The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS FEBRUARY 17.
The SPEAKER took the ChairM
at a few minutes before four
o'clock, when .
Mr. CHILDERS took the oaths and his seat for Mahon, in
the room of Sir C. Pepys, now the Lord Chancellor.
GATESHEAD AND DURHAM RAILWAY.
Mr. PEASE brought up the report of the Committee on
the
bringin Gateshead and Durham Railway Bill. Leave given tq
Bill.

M. FINCH moved for leave to bring in a Bill to improve
the navigation of the river Welland. Leave given.
ht in a .Bill tr, make a
1 MANCHESTER AND CHESTER RAILWAY.
railway from Manchester to Chester. The 1-1"..m. Member
chester Railway Bill.
Mr. E. WILLIAMS brought in a Bill for the Improve,
ment of Wearmouth Dock.
GREENWICH AND GRAVESEND RAILWAY.
$
ir WM. GEARY presented a petition for leave to bring
in a Bill to make a Railwr...y from Greenwich to Gravesend.._
Leave given.
, Mr. itisir_il7,RSTElN presented a petition from Greenwich
in 1:::vour of the Gravesend and Greenwich Railway.
4 alsoMpr.reaßet.lteNdViaLpßetßitAioniliA:flavbouroruogf the Stto!!iport and Man_
MANCHESTER AND SALFORD RAILWAY.
Mr. BR OTHERTON brought up the Report of the Com-
mittee on this Bill, and obtained leave to bring in a Bill in
pursuance of the recommendation of the Committee.
• CARLISLE DOCKS.
Sir J. GRAHAM presented a petition from Cnrlisle, pray-
ing the House to pass a Bill for the improvement of the
docks at Carlisle.
GREAT WESTERN 11AILWAY. •
Mr. C. RUSSELL brouabt up the Report of the commit-
tee on the Great Westp_-,.-1, Raiiwa-y, recommendio-. an ahem-
tion in the line of. road. .
NOTTINGHAM CEMETF.Ity.
. C.r R. FERGUSSON presented a 7,etition from Notting-
ham, praying for a Bill to establish h. cemetery in that town.
HALIFAX RAILWAY.
Mr. LOWTHER presented a petition from the nierelnints
and tradesmen of York, in favour of the'railway from York 'to
Halifax.

SIDMOUTH HARBOUR:'
Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition frotn'SidmOutli,
praying for leave to bring in a Bill to make a harbour at-
Sidmouth.
The HON. MEMBER also presented a petition from l'tign -
mouth, praying for a Bill to improve the niVigation of the
River Tyne.

HAYLE RAILWAY.'' 'll*
Mr. PENDARVES brought. up the Tc;pot be Coin:
mittee on this Railway, and obtained leave to hag rut:all-01.
BEL FA ST HA RBD U R..
Mr. E. TENANT presented a pctition'trom 134fif4-4.14-44.4
ing.for a Bill to improve the harbour of Belfasr,--71% : 4
• • MR: BUCKINGHAM'S CLAIMP:.
Mr. FE-RG OS presented two petifidn'S in Ta':ollT',-prMiL4-C
Buckingham's CompensatiOn Bill. Helel7,geci, however;il6,
to be supposed at present to give any opir.,ion on the subet.' •
Mr. PENDARVES presented a :petition from a place in
Yorkshire in favour of Mr. Buckir:gharn's claims:
Petitions were presented by F. .SITiNV, and Mr. BUCK,..
INGHAM, the purport of whi'fa we did not -•
SIIIPWRECKS. ' •
The HON, MEiurjea' next presented `a: petition praying for
an inquiry into "die causes of frequent 'shipwrecks, particularly.
in migrant vessels. He cordially supported its prayer.
METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY.
Mr. WAKLEY said he bad a petition to PreseiVt on the
subject of a Metropolitan University, but as the ClAncellor of
the Exchequer, who had proinised to be in the 'douse at half-
past four, was not yet in his place,_ he would i-l'iefer its presenta-
tion until some fitture opportunity. , .
ENGLISH ,TITRE BILL:
Colonel THOMPSON notice of his intention, in
course of the progress of the Tithe. Coinnuitation, Bill for
England and Wales, to inove an amendment to the effect, that
of the amount award,ed by the Commissioners one half should
continue a money rent for ever, and the other half. a corn rent,
on the prineiPl.'a of the Bill.

