The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-05 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 5. 1863.

of the letter in which Mr. Hutchins had sent in his resig-
nation. When shown at the War-office, it was ordered that
Mr. Hutchins should be dismissed, and not be allowed to
resign.
Sir J. SHELLEY supported the clause.

Mr. W. E. FORSTER also supported it. There must be
that power or a court-martial, for volunteers were men with
arms in their hands, and required somebody to take care of
them, It was evident that that power must be given to the
commanding officer or a court-martial. (Hear, hear, from
Mr. Cox.) The hon. gentleman said " Hear, hear," but ho
could tell him that volunteer courts-martial would be most
unpopular institutions. It should be remembered that
pending the proceedings the volunteer must be placed under
arrest. (Hear, hear.) He believed that the feeling to which
the hon. member for Finsbury alluded was very much exag-
gerated ; and he could certainly say for the Yorkshire corps
that they had no wish to be governed by a committee instead
of by their commanding officer, neither did he think that the
power given by the clause was likely to be arbitrarily used,
because commanding officers knew very well that such con-
duct would diminish their corps. Besides, in case of any
abuse of the power, there were two remedies—one by appeal
to the War. office, and another by a charge laid before the
lord lieutenant. He could only speak as a captain of volun-
teers, but he knew the feeling of the county from which he
came, and he believed the volunteers there were fully pre-
pared to submit to whatever might be necessary for the
maintenance of discipline.

Earl GROSVENOR said he had been, so frequently' at-
tacked by the press respecting the transaction alluded to by
the hon. baronet, that he trusted the house would allow
him to give some explanation. (No.) He would if it were
wished. (No, no.) With respect to the proposed clause,
it should be borne in mind that the commanding officer had
the power of dismissal by the old act, and the best guarantee
against a misuse of it was the fear that he would lose half
his company. The force had now been in existence three
years, and yet he never knew of an arbitrary exercise of the
power of dismissal.

could not help concurring that means should be established
Sir DE LACY EVANS said that as an old soldier, he
for the preservation of discipline. HQ believed that the
volunteer private had the power of resignation within
fourteen days, and therefore it was necessary that the
commanding officer should be provided with some sort of
compromise. He did not see how the house could refuse
the limited power asked for on the present occasion. He
was glad the noble lord (Earl Grosvenor) had not mentioned
the name of the person alluded to, and congratulated him on
the mode in which he had conducted his two battalions.
Col. SYKES supported the clause. The power, he con-
sidered, was necessary, but the difficulty was how it should
be exercised
Mr. CONINGHAM said he was not surprised that vo-
lunteers were jealous of more power being given to com-
manding officers after the case in the papers of that day.
That was in the regular army.
Col. BA.RTTELOT rose to order. That case was quite
irrelevant.
Mr. CONINGHAM said that in that case, notwith-
standing the commanding officer had been censured, he was
going to be sent back to India to try his hand a second time
at his peculiar mismanagement.
offs ce
Col. BARTTELOT deprecated the allusion to a gallant
r serving his country in a foreign land. He contended
that there were very
had abused the powers entrusted to them. He hoped the
noble lord would maintain the clause as it stood.
Mr. W. T. EVANS said that in the corps to which he
Feloarustehewaumetnhdenme:reed
few cases in which commanding officers
belonged there had been very few disputes of any sort. He
should support the clause.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause as it stood lOB
21 Majority ...,
The
to.
The remaining
clauses' with certain verbal amendments,
were agreed to.
The Marquis of RARTINGTON said that, as some dis-
satisfaction had been expressed by the clerks of the War-
office relative to the new schedule of remuneration, it would
be withdrawn and the old schedule substituted for it.
passThed e schedule) as amended, was agreed to, and the bill
thruugh committee.

