The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-09 00:00:00

Gi) JTYN'E u 1854.

brought under one roof. The arrangement, therefore,
would lead to a considerable saving of expense.
Mr. WILSON explained that, the bill for effecting the
proposed change in the revenue departments not having
yet become law, the votes for repairs in those departments
could not be included in the estimates which were now
before the house. Next year the course suggested by the
noble lord would be adopted.
Mr. HUME said that in the Civil-list 10,000/. were al-
lowed for royal gardens. Now iu the present votes he ob-
served au item of 1,656/. for royal kitchen gardens, forcing
houses, buildings; &c. Ho wished to have sonic explana-
tion on this item.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said the outlay was for the
royal kitchen garden at Frogmore, and included iron en-
trances and fences, and repairs of forcing houses.
Mr. WISE wished to call the attention of the right hon.
baronet to the charges for the residence of the British am-
bassador at Paris. There was a charge of upwards of 600/.
for water and other services. Last year the sum voted for
the repairs of the embassy was 5,8201., and a further sum
of 3,3931. was about to be proposed. He thought some
explanation of the first item was necessary. Then with
respect to Marlborough-house there were three items—one
of 2,2761. for general and ordinary expenses, and another
under the head of " rents," &c. He did not at all under-
stand that item, inasmuch as he understood the Crown
had consented to the occupation. He thought it would
be desirable in future to place those items together, and
not under different heads.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said the first amount alluded
to with respect to the ambassador's house at Paris, in-
cluded the ordinary rates and other services at the em-
bassy. The other charge was for setting the house in
proper order.
Mr. WILSON said the item under the head " rents,"
&c., relating to Marbororough-house, included charges
made up from that and a great number of other houses.
Mr. PELLATT said he objected to the charge on ac-
count of the British Museum, inasmuch as the public had
not the full advantage of the benefits of that institution,
being admitted only three days a week. It was said that
the other days were appropriated to students, but the
attendance was very small. On one occasion when he
called there were not more than 12 present, and the books
of attendance did not show the average to be more than 24.
Mr. GOULBURN said that it had been the opinion of
the house that it would be for the advantage of the public
to allow students the opportunity undisturbed of copying
the fine specimens of ancient art, and it would be impos-
sible for them to pursue their studies in the presence of
40,000 or 50,000 persons.
Mr. EWART said it was most, desirable to allow the
public the opportunity of studying the works of the
ancient masters. A great many of the drawings could
only be seen by a restricted number of persons, but this
inconvenience might be remedied by placing the drawings
under glass so as to protect them from injury.
Mr. GOULBURN said that wish had frequently been
expressed before, and the trustees some time ago prepared
two rooms for the purpose, but the arrival of the Assyrian
antiquities had rendered it necessary to change the plan.
He trusted the trustees would be able to make some ar-
rangements to accomplish the objects alluded to by the
hon. member.
Mr. PELLATT said if it was necessary to sot apart days
for students in the statuary department, ho did not see
why the public could not be admitted to the other rooms
during rive (lays out of the six.
Mr. GOULB URN said the hon. member should recollect
that au establishment like the British Museum required
to be cleaned and kept iu proper order.
The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote was 19,4371., for the completion of the
south wing of Buckingham Palace.
Mr. HUAIE said that something like a million and a half
had been expended on Buckingham Palace, and he should
like to know if this was to be the last vote on account of
that building?
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said the sum now asked for
was a portion of a former vote, and he hoped it would in-
clude all that was necessary to be done to that building.
The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote proposed was 66,535 for maintaining and
keeping in repair the walls, keepers' lodges, and other build-
ings, fences, roads, rides, drives, footpaths, &c., in the
several royal parks, pleasure gardens, &c.
Mr. E WART said the public had the advantage of ad-
mission to Bushy park and gardens ; but there was a large
park connected with Hampton-court grounds called the
Home-park, to which the public were not admitted. He
could see no reason for their exclusion. He wished to sug-
gest to the right hon. baronet the restoration of the ancient
fountain in Bushy-park.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said, with regard to the park.
alluded to by the honourable member, there were certain
rights of the ranger recognised by statute, and he did not
see how they could be controverted. Ho would, however,
consider if anything could be done in the matter. He be-
lieved the restoration of the fountain would be attended
with considerable expense.
Mr. KINNAIRD trusted that on the appointment of the
new ranger an entrance to the park would be secured to
the public.
Mr. HUME wished to know where the receipts for the
Home-park went to ?
Sir W. MOLES WORTH said the receipts from the va-
rious parks, amounting to 5,220/., were paid into the Con-
solidated Fund.