WORKHOUSES.
Mrs URTEIS presented a petition prayinr, that rate-
-pay: I.s should have 20 years, instead of 10, for the repayment
of money advanced for building workhouses, under the New
Poor Law Bill.

PUBLICANS' LICENSES.
The same HON. MEMBER presented a petition from the
publicans and licensed victuallers of Sussex, complaining that
great damage had been done to their interests by the pro-
visions of the New Beer Bill, and praying for a consolidation
of the laws affecting their trade.
Captain PE CHE LL presented two petitions from Old and
New Shoreham and Worthing, on the same subject, and with
a similar prayer.

TITHES—(IRELAND.)
Dr. BALDWIN presented a petition from a parish in
Cork, praying for the abolition of tithes in rural districts, and
of minister's money in towns and cities.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, as a Protestant, felt
it his duty to support the prayer of the petition, and hoped in
whatever Bill might be introduced on the subject of tithes, Ro-
man Catholics should be exempted altogether from that im-
post.

Lord HENNIKER and Mr. GUEST presented petitions, but
we could not catch the purport of them.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
An HoN. MEMBER presented a petition complaining of agri-
cultural distress, and praying for an inquiry into the causes
thereof.

Lord DARLINGTON presented a petition, signed by
1,400 individuals, the most respectable landowners and occu-
piers in the county of Suffolk, on the same subject.
Both petitions were referred to the Agricultural Committee.
Mr. HO WARD presented a petition, complaining of agri-
cultural distress, and praying for inquiry.—Referred to the Se-
lect Committee.
Lord G. MANNERS presented petitions from the owners
and occupiers of land in Walton, North Leicestershire, and
Bury St. Edmund's, on the subject of Agricultural distress.
Sir J. TYRRELL presented a petition from Chelmsford,
South Essex, on the same subject, and expressed his regret
that his Hon. Friend, the Member for Malden, did not perse-
vere in his motion to have Mr. Bramstone's name added to the
agricultural Committee.

-Dr. BO WRING—If Hon. Members wbo represent the
agricultural interest would only look around them, they would
find that the only part of the world where agricultural distress
prevailed was where Corn Laws existed. The Hon. Member
was proceeding, when
The SPEAKER interposed, and put it to the Hon. Gen-
tleman whether it was proper to enter upon a discussion on
the presentation of a petition, the subject matter of which had
already been referred to a Committee.

Mr: L ENN A R D had a right to complain that his Rrnposition
for adding the name of his Hon. Friend Mr. t3ramstone
to the Committee on Agricultural Distress bad not been
acceded to. He hoped that the Noble Lord, the Secretary
for the Home Department would delay 11:s Bill for the commu-
tation of tithes, until the Report of The Committee had been
received.

Mr. H. GRATTAN was about to make some observations
upon Mr. Goulburn's Bill, as it regarded the Irish tithes,
when he was interrupted by
The SPEAKER, who reminded the Hon. Member that as
the petition was to be referred to the Agricultural Committee,
the present was not a proper opportunity for raising a discus-
sion upon Hear, hear.)
Mr. GRATT AN explained.
Sir J. T YRRE L presented petitions from other places
in Essex to the same effect; also a petition from a union of
parishes under the Poor Law Amendment Act, in the same
county, complaining of the occupiers of land being taxed more
heavily than the owners of land for the building of work-
houses. The petitioners also prayed that the time for making
payments under the Bill might be extended from 10 to 20
years. As he (Sir J. Tyrrell) believed that matter was
under the consideration of his Majesty's Government, he should
nut, therefore, say more upon the subject at that moment.
STEAM NAVIGATION ON THE THAMES.
Mr. GROTE presented a petition from the lightermen and
watermen of the City of London, praying that some regulation
might be made relative to the navigation of steamers on the river
Thames. There had been a serious loss of .life, and much
injury to the property and business of the petitioners by the
rapid rate at which the steamers were propelled.—.(Hear.)
He moved that the petition be referred to the Committee on
the Port of London.--Agreed to. •

