The Sun.
London, England, 1855-04-17 00:00:00

that subject, but he believed that the matter was under
consideration.
Sir G. PECHELL urged the restoration of the foun-
tain and sheet of water in Beshy-park.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said it was proposed to re-
store that fountain, and a vote of 3,0001. would be asked
for that purpose.
Mr. WILLIAMS wished to know whether Windsor-
park cost any money last year I In these most incom-
prehensible of all accounts, the accounts of the Woods
and Forests, it was represented as having cost 18,0001.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said that he could not answer
that question, as Windsor-park belonged to a portion of
the royal grounds that did not come within the scope of
the present vote.
Mr. WILLIAMS thought himself justified in press-
ing his question. There ought to be some one in the
house who was responsible for the department under
which Windsor-park was ranged.
Mr. WILSON said that the land revenues had formed
the subject of serious consideration, and that the late
Chancellor of the Exchequer thought the accounts should
not be disturbed. The public were only as it were in-
terested in the Crown 'property for the lifetime of the
sovereign, and it was not thought right for Parliament
to interfere for the management of that property beyond
what was stipulated for in tine settlement of the civil list
at the time when that property was handed overfrom the
Crown to the public.
Mr. WILLIAMS thought the property of the Crown
was as much public property and ought to be manage'
by the public for their benefit as much as any one of the
taxes that were levied on them. He protested against the
doctrine that, because property belonged to the Crown,
theirense had no right to look into and superintend the
money expended on it.
Mr. MIGREGOR thought that no jobbery that bad
ever been heard of would prove equal to an honest ex-.
posure of the manner in which the various amounts
voted at different times had been expended upon our
public buildings, &c.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said the expenditure that
belonged to the department of Woods and Forests did
not stand upon the votes then under discussion. • At the
same time he maintained that the house had a right to
que'stion every item of the expenditure of that de-
partment.
Mr, WILLIAMS insisted that the Government had
not fulfilled the engagement of the late Chancellor of the
Exchequer, who promised that 6,000,000/., which bad
formerly been spent in silence, should he brought to
light, and placed under the cognisance of the house.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the present Government had punctually and
exactly fulfilled the engagements of the late Chancellor
of the Exchequer. He undertook to bring 'the re-
venue service under the cognisance of the house, and
not that that expenditure should be paid into the
Exchequer before any vote sheaild be taken in the
house. It had been already stated that it was not his
intention to place the expenditure of maeaeing the land
revenue of the Crown upon the estimates, and that'inten-
t'o ast, had been adhered to. With regard to the parks,
t •ey ha I been or'ginally the property o theU. o liu ad
een eratuitously granted by the Crown to t'.e public
for their benefit and pleasure. Windsor-park was in the
occupancy of the-Crown itself, and so was put opin the
exp,,nses of the land revenue. The hon. member for Lam-
beth had in his eye an act which transferred cett,in
eh.,r7s upon the C.,n,oliclated Fund, and which therefore
were paid by the Exchequer without any annual vote of
the house; They were included every one in the miscella
neous estimates, which had been and w:_‘111,1 he laid on the
table. The ,great-•r part of them would be found in No. 2,
Mr. EWART thoulfht there should be a greater num-
ber of seats pi ovi,led in the parks. He also objected to
the carrying away of quantities of gravel for the pm--
posa of making roads, and then filling up the spaces left
with street sweepings, so as to create a kind of artificial

swamp.
Sir AV. MOLESWORTII said that a great number of
s,ats should he provide l, and that the taking au by of
gr tvel should be diecontmued.
Mr. MACART.NEY said that the wooden railing in
the Rotten-row should give place to a handsoMe iron on,?.
Sir W. MOLESWORTII said that a vote wcmid be
proposeillhis year f completing the iron railing which
had already bigim in Rotten-row.
The vote was then ai,reed to.
Oa the vote of 122,209/, for the works and expenses
of the new houses of Parliament,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to have some idea
of what the total amount of the cost Of the new houses
would be. The original understanding was 750,000/.,
but he believed that the expenditure now exceeded two
tnihioriv.
Sir C. D. NORREYS said the right hon. gentleman
had pr•..mised to call upon Sir C. Barry to lay beton:
Parliament a plan of what it was proposed yet to do
with all the hoildirgs in New Palace-yard. He appre-
hended that the plans of Westminster-bridge were calcu-
lated with reference t 3 extensile buildings there. Theo
he wished to know further whether the new fresco was
to be executed by the same Mr. Cope who executed the
fresco representing " the first Investiture of the Garter"
in the House of Lords! That was a work of so disgrace-
ful a character to the art of this country that he should
be very sorry that any sum should be paid the same
sa list for :.ny other fresco.
Sir W.MOLESWORTEL said it was true he promised
to obtain from Sir C. Barry a statement of the works he
wished to execute and of their probable cost, and he hal
obtained a report from him. On the 31st March, 1854,
it was stated that a further sum of 280,0001. would be
required to complete works already sanctioned. Of that
sum 107,0001. was voted last year, 85,000/. would he
asked this year, leaving 88,0001. to be voted at a future
period. Sir C. Barry calculated that for additional Work's
not already sanctioned, there would be required an ad.
ditional expenditure of 651,0001. Matters, then, stood
thus :
Expenditure up to 31st March, 1854..
Voted last year