moneyH lj Mwask °vout
et eanded
eughtthatto
aeblel
thrownt ho par ks for w
open to
to hi
the h p pub-
licu b
lie. (Hear, hear.) The opening of the parks had been at-
tended with the greatest advantage to the public ; and to
show the interest felt on the subject, he might state that,
during the last year, the number of visitors to Kew-gar-
dens was 381,210. Ho trusted before long to see all the
public places thrown open on Sundays. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. PECHELL said that nothing could be more de-
corous than the conduct of the visitors on all occasions.
When he found last year au item of 1,2001. for Bushy
Park, and this year an item of 1,9001. he was in hopes
that something was going on. He trusted that the foun-
tain would be restored, and believed it had fallen into '
decay only through the negligence of the department over
which the right honourable baronet now presided.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS called the attention of the com-
mittee to the large sum of 13,8661. for keeping St. James's
Park, the Green Park. and Hyde Park in repair. He
wished to know whether of the sum of 66,5451. for the
royal parks and pleasure garden's no portion was taken
from the Crown lands?
Mr. WILSON said there was a large increase in the
civil service estimates from year to year, but there was a
constant process going on of paying into the Consolidated
Fund the revenues and fees which had in former years
been expended on the parks. With regard to this vote,
every source of income was paid into the Exchequer, and
every portion of the expense was vote(' by the house. (Hear.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said the increased expense for
the parks arose from the increase in the price of materials
and labour. It was necessary to employ a considerable
number of officers for the preservation of order. (Hear.)
Mr. EWART complained that large quantities of gravel
had been dug up in different parts of Hyde-park, and that
the excavations had been filled up with mud and other re-
fuse, thereby causing c)mplete swamps. He trusted the
right hon. baronet would put a stop to such a course of
proceeding.
Lord R. GROSVENOR trusted the right hon. baronet
would turn his attention to the subject of the fountain at
Bushy-park. A work like that ought not to be destroyed
for want of sufficient repairs.
In reply to a question by Mr. HUME,
Sir W. MOLESWORTtI said that a portion of the sum
of 1,3661. for Greenwich•park was required for improvement.
Sir G. PECHELL said the right hon. gentleman had
taken no notice of the suggestion respecting the fountain.
Sir W. AIOLESWORTH said he understood the repairs
would cost a very considerable sum, but he would take
care to have another estimate made. (Hear.)
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said her Majesty had consented to
allow carriages to pass from Pall-mall through St. James's-
park, and he thought it would be a groat convenience to
the public if cabs were allowed the same privilege.
In answer to a question by Mr. SPOONER,
Sir W. MOLES WORTH said that the sum of 7531. for
Kennington-common included the expense of providing
shrubs, plants, &c., and for laying out the park.
The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote of 141,2941. for the expense of works at the
New Houses of Parliament, _ _ _

Mr. W. PATTEN inquired whether any settlement had
been come to with Sir Charles Barry, for superintending
the works at the Houses of Parliament 7
Mr. WILSON said that the whole circumstances of the
case had been gone into, and the Treasury had come to a
conclusion as to what would be a fair amount of remune-
ration. A communication had been made to Sir Charles
Barry on the subject, but he demurred, and there the
matter stood at present. He understood that Sir Charles
Barry was preparing a statement in support of his own
views.
Mr. HUME hoped the Government would not consent
to pay Sir Charles Barry anything until the accounts were
made up. (Hear,. hear.) Before a stone was 1 id the com-
mittee, over which Sir Peel presided, came to the con-
clusion that 25,0001. should be paid in the shape of remu-
neration, in order to remove any inducement to increase
the estimated expenditure, and each of the gentlemen who
sent in plans was furnikihed with a copy of that decision.
Mr. J. W. PATTEN inquired what sum had been paid
to Sir Charles Barry ?
Mr. WILSON said that, speaking from recollection, be
belived about 40,0001. The original estimate for the works,
included in which Sir Charles Barry was, as arranged by
Lord Besborough, to receive 25,000 i., was 600,0001. or
700,0001. Upon the adilitional work, Sir Charles had been
paid a commission in a proportion similar to that arranged
for upon the original committee.
In reply to another question from Mr. PATTEN,
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said that all the work was
measured up to the end of last year, and he believed that
as the work had been completed since, it had been mea-
sured and paid for.
Mr. HUME said that the additional sum paid to Sir
Charles Barry had been paid contrary to agreement, and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be called on to re-
fund it. (A laugh.) He complained that much expense
was caused by the arathitect building, and thou pulling
down and rebuilding portions of work, and expressed the
opinion that the houses of Parliament would not be com-
pleted in his life-time.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
no blame for anythin,, which was defective in these arrange-
ments rested with the executive Government, because to
it there had never been given an effectual control over them.
Last year a promise vras giv-on that a final estimate should
be prepared. That estimate was not yet ready, its pre-
paration having ho believed. been delayed by the protracted
and serious illness of Sir C. Barry. With regard to the
sums paid for the reniuneratiou of the architect, the house
,trust bear in mind that it was twenty years since the old
douses of Parliament were burned down, and that for not
much short of that period Sir Charles Barry had been
engaged as the architect of the new houses. It must also
be remembered that all that was paid to him was not net
pruat, as he had to incur expenses for establishments
and assistants amounting, he (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) cossld not ho certain as to the precise sum, but
he bake,' ed that Sir Charles Barry had in conversation with
him told him that it amounted to 1,2001. or 1,r,00/. a year.
With ?.respect to undoing of work, it must also be borne
in min d that much of this had been done, not at the sug-
gestior of Sir Charles Barry, but at that of other persons
(earth 3ularly of persons connected with the other house),
which had put Sir Charles to great inconvenience, and to
whiel t ho objected. These alterations had, Sir Charles
Barr: f had assured him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer),
reach :red it necessary, with regard to a large portion of the
striae ture, that he should three times undergo the labour
of a e ()replete reconstruction of his design.
Mr . Vs ILLIAMS asked upon whom rested the superin-
tenenince of the expenditare, and called attention to the
fact. that Mr. Gurney had expended but SO!. in removing
the apparatus of Sir Charles Barry and Dr. Reid for venti.
lati ',lig the house, which had cost 240,000/., and had by
do.ing so made the house healthy, and effectually veuti-
la' led it.
Lord B. GROSVENOR said that it was not fair to lay
to the charge of Sir Charles Barry this expenditure of a
qua rter of a million for ventilation, because he had strongly
prolLested against the adoption of Dr. Reid'a system.
rSoll io of the reconstruction which had been carried