THE EXCISE.
Mr. O'BRIEN presented a petition from an individual
named Powell, complaining of having been dismissed from the
Excise without any just grounds, and praying that an investi-
gation might take place into the circumstances.

- CHANCERY.
Mr. HUME moved that the return of the Masters in Chan-
cery presented to that House on the 2nd of Februaryk.printed.
VOTERS.—(IRELAND.)
The HON. CENTI.EMAN begged to amend the motion► of
which lie had given notice last night, relative to the electors
entitled to vote for Members of Parliament in Ireland. He
begged to include the persons entitled to vote in every city,
county of a city, town, and borough in Ireland, under the Ist
and 2d William IV., chap. 18, with the amount of qualifica-
tion. The Hon. Member then gave notice, that he should
to-morrow move for certain returns respecting the Commer-
cial-road Trust.

CARLOW ELECTION.
Mr. WALLACE gave notice that he would move to-
morrow (this day) for a commission to investigate the alle-
gations contained in the petition presented from Mr. Vigors.
PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL.
, ar'''.4 he found
Mr. EWA RT moved the second reading of this Bill,
Sir E. WILMOT hoped the House would not th.ank biln,
ard;ainst it. He
pertinacious in opposing this Bill again. He had ratttl.o it his
entirely business to inquire into the matter since last
t year,
that a great majority of the Judges were
_.
oefni
had been wrong in stating that
found
Bill
titi.9 •
year was carried
by a majority of only one; he
_r, :
svmt n, but that was no
great majority.- (Hear.) He content,; (..isl, I
iliat he was right, when
he before stated, that acc.ordong to ,he Bill, the Counsel far
the prisoner would In entitled to four speeches. He was of
opinion that r.:, Time or melley should be lost. in obtaining the
ends of
j:-.„stice ; but he thought both would.be thrown away
by
t'- Bill, and-he was sure that ' '
..., present if it was. carried it would
not carry out the intentions of the Hon. Member -for Liver-
pool; and that the prisoners themselves would, be the first to
cry out against it. He quoted the grounds of objection urged
against the Bill last session by Lords Brougham and Den-.
man, and concluded by moving that the .Bill be read a: second
time that day six mouths. , Mr. O'CONNELL said that the law on i the subject as t.
at present stood was abominable. Nothing could be moi-e,
frightfully unjust. In a criminal prosecution the prosecy'or's