£1,583,000
107,000

Probable amount expended up to this time...n,690,000

Probable expenditure when completed in full £1,863,000
And supposing the additional 651,0001. to be sanctioned,
that would raise the probable total cost of the building
to nearly two millions and a half. (A laugh.) Sir C.
Barry's report had been sent to the Treasury, but had
not yet been decided on,
Sir C. D. NORREYS complained that there was no
map of where the proposed new buildings were to be
placed.
Mr. MACARTNEY hoped the Treasury would not
presume to authorise Sir C. Barry to expend so large an
amount as 651,0001. without the sanction of the house.
Mr. WILLIAMS thought the time had now come
when a stop must be put to Sir C. Barry's extravagant
expenditure. (Hear, hear.)
Captain SCOBELL said what had already been done
could not be helped, but he trusted that Sir C. Barry
would find that for the future if the House of Commons
was not his master, the President of the Board of Works
w, lid be.

Mr. BAILEY asked if the alteration and removal of
the courts of law were included in these sums '1
Sir W. MOLESWORTH—The removal of the courts
of law was certainly not included.
Mr. WILSON entered into some explanations with
reference to the question of Sir Charles Barry's corn rnip-
si on. lie said that it bad been a matter of dispute be-
tween Sir Charles Berry and every successive Treasury.
The original agreement was entered into between Lord
Besehorough and Sir Charles Barry, and when an ex-
penditure of 700,000/. was calculated, not to finish the
building, but only to include the shell and plans, Sir
Charles Barry protested that he bad never assented to
that agreement by which be was to retain in his
hands a sum of 25,0001. in full of the commission of
the building then calculated. By this agreement Sir
Charles Barry would receive a percentage of about 3 per
cent, on the outlay. Whereas, the usual commission paid
to architects was 5 per cent. The 3 per cent. commission
had been paid to other eminent architects for public works,
but in those cases some charges for adinea.snrement we, e
borne by the public, which were usually defrayed by the
architect when a 5 per cent. commission was allowed.
From time to time the expenditure had greatly exceeded
the original estimate ; and when the time came for a
settlement it appeared that a just mode would be to take
up the principle adopted by Lord Bessbcrough at the
commencement, which Sir Charles Barry protested he
bad never assented to, although he admitted that he had
acted under it—and to pay a commission upon the whole
expenditure at the same rate. Sir Charles Barry pro-
tested against this decision, and a correspondence had
gone on from that day to the present time. Her Ma-
jesty's Government adhered to the view which they had
taken, and the payments had been kept within the
amount calculated at the three per cent. upon the outlay.
With respect to the question of admeasurement, it was
stated that a considerable expense bad been incurred by
Sir Charles Barry, and the question was under conside-
ration • but he hoped that in a short time it would he
brought to a-conclusion.
In reply to a question from several bon. members,
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said that Government was
prepared to resist any further charge beyond the 3 per
cent., which was the usual amount paid to architects for
public
works, including decorations and other similar
matters.
iiltiison effect,ought
th to
t
have been made ,
Sir H. CharlesWll.LOtotTsGirHßYs
ai
dßaarrPyr proposition
terms they would beis
if be did not choosed.to anffseodrdwhitihs. services on certain
dispensed
an HON. MEMBER,
WORTH said that with respect to the
Sir W. W MOLESWO
, the sum of 6,000/. was proposed
ventilation of the house
dation of the committee
to a question
In reply-
nted to consider that matter. A
which had been .
expenseaPP°l bad been already incurred, when
portion of that
plc) ed on the recommendation of
in consequence of the
.reconnen
Mr. Gurney
t which had taken place in the
thought the improvement
was worth the expense, but fur
ventilation of the house
iderable reductions.
the committeew.asFeolrn his own part, he must say that be
the future he anticipated COll3
would be increased if it
Prevailed on this matter, and it
tme'llt net to havesome explanation
went forth as it now stood, without
the house
Mr. PIGOTT said considerable dissatisfaction' already
having been given,
after year. this expenditure hanging
over At year
The votwithout which he considered , .
The g e Was then agreed to.
eap„,etuel of 6,000/. was voted towards defraying the
ng es were vote
was
The
next%teneral repository of records.
works at the I,te Was the sum of 122,841/. on account of
fuge at liolyheZ l'"l'f Harbour and Harbour of Re-
-33705,9/6.
3folritohretehxepernnsatiste!Atlort
After a short -
voters
The followl ation the agreed to. •
then proposed and agreed
to :
Patrick Harbour.
- a.bbslament of Kit,g .to Nn
IrrlaPd• • • ' ."° of public buildingaebe 5,87.61. for the works and eai •
Harbour.
82,1401. for defraying the %alaries mi
two Houses of Parliament, expenses of the
, ~