The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-11 00:00:00

nzei- ssity of filling up the stores with a supply of arms mquired
fit the public service, of a better description than those
hitherto used. The sum, .therefore, of 70,0001. was by
5,000/. greater than the vote of last year, but in it was in-
cluded the vote he mentioned for the general supply of stores.
The Commissariat estimates of last year were considerably
higher, in consequence of the high price of forage. There
would be this year a diminution of 19,6661. in that depart-
ment. In consequence of the removal of the stores in
Tooley-street to the Tower, an increase bad taken place.
The removal of the depot in Toolcy-street had cost 'the
Government 8,705/. Of these premises the public held a
lease for en unexpired term of years, which had been sold for
10,1501.,fullycovering all the expenses incurred by the removal
of the depot, and leaving a residue of 1,4151. There would
like rise be a saving of 3,300/. annual rent to the public, by
reason of this change. There was another important
feature in the present estimates, viz., the ordenance survey
of Great Britain and Ireland. The amount of this
item last year was 10,500/. The sum proposed
for the present year was 13,000/., being an in-
crease of 2,500/. .This work, however, when completed,
would be highly beneficent to the empire, and well worth
the money which had been expended on it. The amount for
the Irish survey was the same as last year, namely, 40.000/.
The whole was under the superintendence of Caleby,
whose name was a guarantee for the manner in which the
work would be conducted. In the Barrack department there
would be a saving of 22,940/., although upwards of 4,0001.
had been expended for repairs on barracks in the West Indies
in consequence of damages sustained through the late hurri-
cane. He should state to the House what would be sufficient
to show that that branch of the public service was carried
on with all possible attention to economy, whiteat the same
time the accommodation of the troops was amply provided
for, which would show that that establishment was on a
very different footing from what it was before it came under
the control of the Board of Ordnance. Previous to thet
period the barrack expenditure far Great Britain amounted
to 143,809/., being at the rate of Si. 1 ls. per man ; and in
1835 it only amounted to 64,118/., being -at the rate of
31.95. 4d. per man. In Ireland the branch expenditure in
' amounted to 134,838/. being at the rate of 4/.lls. per
man, and;rt 1835 the expenditure was only 54,919/., being
at the rate ot" 4 10s. 9d. When it was recollected that
not less than 13L: ~?
726 men were to be provided for out of
.
"ild not be considered too much,
this expenditure, it cam.
mportance that it should be
because it was of the greatesC
A would, he believed,
kept in a state of efficiency. The H0t,..-ng might rea-
admit that the sum now asked was as little
nar-
sonably be supposed absolutely necessary for that, .
ticular branch. He had stated briegy some of -the
items of the Ordnance Estimates, and he had also
stated that it was not necessary to trespass at aay great
length ; but he would call the attention of the House to the
particular circumstance, which was the absoluts necessity of
keeping the Ordnance establishment up to an efficient and
serviceable state. When the importance of that depart-
ment was considered, he trusted the House would on the
present, as on former occasions, support that branch of
the public service, and vote those supplies. It was of
the greatest moment, particularly in the event of a
.war, that this establishment should be on an efficient foot-
ing, so.as to meet the demands of the public service, and
reflect credit on the country to which it belonged.
He would conclude by movieg that a sum not exceeding
67,0961. be granted to his Majesty for defraying the expense
of the Civil Department of the Ordnance Office—Granted ;
as were also the following sums ;-8,181/. for the Civil
Establishment of Woolwich ; 13,890/. for defraying the
expse of the Home Stations ; 27,778/. for the stations in
Ireland and abroad ; 33,968/. for the Barrack Department ;
4,447/. for the payment of the Master Gunners' Depart-
ment in the islands of Jersey, Guernsey, &c. ; 73,321/. for
the payment of the Corps of Royal Engineers, Sappers and
Miners, in Ireland and the Colonies ' • 274,496/. for the main-
tenance of the regiment of Royal Artillery ; 36,045/. for
the Royal Horse Artillery ; 602/. for the Royal Train ;
10,129/. for the payment of the Medical Department.
A sum of 29,240/. for defraying Ordnance Works ;
10,672/. for Storekeeper's Expenditure ; 29,2401. for Su-
neriatendants of Buildings and repair of Barracks; 53,526/.
for Building and Repair of Barracks in Great Britain and
Ireland ; 57,753/. for Defraying Barrack-Master's Expen-
ditures and Allow antes ; 131,113/. for Defraying the Mili-
tary, Civil, and Barrack Contingencies of Great Britain
and the Colonies ; a suns of 75,000/. for the Supply of
Small Arms and Stores.