ont;respecially that connected with the exterior and
interior of that hollse, had been rendered necessary
by errors of Sir Charles Barry. He was afraid that
even if the houso received a final estimate it would not
include all that was to he clone. Something would have

to be done with the sow side of Bridge-street„and there

was also the quaff tic. 7, f the removal of the courts of law.
Sir W. MOLESWORTII explained that the Board of
Works was so far responsible for the expenditure that they
examined the accounts before they were paid. Not that
Board, however, but Sir Charles Barry was responsible for
ordering what works should be done.
Mr. JOHN PHILLIMORE said it seemed to him to be
rather a question of faith than of works. (Oh, oh.)
Mr. HUME thought that the house had been in every
way imposed upon, and he should oppose the vote being
agreed to until the house knew who was responsible.
Mr. KINNAIRD inquired whether it was true that Sir
C. Barry had been requested to furnish designs for the
new bridge at Westminster?
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said that the construction of
this bridge had been entrusted to the engineer of the Board
of Works. Sir C. Barry had kindly given him a design, and
would receive payment for some drawings be had made.
Mr. A. PELLATT called attention to the estimate for

wax candles, and suggested that a cheaper description,
such as Price's, or sperm ones, might be used.
Mr. DANBY SEYMOIJE, suggested the general substi-
tution of, gas for candles.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said that when 31r. Gurney
thought gas might with advantage be substituted, it would
be so.

Mr. KINNAIRD thought the estimates unsatisfactory,
and should support the hon. member for Montrose in his
opposition to this vote.
1 n reply to Mr. LOCKHART,
Sir W. MOLES WORTH said that there had been a
small fire near one of the gas meters, but it was almost
immediately extinguished.
Mr. BELL said that he examined the walls upon the
terrace walk, with several eminent architects, who were
of opinion that these walls were in a very bad condition.
Mr. WILSON defended the estimates, which were
more detailed than those of any previous year, and were
also, for the first time, accompanied by a coloured plan,
which was necessary to render them intelligible.
Mr. DANBY SEYMOUR said it would be a thousand
pities if, in order to save a small sum, the building of the
new bridge at Westminster were taken out of the hands of
Sir Charles Barry, and if it were built of iron, and not of
stone, in conformity with the design of the Houses of Par-

lament.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said that he some time ago in-
quired into the state of the walls, and he was then informed,
upon good authority, that the stones were upon the
whole good, and there were not more than the ordinary
proportion of bad ones among them. He was informed
that the contractor employed a person to examine the
stone at the quarry, but the atmosphere of London was so
bad that, however good the stones used in building might
be, some of them were sure to suffer from exposure.
Mr. WALPOLE said there seemed to be no control over

:he accounts, or over the works connected with the houses

of Parliament.

Mr. WILSON said the system now adopted was intended
to obviate the abuse that had crept in in past years, by
which the money voted for a particular portion of the
works had been applied to another. The votes were now
taken for so much of the plan as could be executed in the

year.
Mr. HUME considered that in future no public works
should be proceeded with until an estimate of the total
cost was produced, and then they could determine from
year to year what the architect should lay out. He thought
the Chancellor of the Exchequer should postpone this vote
until an estimate had been prepared of the entire cost of
the carcase and of finishing these buildings.
Mr. SPOONER asked if the contract that had been en-

tared into was regulated by measure and value only, or
was to include the entire finishing of the works ?
Mr. WILSON said the contract was for measurement,
and as the work was (lone it would be measured and paid
for. The contract had been entered into under favourable

circumstances, and if it were now to be suspended the pub-
lic interests might suffer. It was impossible to obtain an
estimate now of the entire cost of the buildings when they
would he completed.