SUPPLY.
The house then went into committee of supply.
On the vote of £,329 for embassy houses abroad,
Mr. W. WILLIAMS protested against the vote, and
asked how long the annual vote was to be taken for the re-
pairs, &c., at Pere. This year the vote was upwards of £.3.00°'
Mr, COWPER said he was afraid the exense would con-
tinue so long as the Otto p
Ii man Empire existed.
Mr, rrtistAlßD and Mr. DODSON objected to the vote,
and called attention to the growing increase of the annual
vote for casual and ordinary repairs.
Lord PALMERSTON defended the vote, It was a good
palace, and a convenient residence ; it was a substantial
building, but ev
e.y such residence involved an annual
expense, and the wear and tear of furniture had to be pro-
vided for.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS also complained of the charge for
Const
the residence at Therapia, and asked why an ambassador at
antinople required two residences.
Lord p
quired because all the Turkish Ministers went to Therapia
ALMERSTON said the second residence was re-
in the summer, in consequence of the heat at Constattino-
tile, and our
period, to be able to communicate with them.
ambassadot had to reside there during that
Mr. FERRAND asked if the architect at Constantinople
was an Englishman or a Turk, and if any control was n
Turkey was very ex-
ercised over him.
Mr. COWPER said the clerk of the works was a resident
Englishman. There was complete control over the expen-
diture, because he had to send home his estimates for
approval before any work was done. The expense of living
was £4OO a• year,
great, and the residence itself was very
arge. Many things had to be sent from England to Con-
stantinople.
In answer to a question,
Mr. COWPER said the salary of the clerk of the works
Year, which was included in the estimate.
Mr. DODSON said the clerk of the works was no doubt
a competent man to spend money. He was at a loss to
dunderstand ho w the Home Goviture
ernment could check expen-
next year. at Constantinople. He hoped the vote would be less
yearM than r. CO'WPER said the vote would be £l,OOO less next
this. The extra expense this year arose from
the
necessity of a new zinc roof and certain furniture that
Was actually required.
Sir B. LEIGHTON thought two residences unneces-
Col, sary, as the two places were not far apart.
SYRES said that if they got
rid of the clerk of the
works
Lor they would save £2,000 a
par.
the r d It. CECIL said it was a good suggestion, and moved
eduction of the vote by £4OO,
Lord PALMERSTON said that if they dismissed him
the result would be disadvantageous, as they would be
obliged to have a Turkish clerk of works.
°f the
G. BOWYER was at a loss to understand why a clerk
e"ae works was required, the residence being finished.
there
Mr* COWPER said if they dismissed him they must de-
penddon the ambassador employing Turkish people, an
check
Would be higher than now.
the dia..
Mr, FERRAND supported the amendment for
being no efficient control, the bills in all probability
missal of the clerk of works.
clerk
ment being able to check the expenditure under the
of the works at Constantinople.
Lord It. CECIL ridiculed the idea of the home Govern-
Mr. COWPER said they were enabled effectually to
the expenditure, for the Board of Works had an
assistant surveyor in the office who had been at Constan.
tinople. (Laughter.) The Board of Works knew as much
about the control of expenditure at Constantinople as was
necessary. It was impossible to get a respectable man to
go to Constantinoe for less than £4OO a year, on whom
they
could
rely to prevent imposition. The Board of Works
had a scale of prices paid in Constantinople, and were en-
ad by it to check the expenditure. It would not do to
trust to the Turks in those matters.
Sir G. BOWYER thought the Under-Secretary of State
b
ought to defend the Turks from the aspersions that had
e cast on their honesty by the First Commissioner of
Works,
Lord PALMERSTON said no more was done here than
was done by every gentleman in England who had a large
residence to check expenditure.
Mr. FERRAND said the grossest jobbery was practised
at our embassies.
Mr. HU B BARD
defended the continuance of the clerk
of the works on the ground of economy.
After some discussion,
Mr. CHILDERS said it would be better to follow
the
practice of France, for
Who allocated annually a fixed sum
the embassy houses. It would be well for the house to
fix
the expenditure
a year. on the Constantinople residences at £2,000

Mr. COWPER said this was an estimate for the ensu-
ing year, part being for ordinary, and part for special re-
pairs. If the ambassador was to be his own clerk of the
works, he doubted if the work would be so economically
done. The clerk of the works at Constantinople was a more
responsible man than the one at Paris, who was paid only
LlBO a year.
The committee divided. The numbers were—
For the amendment 74
Against it .
Majority
The amendment was carried, and the reduced vote was
then agreed to,
The vote of £748 for the British Consulate at Constanti-
nople was then agreed to.

On the vote of £40,000 for the new Foreign-office,

Mr. A. SMITH said the original estimate for this build-
ing was £200,000; £75,000 had been already voted, and
now £40,000 were asked for. A sum of £137,000 was still
to be Noted for completing the work.
Mr. COWPER said, of the money already voted only
£18,868 had been expended, and the balance had been paid
into the Exchequer. At present there had been no actual
expenditure on the building, and before any
was spent a
complEte and definite estimate would be had from the
architect.

Sir G. BOWYER was at a loss to understand why the
building should cost so much money. He advocated sim-
plicity and not ornamentation in the ereotion,and he doubted