counsel might make two speeches, while the prisoner's counsel
was not allowed to say one word. There were cases of cir-
cumstantial evidence in which, unless counsel were allowed
to interfere, the facts must remain unexplained. He had
known instances in which prisoners could not possibly have
been convicted had counsel been allowed to plead in their
favout. He remembered a case of three brothers who had
been convicted, when he was satisfied that if he had been al-
lowed to speak for only five minutes he would have proved
their innocence. The law in its present state was disgraceful
to the country, and ought to be amended.
Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK perfectly agreed with the
and Learned Member for Dublin, that the law in its
present state was disgraceful to that House, and dangerous to
the community. He begged to ask the Hon. Baronet whether,
if he were under a criminal charge, he would not desire to have
counsel? --Why should not the same privilege be
.allowed in
criminal as was allowed in civil cases? It was said that the
judge was the counsel for the prisoner. He could not be so.
The judge was not in communication justice
that the prisoner ; and
i
could not know his defence. It was ndispensable- to
that the prisoner's counsel should have the last
word. He ( Sir
F. Pollock) held it to be essential that the prisoner's counsel
should have the last word. Ile had frequently known a good
defence to be kept back through the fear of the reply on the
part of the counsel for the prosecution. He entirely concurred
In the principle and objects of this Bill.
Mr. POULT ER. would never give his consent to the in-
troduction into every case of felony of a speech for the pri-
soner. It would destroy the present system of criminal juris-
prudence, and would be injurious rather than beneficial to the
prisoner. -
Mr. LYNCH supported the Bill. In every country of
Europe the privilege of being heard by counsel was allowed
the prisoner ; and even in this country it was not prevented
by statute, but only by usage.
Mr. Sergeant GOUL BURN said that the present attempt
to improve the law went beyond what the necessity of the
case required.
Dr. LUS HINGTON was decidedly in favour of the Bill ;
and when it was said by those who opposed it that the sole
weight of the bar, and the whole authority of the bench, was
ranged against it, he would only observe that the Noble and
Learned Lord, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, whose
situation as Common Sergeant in the City of London had
given him great experience in the administration of criminal
law, had expressed to him (Dr. Lushington) a deep and
anxious wish for the success of a measure of this description.
—( Hear.) He (Dr. Lushington) agreed with the Hon. and
Learned Member for Huntingdon (Sir F. Pollock), that the
law in its present state was a disgrace to the country.
Colonel PERCEVAL defended the administration of cri-
minal justice in Ireland, and denied the truth of the impu-
tations which had been cast upon it by the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had heard nothing in the
course of the debate of that evening which tended in the
slightest degree to alter the opinion which he had formed upon
this subject very early in his professional career. It had been
stated by those who were opposed to the measure that no mem-
bers of the legal profession who had practised much in the
Crown Courts had expressed an opinion in its favour. Now
it so happened, that nearly the whole of the first part of his
professional life had been passed in the Crown Courts, and
from the experience he had thus acquired of the administration
of criminal law, he was strongly of opinion that a measure of
this description was absolutely necessary to vindicate the law
of England from a deep and disgraceful stain.—( Hear, hear.)
'There was no reason why counsel should not be allowed to
speak for the prisoner in cases of felony as well as in cases of
misdemeanour.—( Hear, hear.) The anomaly which the law
as it now stood presented upon that point he conceived to be a
scandal upon the administration of justice in this country.._.
(Hear, hear.) That some inconvenience might result from
the change was no reason why a glaring injustice should be
allowed to remain.,—( Hear, hear.) It was high time that the
scandal should be removed. Therefore, although he thought
that some of the details might require alteration, he should
give to the principle of the present Bill his firm and cordial
support.--( Hear, hear.)
Mr. CRIPPS thought that if the Bill were passed pri-
soners would not be so well off as they were under the present
system.
Mr. PLUMPTRE said that the question was, whether the
practical working of such a Bill would be beneficial to pri-
soners. If he could persuade himself that it would be really
advantageous to them, he should give it his warmest support.
But he confessed that, as at present informed, he entertained
very strong doubts upon the point.
The question was then put, and the House divided.
For the second reading
For the amendment
---144