Mr. H. HERBERT wished to know whether the new
Westminster-bridge was to be constructed of iron or of
stone ? It would be a pity to mar the effect of these fine
Gothic edifices, which, in • his opinion, were well adapted
for the purposes for which they were intended, by the
erection of a bridge made of iron, and that wig h the mere
view of a paltry saving of expense.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said that this subject bad been
brought before the committee which sat last sessi.en, and
the committee determined, after much deliberation,, that
the bridge should be composed of iron. It would be a
handsome structure, and quite congruous with the architec-
ture of the Houses of Parliament. Sir C. Barry approved
of the design, although, no doubt, that gentleman wouh'l
have preferred a stone bridge instead of an iron one ' • but
a very large sum of money would be required to pay for
stone bridge, and more than the state of the Bridge Estate
Funds would be able to afford. That was the reason why an
iron bridge had been decided upon ; and when finished it
would, he believed, look remarkably well. It would be
very much wider than the existing structure.
Mr. FREWEN, as one of the members of the commit-
tee which sat upon the question of the building of West-
minster-bridge, confirmed the statement of the First Com-
missioner of Works as to the inadequacy of the funds of
the Bridge Estatis to build a stone bridge, although they
would be able to furnish the means for building an iron one.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, with
regard to Sir Charles Barry's remuneration which had been
alluded to, that it would not be consistent for the Govern-
ment to give a pledge on that subject in the terms sug-
gested, and for this reason—that the Government were not
yet able to bring to a conclusion what they conceived to
be their own duty with respect to Sir Charles Barry. What
they said, and what they ought to say, was this—that they
would not be responsible to that house for making no pay-
ment to Sir C. Barry, with respect to which they were not
perfectly certain that it would be within any sum which that
house would award. Of course they would not commit the
house to anything of a doubtful character, or make any issue
to Sir C. Barry, excepting that which that house would be
likely to sanction. They had not yet arrived at the time for
forming a judgment on that subject, and when they had
brought the matter as near as they could to a proper train
for that purpose, then would be the proper time to recom-
mend the house to deal with this question. Ho hoped
the house would not divide upon this vote, because
it referred to a matter of contract with regard to which it
would not be well to create a doubt under the circum-
stances stated by, his hon. friend, and above all, for this
reason, that this was not a question of controlling the Ex-
ecutive Government—the question was about establishing
an efficient control, and especially a verity of control ; and
for that object, the Executive Government was most de-
sirous of co-operating with the house.
Mr. HUME had heard with satisfaction the first part of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanation, but still
thought that the vote ought to be allowed to stand over
until the house had a plan of all the work that was yet to
be done, and an estimate of the total cost. He should,
therefore, ask the house to negative this vote if it was per-
sisted in.l4
Mr. WALPOLE quite agreed that the Government
could not postpone a vote with regard to which a contract
existed, but believed it possible to prepare a plan and esti-
mate next year.
Mr. HENLEY would support the vote, but thought the
time had come when they ought to see what further works
were to be sanctioned for these buildings. There need not
be much difficulty in making an estimate, as the architect
must have made up his mind how high he would carry the
two great towers, for instance, and could therefore calcu-
late how much it would cost to complete them. They had
already consented to lessen the headway of the Thames to
accommodate Sir C. Barry, and thus seriously injured the
navigation of the river; and he, therefore, thought to
make it now a question whether the bridge should con-
sist of iron or of stone, as regarded the effect upon the
river, was like straining at the gnat after swallowing the
camel.
The committee then divided, when the numbers were—
For the vote
Against it
Majority
The vote was then agreed to. _ _

The next vote was a sum not exceeding 10,0001. to defray
the expenses of additional works and buildings at the Sta-
tionery office.
In reply to a question from Mr. HOME,
Mr. WILSON explained that the object of this vote was
to enable the Government to consolidate the whole of the
enormous mass of printed and unprinted papers in one
building, which are now kept in the printer's warehouses
at a very heavy cost for rent. By this means the expenses
of management would be reduced, and the saving in rent
alone would mere than pay the interest upon the proposed
outlay.
The vote was then agreed to • as was also another vote
of 10,0001. for expenses connected with the erection of the
general repository for public records in Chancery-lane.
The next vote proposed was a sum not exceeding 155,486/.
for the works at the new packet harbour and the harbour
of refuge at Holyhead.
Mr. F. FRENCH called attention to the course which
had been adopted by the Chester mid Holyhead Railway
Company. Instead of facilitating the communication be-
tween the two countries, they were doing all they could to
throw obstacles in the way, and to drive away all compe-
tition,
so that it would become utterly impossible to get
the mails carried at a fair rate. There might be some
power, if it were exerted, in the Treasury to have protec-
tion afforded to passengers, and to encourage the inter-
course between the countries as much as possible.
Mr. WILSON suggested that the discussion of the ques-
tion could probably be more properly raised when the mo-
tion of the hon. member for Kerry came on with regard to
the packet service.
Mr. H. HERBERT considered that the question to
which the hon. member for Roscommon had referred had
nothing to do with the motion of which he had given
notice.
Mr. WILSON was of opinion that if the observations of
the hon. member for Roscommon had any application
whatever, it was to the postal communication and to no-
thing else. With regard to the arrangement between the
Government and this company it was now settled, and
was not open to further discussion.
Mr. VANCE said that the Chester and Holyhead Com-
pany had been forgiven a considerable sum, and had made
a bad return for it, having refused to facilitate the inter-
course between Kingstown and London, by adhering to the
booking system which was agreed to between them and
the City of Dublin Company for many years. When it
was in the power of the Government to enforce proper regu-
lations on the part of the Chester and Holyhead Company,
he trusted the Government would take the earliest oppor-
tunity of signifying to them that they had not acted with
a proper desire to accommodate the public,
Mr. F. SCULLY declared that every individual who
came from Ireland complained of the difficulty of the inter-
course between the two countries, and they should continue
to bring forward the question until they teazed the Go-
vernment into doing what they required.
Lord BERNARD thought the statement of the Secre-
tary of the Treasury was unsatisfactory. The fact was that
nothing could be worse than the communication between
the two countries,
Mr. COWPER denied that it could ever be expected that
the Government should take upon themselves to be the car-
riers of passengers between one part of her Majesty's do-
minions and another. This was not a question for the house
to deal with, and had nothing to do with the vote before
the house. All the Government could do was to enter in-
to a contract for the conveyance of the mails, and that had
been efficiently performed.
Mr. FREWEN remarked that when the Government
boats were employed, the passage was performed quicker
than at present.
Mr. COWPER observed that two of the packets now
running were the identical packets that had been employed
by the Government.
Mr. MACARTNEY—When they were employed by th
Government they went more quickly than at present,
_be-
e
cause when they got into the possession of a company they
did not go beyond a certain speed.
Col. DIMIN.E reminded the house that the Irish repro-

