was entirely private property, and the House had no right to interfere with it.

said, that if the Academy occupied a private building at their own expense, there might be some justice in the view taken by the noble Lord; but so long as they held a large portion of the National Gallery they were responsible to Parliament. Not only were they now in a public building, but the House would shortly be asked for a grant of public money, to place them in another public building. Did not these circumstances render them responsible to the country? The Academy appeared to have a double weapon. When they were asked for an account, they said they were a private body; but when they wanted accommodation for nothing, they declared they were a public body. So that one of the legs of this huge colossus stood upon public benefit, and the other upon private monopoly, whilst the House could get no accounts in either one capacity or the other. Let the Academy declare what they actually were. With reference to the noble Lord's remark concerning Reynolds, he would only observe that it was not the Academy that made Reynolds, but Reynolds that made the Academy; and certainly until he heard better reasons for refusing the Motion than those assigned by the noble Lord, he should support it.

said, that if he felt prepared to advance one shilling of public money to the Academy, he should support the Motion, but he was not; and under present circumstances, he was surprised that the noble Lord should contemplate such a proposition. At the same time, he could not commit himself to the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose, as it appeared to be doubtful whether the Academy was a public or a private institution. But, whether public or private, he concurred in the opinion that, for a limited period, its doors ought to be thrown open to the public. The objections against that course were absurd. If any danger were apprehended to the miniatures, they could be either withdrawn or enclosed. He wished to see the Academy removed from the National Gallery as soon as possible, because room was wanted there; but if they were, as alleged, a private institution, let them build their own chambers.

said, the Academy was established by a charter of George III., who gave them rooms in Somerset House for the exhibition of their works. Those rooms were afterwards surrendered to the public, and in consideration other apartments were granted in the National Gallery. Did these circumstances make them come under the jurisdiction of Parliament? Certainly not. They had never had one farthing of public money. The Academy had raised a school of art which was an honour to this country, entirely by their own exertions and ability; and if anybody had a right to spend their own funds as they pleased, they were that body. They sent artists abroad, and granted pensions to the widows of deceased artists; such was the mode in which they applied the funds into which Parliament was now asked to inquire This subject had been discussed three or four times in that House to his knowledge, and in every instance the decision was that the funds of the Academy were private. He was sure that if the accounts could be obtained, the funds would be found to have been disposed of economically, and in a manner that did honour to the Academy; but there were no grounds for alleging misappropriation. Parliament having no power to interfere, whilst no public advantage would be gained by the inquiry, he hoped the House would not consent to the Motion.

censured the illiberal conduct of the Royal Academy in not admitting the public free on certain days of the week, observing, that although the funds of the institution certainly arose from the payments made by the public to see the works, and although the works were those of private artists, and not public property, it should be remembered that the Academy occupied and exhibited those works in a building belonging to the public, and free of rent—a circumstance very favourable to the increase of their private funds. If any proposal should be made hereafter for a grant of public money to the Royal Academy, he should most certainly object to it, and he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose.

did not think that the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies had succeeded in setting the question at rest whether the Academy was a public or a private body. The hon. Gentleman said that it was constituted by charter, and that apartments were granted to the body in Somerset House. How were those apartments granted? In perpetuity, or in fee. If not, by what tenure did they hold them, and who paid for the repairs of the building they now occupied? He presumed that it was the free use of the building which enabled or aided them to accumulate their revenues. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced publicly in his financial statement that he intended to ask for a grant of public money to the Academy; and if he (Mr. Henley) was to be called upon to consider such a vote, he should like to know something about the position of the society. The Academy already enjoyed the permissive use of a public building, and the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared his intention of asking Parliament for money for the society. And for what purpose? Because he wanted the building the Academy now held for another use. That being so, the public had a right to know whether this society was not rich enough to build for themselves, or whether they came without funds, and on fair ground, to ask for public assistance. Their charter had, no doubt, been granted to them for public purposes. Indeed, it was alleged to them that they pensioned the widows of artists; and sent out students to the Con- tinent —objects which might be considered of a public nature, and they had been assisted by the use of a public building in carrying out those objects. These considerations, added to the fact that the Government intended to ask for public money for the Academy, in the present state of public affairs, clearly showed that the House had a right to know all the facts.

looked upon the Royal Academy as a private body which had had certain facilities afforded them by the public; and he could not see what right Parliament had to require a return of their funds—the proceeds of their own industry—with the view of disposing of them, for that was what the Motion amounted to. If it were thought desirable, let them turn the Royal Academicians out of the present building, and let them erect one for themselves; but it was a gross injustice to insist upon their making returns similar to those which were exacted under Schedule D. He should resist the Motion, and the more because he was by no means prepared to vote for a grant of money to the Academy should it be proposed.

did not think that the charter granted to the Academy had constituted them a public body; but it was not upon that ground that he intended to oppose the Motion. Considering that the nation had only given some house-room to the artists of England, he thought it would be unjust and ungenerous to require from them an account of their proceeds, arising, as they did, not from public funds, but from the payments of private individuals. He might quote the words of Prior, which were as philosophical as true:—

"To John I owed great obligation;

But John unhappily thought fit

To publish it to all the nation;

Sure John and I are more than quit."

, in reply, said, that when the Royal Academy desired to obtain public assistance, they came to that House and were ready enough to show their accounts, alleging that up to that period they had only accumulated 47,000l., and had not the means of building a house for themselves. On that plea they had been allowed to have that part of the building erected for a National Gallery, whiah they now occupied. The hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies said, that the Academy had not received public assistance. The hon. Gentleman did not seem to know the difference between money and means. Was it nothing that they had been gratuitously accommodated with a building equivalent to a rental of 3,500l. a year? The Committee which sat on the subject arrived unanimously at a decision that the Academy ought to leave the National Gallery. Let them but quit that institution and build a place for themselves, and then he would not care a pin about their accounts. As to the want of funds, he thought that if their finances had been properly managed, they must by this time be worth 100,000l.

begged to move for a return of the amount of income tax paid in England, and reckoned as English income, but which was derived from Irish property.

said, there was no objection on the part of the Government to afford such information, but he understood that this Motion had been made before, and that it had been then stated that there were no means of making such a return, and that if the House made such an order, there were no means of obeying it. He would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion for the present, and in the meantime he would ascertain whether it was possible to produce such a return as would meet his views.

said, that this was not the first time the attention of the House had been called to the subject, and the Irish Members were very anxious upon it, inasmuch as very fallacious opinions had for a long time prevailed upon the incidence of taxation upon Ireland. They contended that they were more heavily taxed than in England. It was alleged that the Irish did not pay the income tax, but they alleged that more than half the rental of Ireland had regularly paid it. 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.

said, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary to the Treasury he could not of course object to postpone his Motion; but it was very necessary that the true financial position of Ireland should be known at this moment.

hoped, if his hon. and gallant Friend postponed the Motion, it would be on the distinct understanding that, during the ensuing year another column or schedule, giving the required information, would be included in the returns for the ensuing year.

repeated that no objection existed to give information, but as to the suggestions of another column or schedule being added to the returns for next year, that could not be done unless permitted by the Act of Parliament under which the Commissioners were bound to frame their returns.