Majority
The Bill having been read a second time,
Sir F. POLLOCK recommended, that instead of being
committed to a Committee of the whole House, it should be
referred to a select Committee.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that that would
certainly be the better course.
Mr. EWART said that the subject had already been under
the consideration of a select Committee, upon whose report the
Bill was founded. He thought it unnecessary, therefore, that
it should again be sent before a select Committee.
Mr. C. BuLLER, Mr. AGLIONIIY, and Mr. O'CONNELL were
strongly of opinion that the Bill should now be referred to a
select Committee of the House of Commons. Evidence had
been taken upon the subject before the Lords' Committee, to
which it was necessary that some reply should be made. This
could only be done by referring it to a select Committee of the
Commons.
The SPEAKER said that it was for the House to consi-
der whether it would not be better to adhere to the principle,
that all evidence should be heard before the second reading of
any Bill.
After a few observations by the Attorney-General, Mr.
Warburton, Sir F. Pollock, and Mr. O'Connell,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that it would be sanctioning
a bad practice if, after a Bill had been read a second time,
approving of the principle, they were to let in evidence.
At the same time he thought there was no objection to the
sending of this Bill to a Select Committee, in order to examine
and sift its details.
After a few words from Mr. PR YME and Mr. EWART,
it was agreed that the Bill should be referred to a Select
Committee, to be appointed to-morrow (this day), but not with
power to hear evidence.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND
MARRIAGES BILL : AND CELEBRATION OF
MARRIAGE BILL.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL brought up these Bills, which
were read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time
on Friday week.
TITHES' COMMUTATION BILL.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said that the second reading of
this Bill was appointed for Monday next ; but the copy of the
Bill had only been delivered yesterday; and as many persons
were interested in it who lived at a distance, he hoped the
Noble Lard would give farther time for its consideration before
bringing on the second reading.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that the principle of the
Bill had been suffieiently borne out and discussed. He was
fully aware of the great importance of its provisions, and as
in all Bills some part of :he wording required alteration, he
was always desirous that its provisions should undergo full dis-
cussion ; so he wished the present Bill to be fully discussed in
Committee. He therefore hoped it would be allowed to be
read a second time on Monday, and then he should be happy
to attend to the convenience of the parties interested, es to the
time for taking into consideration its details. He would take
this opportunity to answer a question which was put to him
the other night respecting tithes on minerals. There was no
provision in the Bill respecting those tithes. It had beers
found necessary to make several exceptions in the Bill, and this
was one of them.
INTIMIDATION AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. PO CLTER obtained leave to bring in a Bill to pre-
vent the use of threats and intimidation in the election of
Members to serve in Parliament.
SPAIN.
Mr. MACLE A N postponed his motion, of which he had
given notice :—" That it was contrary to sound policy, and
inexpedient for this country to interfere in the affairs of Spain,
except by friendly mediation, or by those means which were
pointed out by the Quadruple Treaty, and its additional Ar-
ticles," till Monday next, when the Navy Estimates will be
brought on.
THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Mr. HAWES rose to move that it be an instruction to the
Committee appointed to consider and report upon the plans
for the two Houses of Parliament, to inspect all the plans
which had been submitted to his Majesty's Commissioners,
&c., and to receive the estimates of the said plans from such
architects as might be willing to furnish them to the Com-
mittee. By making this motion, he did not intend to cast
any reflection, directly or indirectly, on the Commissioners ;
but he deemed the inspection of all the plans necessary, in
order to convince the public that in selecting a plan for a
building adequate to the purposes of the Legislature the
decision came to was right and proper. It would give the
public greater confidence in that decision. The course he
was anxious to pursue would by no means open up the whole
question again, which he particularly wished to avoid.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, after
stating the course that had been taken (and which has been
repeated two or three times already during the present ses-
sion) by the House of Commons in relation to these plans, de-
clared it to be his opinion, that if the motion of the Hon. Gen-
tleman were adopted, it would in point of fact, be opening the
whole case afresh. Of course the Committee would avail
themselves of the opportunity of inspecting the whole ninety-
four plans that had been sent in to the Commissioners ;
but if
the House were, by special instructions, to impose upon the
Committee the duty to inspect all those plans, it would subject
them to the greatest difficulty arid embarrassmenet.
After a few words from Mr. JE PH SON (vv believe),
Sir R. PEEL asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
whether, when parties were invited to send in plans for the
new Houses of Parliament, there was any public notice given
of any limitation of the expense? For instance, were the
persons invited to send in plans upon the assumption that Par-
liament would vote 500,0001„ or any other given sum, for the
purposes of constructing the new Houses of Parliament? If
not, and if the matter of expense was left a perfectly indefinite
question, he was riot at all surprised that one plan might obtain
great preference over every other plan, although, under other
circumstances, it might not be entitled to that preference, An
artist might have sent in a plan, drawn on the assumption that
one million would be expended on the new buildings, and upon
that assumption he might obtain a great advantage over a more
penurious artist, who assumed that not more than 300,000/.
would be voted. Although, therefore, an artist might be en-
Aided to the reward granted by Parliament, if that reward were
givea to the best plan, without reference to expense, yet an-
other artist, who combined the two considerations of a good
phis and an economical expenditure of the public money,