• ,
sentatives bed to °ease eser ;4 Per2iat4ZTheit4fh u
lators, and until they chose to send them back to Dub
to manage their own affairs, they should affeld them the ,
means of coming over in safety. L 2 *IV:
Mr. H. HERBERT was surprised at theetatement of the '
hon member for Hertford, that the Government had never
entered into an arrangement for the carrying of passengers.
He could show him in the library no less than 18 reports
of committees, and 16 reports of commissions, all recog-
nising the principle of giving the utmost facility for the in-
tercourse of passengers between the two p:irts of the United
Kingdom. He could show him that those reports had
been acted upon, and he asked hon. members from Ireland
if they did not remember the immense convenience afforded
a few years ago by Government vessels to passengers, in,
going backward and forward between the two countries.
The packets now took a considerably longer period to per-
form the passage than they did six or seven years ago, and
that concomitantly with an improvement of communisa-
tion all over the world.
Mr. COWPER explained that what he stated was, that
Government had never made any contracts for the cenvey-
ance of passengers. When the Government employed
packets they had for their object the conveyance of the
mails, and the conveyance of passengers was only inci-
dental.
Lord BERNARD thought the house ought to re-
member that Sir Robert Peel had recommended theta to
facilitate the passenger communication with Ireland.
Mr. F. FRENCH hoped that, when the motion of the
hon. member for Kerry came before the house the Go-
vernment would be able to say that some satisfactory ar-
rangement would be adopted.
Mr. HUME thought that better accommodation should
be provided.
Mr. WILLIAMS begged to inquire if the work would
be carried out according to the estimate?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that it had been found that the
ships entering the harbour would be inadequately supplied
with accommodation, according to the plan as it originally
stood ; and after the experience of last winter it was de-
termined to enlarge the area, for which an additional out-
lay would be necessary.
Mr. FRENCH said this statement came upon him by
surprise, and he hoped sufficient time would be given for
the consideration of the additional estimates.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the additional estimates would
not be laid before Parliament till next year.
Mr. FRENCH said he had been assured that the harbour
could not be entered at certain times.
Sir J. GRAHAM assured the hon. gentleman that in
October last he bad himself entered it in a gale of wind.
The vote was then agreed to.
On the next vote, which was for 237,300/. on account of
the expense of constructing harbours of refuge at Dover,
the Channel Islands, Harwich, and Portland,
Mr. HUME renewed his objections to the expense in-
curred in these works, and said that the reports of the en-
gineers in charge of the works ought to accompany the esti-
mates.

Mr. WALPOLE observed that one of the items in this
estimate were for the works at Portland. Now the works at
Portland were chiefly carried on by convict labour, which was
remunerative to the country. The only prisoners who paid
the expenses attending them were those at Portland. There
were more than 800 convicts confined there, and they paid
the country by their labour upon public works, by which
the country profited. He wished therefore to impress upon
the Government the propriety of applying convict labour
to other public works, especially to those in the nature of
harbours of refuge, on which they might be employed
without coming into contact with independent labour. If
nothing was done on this important subject, he should in
another session bring it u- der consideration, in order that
the opinion of Parliament might be taken upon it.
Mr. PELLATT alluded to the works at Dover, where he
said a pier had been erected upon the old principle of being
supported by piles ; and he asked whether the Board of
Works had power thus to prevent improvements ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said he entirely agreed with the right
hon. gentleman that it was most desirable that convict
labour should be employed on public works, in order that
the public works might be remunerative on the one hand,
and be carried on in a way consistent wtth the best discip-
line on the other. The works at Portland had received
the sanction of Parliament, and it would be wise economy
to have them finished with the least possible delay ; and
for this purpose the number of convicts employed upon
them had been greatly increased. About 1,000 convicts
were now employed there. The vote proposed to be taken
for the works at Dover was 31,0001., in order to complete
the existing contract. It was intended to extend the sea
wall, which would be done by contract, but it was not in-
tended to take any vote this year on account of the exten-
sion. With regard to the works in the Channel Islands,
he had visited them in company with Lord Raglan, Sir J.
Burgoyne, Admiral Dundas, Sir Baldwin Walker, and the
respective engineers; every possible investigation had been
made on the spot, and subsequently they assembled at the
Home-office, along with the Secretary at War, for the pur-
pose of coming to a decision respecting these works. It
had been determined that the works at Guernsey should
• not be carried into immediate execution ; those at Jersey
would be finished this year, and those at Alderney would
b e proceeded with ; but at Holyhead it was intended to
do,nart somewhat from the original plan, with the view of
enclosing a larger area of deep water. As a comparatively
small' additional expense, great advantages would be de-
rived .from this extension.