A sum of 20,000/. for the repairs of foreign works, and
for works in progress under the sanction of Parliament.
A sum of 5,418/. for services performed by the Office of
Ordnance, not provided for by Parliament.
A sum of 159,617/. for military and civil superannuation
allowances.
Sir A. L. HAY said that the last vote which he had to
propose was for the purpose of buying bread, meat,
forage, coals. candles, &c.—(A laugh.) Before he
moved this vote, he hoped that the House would take into
consideration that increased duties were imposed on the
Office of Ordnance, and he hoped they would believe that
however much it might be represented that that Office bad
nothing to do, they certainly had very considerable duties
to perform. He hoped that Honourable Members would
disabuse their minds of any false imposition that there were
three or four gentlemen in that office who had nothing to
do . He proposed that 141,317/.le granted to defray the
expenses of buying bread, &c.—Granted.
NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. •
Sir ROBERT PEEL wished to ask the Chancellor
of the Exchequer a question connected with the ex-
hibition of the plans of the New Houses of Parliament,
He had received several communications which led him to
believe that great dissatisfaction prevailed on the part] of
those wile were not the successful competitors on two
groundsr One was that architects were specifically ex-
cluded from permission to see the plans that were successful.
He had a letter from a—very eminent gentleman who went
with a friend, and applied for permission tosee the 4 plans.
His friend was admitted, but he, being an artist, was told
that he was specially excluded by order of the Woods and
Forests. There might be zood reason for this, but it seemed
very ungracious to exclude all prefessional men. The
other point was that the successful plans were not exhibited
in common with the others. One plan, the successful one,
there might be some reason for not exhibiting, but be saw
no reason why the three others should not, be exhibited.
He hoped that measures would be derived by which the
three selected plans should be exhibited with the others
according to the •original intention. That was the first
point on which he wished for information ; and the
second question he had to ask was why the architects
were excluded from a view of the three successful designs.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
not enabled to give any answer to one of the questions of
tho Right Hon. Baronet ; but he hoped shortly to obtain
such information as wouid be quite satisfactory. He believed
that his Noble Friend did net feel justified in orderin that
the 3 successful designs should be sent along with the others
to the exhibition until the Committee had come to some final
determination with respect to it ; for the determination
in favour of Mr. Bairy's plan was as yet only provisional,
and under these circumstances the Noble Lord, perhaps,
felt that he had no right to allow the plans, Nos. 2,3, and
4, to pass out of his custody. He believed, however, that
on Monday next the Committee would resume its sitting?,
and lie hoped in one or two days they would be oble to con-
clude the preliminary part of the inquiry, and thus by Tues-
day or Wednesday next he trusted the two plans and Mr.
Bairy's also would be added to the collection. As to the
other question, he was not aware of the grounds for
excluding persons of the agricultural profession from L.
view of the successful designs. lie knew that great alarm
was entertained by the artists themselves, lest any sketh or
unauthorized publication of their designs should be given
to the public ; and they felt that there was greater danger
from persons of their profession than from ordinary iii-
viduals.
Mr. HAWES intended to mention the circumstance
noticed by the Right Hon, Baronet, and he wished to
know why it was that not only the architects generally
were excluded, but some of them by name. It was, he
believed, in the power of the Committee to order
the plans to be exhibited ; and he was per-
fectly sure if the Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated
the wish of Government that they should be set before the
public, that wish would be complied with. He also wished
to know whether the engraved plan of Mr. Barry's design
would be according to the original, or that which it was
understood would be cut down to suit the estimate to be
moved for.
Mr. HUME could not understand why the plans should
not all be exhibited together. It appeared to him that
there was no just ground for the exclusion of the public
from the favoured one, and far less was there any for
the exclusion of the architects generally, or more par-
ticularly the unsuccessful ones. He hoped that even
Mr. Barry's plan would be exhibited in its original state,
and not as it was after it had been cut down in order to
suit the estimates—the public and the unsuccessful archi-
tects had a right to that.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEHUER said
the Committee had not yet dacided upothneyancyouolfd the plans,
and until they had he did not see that
them. If they did so they would defeat the very
which the Committee had in view. Before
the object
partuboje with
House
was called upon to acquiesce in any plan, they should be
publicly exhibited.
Sir JOHN SINCLAIR could see no reason shy the
whole of the plans should not be exhibited. At all events,
It was clear that justice would not be done if the original
plan, as sent in by Mr. Barry, was not exhibited.
Mr. HAWES hoped, at any rate, Members of that
House might have the privilege of taking in one architect
with him. A Noble Lord (a Member) had made the
attempt, and found that the architect was excluded by name.
No doubt there might be many more in the same way.