The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-06 00:00:00

GREECE.

Lori J. MANNERS asked the First Lord of the
Treasury whether the vote of the lonian Chambers upon
the proposed cession of the Seven Islands to Greece
was to be taken before the consent of the Powers of Europe,
assembled in Congress, to that cession had been obtained;
whether the Congress was to be confined to the Powers who
were signatories of the Treaties of 1815, or whether it was
to comprise all the Powers of Europe, including Turkey;
Whether, in the event of Turkey not being invited to at-
tend the congress, any communication would be addressed
to the Sublime Porte on the subject : And whether the
consent of all, or only of the majority of the assembled in
congress, would be required to authorise the cession?
_ _

Lord PALMERSTON replied that the islands could not
be ceded without the consent of the Great Powers who
were parties to the treaty. Only those who were parties
to the treaty would have a voice in the matter. Turkey was
not one of those Powers ; and would, therefore, have no
voice in the proposed cession.
Lord J. MANNERS asked, in the event of there being a
difference of opinion between the Great Powers if the
opinion of a majority would be adopted ?
Lord PALMERSTON replied that the question included
matters of international law. If the Greeks themselves
were unanimous in the matter he did not apprehend that
any of the great powers would offer any objectiops.
DAY SITTINGS.

Lord PALMERSTON intimated that they were ap-
proaching the time when morning sittings would be indis-
pensable. (Oh, oh, and hear, hear.) He proposed that
the house should sit on Tuesday in order to take the Irish
Fisheries Bill.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN THE METROPOLIS.
On the motion for going into committee of supply,
Mr. B. COCHRANE rose to move that, for the sake of

obtaining greater unity of design in our publie build-
ings, and with a view to the efficiency and economy
of the public service, it is desirable a permanent Com-
missioner of Public Works and. Buildings, or other officer,
should be appointed to the
,present Board of Works. The
hon, gentleman traced the mismanagement and extrava-
gant cost of our public buildings and statues to the want of
a permanent officer of the kind suggested.

Mr. COWPER entered upon a lengthy explanation.
Ho admitted that in the past there had been a good deal of
mismanagement and much waste of money in consequence
of a false economy as in the case of the National Gallery.
He explained the course he adopted during his term of
office, and indicated the improvements he had introduced.
Sir J. SHELLEY supported the motion, and defended
the report of the committee, which recommended the ap-
pointment of a permanent commissioner of works, and that
on one of the junior lords of the Treasury should devolve
the duties of the office in that house. They had a perma-
nent under secretary at the Home-office—an arrangement
which worked well, and he could not see why a junior lord
of the Treasury should sot be able to represent the Office of
Works in that house, by the advice and assistance of a per-
manent officer, who would not be changeable with the Go-
vernment. This was the course which gentlemen took in
the management of their ovrn properties; they appointed a
person permanently to take charge of them ; and why
should net the same rule be applied to the management of
the parks and the public property.
fir S. M. PETO said that, having been a contractor for
public works in foreign countries, he was able to speak of
the manner in which those works were carried out. In
France the Minister of Public Works was the Minister of

Public Works ; in this country the Minister of Public
Works was no Minister at all. (Hear, hear.) He would be
sorry the Minister of Public Works was not a member of
that house; for he thought it was of great advantage that
he should be present and take part in discussions relative to
his department. But what they wanted was that which
existed in France, a board of able and practical men in as-
sociation with the Minister of Public Works, capable of
directing him to right conclusions, and preventing the con-
stant disappointments which gave them so much grief, and
which made their public works a bye wird. (Hear.) He had
executed various works for the Government of France, and
he had found the estimates so well considered, and the plans
and all the details so well sifted, that he had been able to
adopt the estimate of the Minister, and he had never found
himself a loser in any one instance; and the consequence
was that in France the public works were carried out upon
the estimate. But no public work in this country was ever
carried out within the estimate. That condemned the whole
principle. They had a remarkable instance of it in the con-
struction of harbours of refuge, which were carried out
under the direction of men who, although they might be
clever nautical men, knew nothing about the administra-
tion of public works. How were these things done in
France ? If a dock was to be constructed, the Admiralty
had nothing to do with the construction of it; the Minister
of Public Works had the proper estimates and plans made
out, and the works would be done for the sum specified;
and they would not find that where £200,000 or:£300,000 had
been asked, the work ultimatelycost a million. (Hear.) What
they wanted was, that the Ministerof Public Works should
be responsible for all the public works in the country, and
that he should lay before them estimates prepared by his
board of associates, who should be responsible to him for
their correctness. Such an arrangement would prevent the
lamentable excesses in the estimates for public works which
had brought so much discredit on the administration. The
rule to which he referred was equally in force at Vienna
and they would never have
theirand Berl
departmenti n , es wellof
pa
us
minister with men who were practically conversant with
binlicPw":rsks until they surrounded the
the nature of the duties. (Hear, hear.
Lord 3. MANNERS, while concurring in the criticisms
passed by his hon. friend on certain public works, did not
think that the remedy proposed by him would effect any
beneficial change. It had been suggested that there should
be a permanent officer attached to the department of works,
s°Oritr to 'Maitre the efficiency of its administration; but
Vic-
that there was such an officer already in
the board in. the
mTuriir The utility of having the head of the depart-
law hat house was illustrated in the case of the poor-
the d
Zany years there was no representative of
that house,
inco„,,,nience
mated .abut
and the consequence was that great
,rant
b art
of
deahwfi
lea afe
nr:dhal :yches' br!acit at
arises
a:i theilt,
aypet
er:
ed
nemen
art
ai ol
sfy a
tt
owing
poor-
lawnetg isatisfaction.
0.
ePartzniernht4:. oefahreL oCthrevowna
excetot.
on-ohstig those who held the office,
with a seat in
and their taking
would not milked; tahnB.
motion
nd
of his
he cho°un-ld frir-ioetindiAs the
The motion was then givewithdit his support. e own.
INDIA—THE ATTACK ON
Sir J. HAY postpone.' his
root:" TRINCIA-itUt
day three weeks, at which time Irho on
thia
India would be able to be in his place,ped the secretary t
ru
ORDNANCE SURVEY.
Mr. BAILLIE called the attention of the lionise to aimport
recently presented by Sir 11. James of the progress l he
ordnance survey of the United Kingdom. The hon. meta_
ber expressed his opinion that there had been already too
much discussion on the subject, and his only object in
making the motion was to obtain a statementlfrom tho Go-
vernment as to the course they intended to adopt. With