Mr. 2,11.1 ME hoped the house would be furnished with a
return of the number of vessels that visited either Guern-
sey or Alderney in the course of the year. He did not
think a has hour of refuge was necessary at Alderney, but
one was cert,Ninly necessary on the north-east coast of •Eng-
land, where n timorous vessels had been wrecked during last
winter for the want of such a place. At the entrance of
the Tyne no feNver than twenty-five to thirty vessels had
been lost. Ho hoped, therefore, that protection would be
given to our own mast, rather than spend money uselessly
on the Channel Islands, for it was quite time something
was done on our northeast shores.
Mr. INGH A.ll cordially approved of this suggestion;
and added that the shipowners of the Tyne and the corpora.
tion of Newcastle had agreed, the former to tax themselves
to an extent of 10,0001. a year, and the latter to surrender
rights worth 7,0001. a year, if the Government would un-
dertake the construction f the necessary works. There
was not a harbour of refuge on the whole of the north coast,
and be suggested that if one were constructed at the mouth
of the Tyne, it might be useful, in the event of war with
any of the northern powers, as a station for our ships. He
hoped that next year the Government would lay some pro-
poeition before the house on this subject.
Sir J. GRAHAM said it was natural for his hon, friend
to feel a preference for the entrance of the Tyne ; but he
had been requested to consider also the claims of Hartle-
pool, and the mouth of the Tees. He had also been assured
that the Yorkshire coast was better than any other place
yet suggested for a harbour of refuge. If one were to be
established between the Humber and the Forth, it would
therefore be necessary carefully to consider the site • but
at present it appeared to him wiser to finish some Of the
larger works in hand, on which considerable sums had al-
ready been spent. He had been advised, in respect to war
with any of the northern powers, that it would be an
error to build a harbour of refuge either upon the Tyne or
the Tees. Nature had done all that was necessary at Leith,
on the Forth, and on the Humber. These places possessed
all the facilities that could be desired under such circum-
stances. With regard to the great national harbour upon
the Humber, be had recommended a considerable outlay.
Lord SEYMOUR hoped the Government would not be
induced to embark in any more extensive harbours of
refuge without due consideration. A large sum had been
already expended upon them, and it would be desirable
that the Treasury should take care, in future estimates, to
show the suns required for the completion of the works,
and whether or not the original plan had been strictly car-
ried out.
Mr. WILSON observed that the whole of this informa-

tion was already before the house in a separate paper.
Sir G. PECHELL claimed consideration for the coasts
of Sussex and Hampshire, along which many wrecks oc-
curred in the course of the year. He denied that the
works at Alderney were a harbour of refuge; it wee •
breakwater for war purposes.
Mr. GIBSON said he had for some time past been trying
to find out a person who would undertake to say that the
Alderney expenditure was judicious. But he had not
succeeded in finding any such person ; and the only reason
now assigned for it was, that as the works were begun
they must be gone on with. He did not propose to pull
them down, but he doubted whether tke country would
benefit by the expenditure of 1,000,0001. sterling upon the
barren island of Alderney.
The vote was then agreed to.
On a vote being proposed of 6761. forpayof the establish.
mon tr.andfor
WILLIAMSnece.s saidsar t
necessary works
wo,coo
kas at Portpi.haci beenatrickxp
harbour,e(Mnded
on this harbour, and that Sir G. Clerk, when Secretary to
the Treasury, had promised that no more money should be
seueurreinndheirs
asked for it. The harbour wasinqculuitdeeudsienlestsh.
enesetiorabajeteete, to,
of papers
relatingttho oo etxoectuhtoteoptrshaeyomhf
aMernbrt.ooulffr,rweihetchforh
athe
possession
as secretary to the commissioners.
Mr. WILSON said the great object for which so much
money had been spent on this harbour no longer existed.
Portpatrick was no longer a packet station between Scot-
land and Ireland ; but it would be unwise to allow the works
to go out of repair for the sake of an expenditure of between
3001. and 4001. a-year. As to the item of 3001. to Mr.
11` Neel's executors, he certainly thought the papers ought
to have been given up ;
but the Treasury having taken a
legal opinion on the subject, he did not deem it expedient
to obtain them by going to law.
Colonel BLAlRdefended the maintenance of the harbour
as a means of keeping up the communication of this
country with Ireland.
After a few words from Sir J. WTAGGART and Mr.
KERR,
Mr. M`MAHON put in a claim for a harbour of refuge
on the east coast of Ireland. He recommended the coast
of Wexford or Wicklow, opposite Milford Haven.
The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote of 26,1181. for repairing and maintaining
public buildings in connection with the public works de•
nartmeHERBERT wished
in Ireland,
Mr r..
to ask whether the Government
contemplated the removal of the Encumbered Estates Court
from Henrietta-street, Dublin, to the general law courts ;
because its present position was most inconvenient to
those who were obliged to transact business there. He had
no doubt that property had frequently been sold much
below its value in consequence of the site of this court.
Mr. WILLIAMS called attention to the cost of the
lord-lieutenancy of Ireland, which was one of the greatest
mocks of royalty ever heard of. These estimates contained
items to the amount of no less than 50,000/. connected
with this institution. It was perfectly absurd to main•
tain, in connection with this " mock royalty," the same
description of officers as were in attendance upon the
Queen. There were items for the " State Steward's
house," " Chamberlain's house," " Comptroller's house,"
" Gentleman Usher's house," " Clerk Disbursement's
house," " First Aide-de-Camp's house," &c., all of which
it certainly could not bo necessary to maintain in order to
carry on the Government of Ireland. Then there was,
besides this, a secretary for that country. Now there was
no such officer for Scotland, and he believed that none was
required in Ireland.
Colonel DUNNE thought that the site of the Encum.
bared Estates Court was very well adapted to the trans.
action of the business for which it was established. It
was very well for the hon. member for Lambeth (Mr.
Williams) to object to the "mock royalty" of the lord•
lieutenancy, but the people of Ireland liked it ; and as to
the present vote, ho certainly thought that the only fault
to be found with it was, that it was not adequate to the
maintenance of the Irish public buildings in a proper state
of repair. It was considerably less than it had been in
former years.
Sir J. YOUNG admitted the inconvenience of the site
of the Encumbered Estates Court. It had, however,
proved impossible to find accommodation for it nearer the
Four Courts without erecting a new building • and the
estimates for this purpose amounted to 12,0001., a sum
which the Treasury would not consent to expend in con•
nection with a court whose duration, according to the pre•
sent act, was limited to two years.
Mr. VANCE remarked that the effect of the present
site of the Encumbered Estates Court was to prevent the
general bar of Ireland practising there, and to restrict the

