The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-04 00:00:00

comparatively rare, ought to have been sought out. He
found that a sum of £6OO was set down for each statue ;
and he certainly did not think the sum too much for a highly
finished one ; hut when he saw worts that could only be
regarded as inediocie, he considered that the vote ought to
be reduced. He should therefore move that the sum of
£1,600 set down in the vote for two statues be struck out.

After a few words from Mr. A. SMITH,
Mr. WIIALLEY wished to know why the period of
Oliver Cromwell was not to be celebrated by the statue of
the Protector of England being erected in some part of tha
house.

Mr. COWPER said, in reply to an hon. member, that
oil was in use in some of the passages in the hous.), but the
contract would terminate in six months. The right hon.
gentleman then went en to to say that previous to last
year money had been voted for four statues out of twelve
to form what was called the Royal Gallery of Statues in
that house ; and last year votes of two additional statues
had been agreed to by the house. The first of these two
last statues would be that of King William 111. (Hear,
hear, from hon. members on the back Conservative benches.)
The other would be that of Queen Mary—not that Queen
Mary which the hon. member for Peterborough would ob-
ject to—but Queen Mary, the wife of William 111. Ho
thought the history of England could not be better illus-
trated in that house than by erecting statues of the several
sovereigns of the country in it. But the hon. baronet (Sir
M. Ridley) objected to the expense, on the ground that they
wore going to erect medieval statues—but they were not
going to do anything of the kind. They were going to erect
statues similar in character to those in St. Stephen's Hall,
which ho looked upon as creditable to art in this country.
Sir M. PETO said they ought to have a statue from one
of their best artists, of the Prince Consort—(hear, hear)—
as he was sure such a mark of respect to his memory would
give great satisfaction to the country. (Hear, hear.)
Sir W. RIDLEY said, in the entrance hall the statues of
Pitt, Grattan, and Burke were as bad statues as works of
art as ever were produced. They presented no speech, they
presented no mind, they presented no thought ; and ho was
of opinion that the money had been wasted which had been
so spent. He would not, however, press his amendment,
and with permission would withdraw it, and it was with-
drawn accordingly.
Mr. CAIRD said he was of opinion that a Scotch sove-
reign should be introduced. (A laugh.)
Mr. WHALLEY said ho had expressed no opinion with
respect to a statue of Oliver Cromwell, though that was
an event in their history which ho thought should be illus-
trated. Thero was a fresco in the House of Lords which
he objected to—that of St. Augustine baptising a Saxon
Ring. People would imagine that that was the first intro-
duction of Christianity, whereas it had been introduced 500
years before.

After a few words from Sir J. PAXTON.
Mr. COWPER said the Victoria Tower was intended for
the reception of records. The racks were intended to bo fire-
proof. The House of Lords was encroaching very much on
the space, but at present only two rooms were filled up out
of 64 rooms in the tower. He would not enter into the his-

torical discussion raised by the hon. member for Peterbo-
rough as to St. Augustine. It was an historical fact that
was presented in that picture, and while an inference might
be drawnfrom it, it was an interesting fact. As to the statue
of Cromwell, he should be very glad to see a statue erected
if the money was voted.
The vote was agreed to.
On the next vote of £5,400 for the maintenance of British
embassy houses abroad,
Mr. MONSELL drew attention to the embassy house at
Constantinople. He found a sum of £2,000 set down for
keeping the house in repair; and that there was in the vote
a considerable item for a clerk of the works. Why need
they fool surprise that repairs were constantly needed when
they found that a clerk of the works was constantly kept to
look after the house. He disapproved of such a system, and
moved that the proposed vote be reduced by £l,OOO.
Mr. COWPER, in defending the vote, said if economy
were to be studied, it would be far more advantageously so
under direction of a clerk of works attached to the embassy
than by trusting to a foreign architect.
The committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against
Majority against the amendment —27
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and the house
resumed.

COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS (IRELAND) BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill, when clauses
I and 2 were agreed to. The remaining clauses were agreed
to, and the house resurns d.

MOVEABLE PROPERTY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
MARKETS AND FAIRS (IRELAND) BILL.

This bill, as amended, was considered and agreed to.
SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL,
This bill was read a second time,
INDIA STOCK TRANSFER BILL.
The Lords' amendments on this bill were agreed to.
SIR JOHN SOANE'S MUSEUM BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
CHANCERY REGISTRATION BILL.

This bill was read a third time and passed.
BILLS OF EXCIIANGE (IRELAND) ACT (1861;

AMENDMENT BILL.

Mr. VANCE obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend
the summary procedure on Bill of Exchange (Ireland) Ac
(1861).

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
that the resolution (31st March) relative to public accounts,
be read ; that the said resolution be a standing order of this
house.

After some discussion, in which Col. French, Mr. Hen-
nessy, Col. Dunne, and Lord H. Montagu took part,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proceeded
to nominate the committee as follows—Sir F. Baring, Mr.
E. P. Bouverie, Sir S. Northcoto, Mr. Peel, Mr. Glyn, Mr.
Cobden, Sir H. Willoughby, Mr. Howes, and Mr. Walpole
—which, after some discussion, was agreed to.