'.~.
3`.;~ .~ is
~.=a ~,

'1
-0
ii
~„

. .
etce of suitors to a very limited body of professional
men. With respects to the remarks of the hon. member
for Lambeth, he did not hesitate to tell that hon. gentle-
man that the abolition of the lurd-lieutenantcy of Ireland
would supply the strongest possible argument for the re-
peal of the union.
Lord NA AS also commented upon the inconvenient si-
tuation of the Encumbered Estates Court. He did not
think that 12,000/. was a large sum in providing accommo-
dation for so important a tribunal ; and as to the argu-
ment that its duration was limited, he felt quite con-
vinced that, after experiencing the benefit of a cheap and
speedy mode of administering justice, the country would
require its jurisdiction to be permanently exercised, either
by the present or some other court, for which it would
stillhe requisite to erect a building.
Mr. F. SCULLY remarked that it was absurd that a
court which had during the last few years despatched
business to the amount of millions should be located in
two small houses on different sides of a street, which no
attorney in large practice would think sufficient for the
transaction of his business. He certainly thought that a
single building of adequate size, and in a convenient tutus-
tioe, should be provided for the reception of the court.
Mr. HUME certainly expected to have seen the lord
lieutenantcy of Ireland abolished long before this. With
respect to what had been said about the advantage of
" speedy justice," why, he would ask, if such great bene-
fits.had been received from this court, should they not
abolish the other tedious, dilatory,
(A. laugh.) and expensive courts.
Mr. aI`MA.HON remarked that the Encumbered Estates
Court was the most revolutionary tribunal which had been
established during the present century. He did not think
that its working was attended with practical advantage,
and he certainly hoped that it would not become one of
the permanent institutions of the country.
The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote of 13,370/. for Kingstown harbour.
Mr. H. HERBERT asked whether the works now going
en at Kingstown harbour were being constructed in ac-
cordance with Mr. Rendell's report?
Mr. WILSON was not aware of the exact state of the
case, but would make inquiry.
Colonel DUNNE recommended the postponement of the
vote, and would move an amendment to that effect.
• Sir J. YOUNG explained that it was necessary to give
the pier some additional projection, on account of the
heavy set of the sea into the harbour. Nothing would be
gained by the postponement of the vote, excepting the
stoppage of the improvement.
Lord NAAS wished to know if the pier would be ca-
pable of accommodating a larger and better class of vessels
and also if the railway would receive an extension of 200
or 300 yards now deficient.
Mr. MACARTNEY doubted whether the alteration of
the pier would answer the purpose of admitting a much
larger class of vessels.
Mr. H. HERBERT complained that none of the official
personages appeared to know anything of the matter.
Mr. F. FRENCH thought a breakwater at the mouth of
this harbour necessary.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the Tot e
agreed to.
A sum of 83,0761. was voted, to defray the salaries and
expenses of the houses of Parliament.
A sum of 29,521/. was voted, to defray the expenses of
the Solicitor of the Treasury.
A'vote of '25,1461. was proposed for salaries and expenses
in the department of the Treasury.
Vote agreed to.
A vote of 27,5221. was proposed for the salaries and ex-
penses of officers in the Home Department.
Mr. HUME wished to know whether any fees were now
collected. Their exaction was a grievance of long stand-
ing, and it had been an object of his for years past to abo-
lish them.
Mr. WILSON said that all sums receivable on account
•of fees wore now payable to the Consolidated Fund.
Mr. WALPOLE wished to put a question to the noble
lord the Secretary for the Home Department with refer-
ence to an announcement made that evening by the noble
lord the member for London, that a new Secretary of State
for the War Department was to be appointed. The noble
lord had stated that there was no intention of making any
alteration in the general arrangements of the military force
at present. As any alteration with respect to the manage-
ment of the militia might be very detrimental to the pub-
lic service, he should be glad to hear that there was no in-
tention of separating the control of the militia from the
Home Department.
Lord PALMERSTON said his noble friend (Lord J.
• Russell) had stated generally what the intentions of the
• Government were on this subject in an earlier part of the
evening, without entering into details ; and he (Lord Pal-
merston) was sure the house would perceive that it would
be better that the details should not be gone into until such
time as his noble friend brought the question fairly before
the house.
On the vote being proposed of 72,3721., for the salaries
and expenses of the department of the Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs, after a few words from Mr. Bowyer
and Lord Palmerston,
Toe vote was then agreed to.
The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote-40,550/. for the salaries and expenses of
the Colonial and War departments—was passed without
remark.
A vote of 68,600/. for the salaries and expenses of the
department of the Privy Council was then proposed.
Mr. G. M. BUTT observed that the salary of the clerk
of the Council in 1853 was 2,000/.•' for the present year it
was 2,5001. He understood that the gentleman who held
this office obtained it by a grant in reversion, and he pre-
sumed the salary was fixed. He would like to know,
therefore, under what circumstances the proposed addition
was made.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE thought it was absurd that
the clerk of the Council should receive a salary of 2,5001.,
whilst the salary of the Lord President was only 2,0001.
,Ir. G. BUTT understood that the clerk of the Council
held another office.
Mr. CARDWELL said the facts of the case were these.
The salary of the clerk of the Council was originally 2,5001.
but so long as the same gentleman held another office, con-
nected with the island of Jamaica, he received only 2,0001.
per annum. When he gave up that office, however, be
reverted to the original salary of 2,5001.
Mr. BUTT thought the committee had some reason to
complain that a change of this kind should take place with-
out their attention being called to the difference in the
vote. He thought the vote ought not to pass until some
further information was obtained. (Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER regretted
that an explanation of this increased salary had not been
appended to the vote, and he could only say that, if the
committee wished to have any further information on the
subject, he would have no objection to postpone the vote
fur that purpose. (Hear, hear.) The facts of the case had
been understated in one important particular. The office
held by Mr. Greville in connection with Jamaica was a
patent office, and the salary attached to it was much more
than 5001. per annum. Being a patent and sinecure office,
it was made the subject of special consideration by a com-
mittee of that house in 1835, and that committee, after a
very minute and detailed investigation of the case, came
to the conclusion that it was an office which Mr. Greville
was strictly entitled to retain for his life. He thought the
committee would be of opinion that it was worth while to
purchase the extinction of such an office by some increase
in the salary of Mr. Greville, as clerk of the Council. At
the same time, he had no objection that the vote should
be postponed.
Mr. V. SMITH observed that Mr. Greville never was
agent for Jamaica. He was secretary to the Assembly of
Jamaica ; and if the Assembly of Jamaica refused to grant
the supplies, that was not a reason for calling on this
country to pay the salary.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER believed
that when the whole statement was laid before the com-
mittee it would be found to be entirely satisfactory.
The vote was postponed.
The Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to
it again.

EXCHEQUER BONDS (6,000,0001.) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BILL.
Mr. AGLIONBY moved the second reading of this bill.
Ho expressed surprise that there should be any objection to
the bill, for although the machinery might not be perfect,
it could be amended in committee. The bill was opposed
by two parties—those who thought it too stringent, and
those who thought it not stringent enough. With regard
to the 9th clause, preventing solicitors who were clerks
to magistrates from practising, he would withdraw it if
such should be the general feeling of the house. Every one
would agree that the principle of the bill was good, and
that its objects were of great importance.
Mr. COBBETT objected to proceeding with so important
a measure at so late an hour of the night. Instead of les-
sening expense, he thought it would increase expense, and
it would certainly be productive of considerable inconve-
nience. He did not think it quite right that any person
should ba brought before two magistrates, and called upon
to plead, in the hurry of the moment, most likely without
any one at hand to advise him, to a charge of larceny. On
the other hand, there was great probability that indivi-
duals who had been twice or thrice convicted, and who
knew that, if they were committed to be tried at the
assizes or sessions, they would certainly be sentenced to
transportation, would avoid that punishment by pleading
guilty before the justices, when they knew that they could
cot be visited with any heavier penalty than a sentence of
1 0 months' imprisonment. Would not that operate as a
a",nnePtm tion to such persons as were in the habit of running
o et the country, living upon the commission of small
thefts, of articles of less value than 51., to persevere in the
Perpetration f
the u. . 0 such crimes ? Again, the magistrates and
the offences not unfrequently mistook the legal character of
Present bills, Which which a prisoner was charged, and if the
that it might not improbably happen
a Prison:L."ld Pass,
mated. to the esti:lightPlead before magistrates, and be re-
ho cern,to
sentenzees for sentence, and that the judge when
rnitted the offence fo him r
might find that ho had not corn-
him. It might happenor which he was called upon to punish
pleaded guilty before the also that a prisoner who had
justices might wish to retract
his plea when called up
huFratoleraoceive sentence ; what judge
evould refuse to
such
eto do so ? or how was the
case to be disposed of, under y circumstances, in the
absence of the prosecutor and wwtl'ei:ses ? He thought
went to the prin-
that these were strong objections,
ciple of the bill, and would move that it be read a second
time that day six months,
of expense
cases
Mr. ATHERTON opposed the bill. I
there would no doubt be a considerable
,suingn
but although economy was a good thing theprOpee7er
nistration of criminal justice was much more important.
The country was satisfied with the present administration
of '.he criminal law, but it was now preposed to dispense
torl.th it, and substitute for it the adjudication of the ma-
gistrate. Another objection to this bill was, that it pro-
posed to deal with the offence of larceny in an exceptional
character, and would throw impediments in the way of a
general amendment of the law.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE supported the second reading
of the bill, considering the objections to it of minor impor-
tauce, and that might be properly dealt with in committee.
Viscount PALMERSTON said the bill professed to deal
tvith that which certainly required a remedy. There
?night be imperfections in the bill, but as they were capa-
ble of being remedied in committee, he would recommend
the house to agree to the second leading. (Hear.)
Ur. CRAUFURD said that the experience of Scotland
told in favour of the
re() house divided, and the numbers were—
For the second reading
Against it 9
Majority for the second readine —so
The bill was therefore read a second time.
On the • RETURN.
motion of Mr AGLIONBY a return was ordered
of copies of any_desatcfees from the Court of Directors of
the East India Company to t
in council, in reply to the Governor-General of India
185:3 (in the home their letter dated 4th day of May
Department Railway, No. 4, of 1853,
and contained in Parlanaentry paper, No. 787, of session
185.3) ; and of any despatch-es
Madras and Bombay regarding to the overnments of
the measures adopted by
the court for extending railway undertakings in India.
The bolas adjourned at 0, quarter put one,