might possibly, on those two combined considerations, to
entitled to a preference ? He therefore wished to know
whether the parties invited to send in plans had any instruc-
tions with respect to the expense which Parliament might pos-
sibly sanction ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the whole proceeding respecting the new Houses of Parlia-
. went had been the proceeding of the House of Commons,
and that the course adopted by the Government respecting
the plans had been controlled by the resolutions of a Com-
mittee up stairs. No limitation whatsoever with respect to
expence was contained in those resolutions ; the principal ob-
ject was to get the best plan that could be obtained of a
building for the accommodation of the Legislature, and the
artists were left entirely free as to the article of expence—no
restriction being imposed on them, except as to the style of
building. As no limitation of expence was imposed, of course
all the architects were upon equal terms, except so far as one
architect might let his imagination lead him very wide with
regard to expence and decoration, while another might be
more moderate in his conceptions.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—Another particular practical ques-
tion which he wished to ask was, upon what principle the
Commissioners, appointed by the Government to make the
selection of the plans, had awarded the prizes ? Was their
decision made upon the mere abstract consideration that those
were the best plans that were the most beautiful, and that
were calculated to afford the most accommodation ; or did
they also take into account what the expence of the erection
might be ? •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—No, no.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—Then, really, the Commissioners
E. had gone upon a plan that might, very easily, give one man's
plan a preference over another, which, if practically consi-
dered, would not be entitled to that preference. For, if an
artist sent in a plan, upon the assumption that five millions
t would be expended on the building, he must have a decided
advantage over others, whose assumptions were not so extra-

vacant.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The
only things the Commissioners could take into account, were
the beauty and the convenience of the plans ; because the mat-
ter of expense never could be brought before them at all—
they had only to decide on which was the best plan.
Mr. HUME said that the Right Honourable Baronet was
quite correct in the view he took as to the proceedings of the
artists. He was sorry that in the course of their proceedings
they had made one or two serious errors. In the first place
they made a grievous error in allowing Commissioners to
be appointed at all until the plans were given in ; because he
was informed (he might be misinformed) that some of those
very gentlemen (although the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had said that it could not be) had seen some of the plans be-
fore they were submitted to their selection as Commissioners.
He had been told that some of the plans were exhibited to a
great many individuals, among whom were the Commissioners
themselves, by the architects, before they were sent in ; and
as those Commissioners were accustomed to see architectural
drawings it was quite impossible that it should be otherwise.
Indeed he had been informed that the successful candidate,
Mr. Barry, had exhibited his plan before it was sent in. He
(Mr. Hume) had not seen it, but it was said that the Commis-
sioners had inspected the very plan that had been selected as
the best out of Court. That was one mistake. The next
was with regard to the expense. He could only say on his
own behalf, that it was not his fault, for he had suggested that
a limitation of the expense should be a part of the recommen-
dation of the Committee. He regretted that the House had
not allowed the exhibition of all the plans sent in—both those
which had been accepted and those which had been rejected—
together, in order that the public might have an opportunity of
contrasting them, and forming a fair and competent opinion on
the subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged to
express his most entire and unqualified belief that there had
been no communication between the Commissioners and the
architects, and that no plan had been submitted to their in-
spection until the proper period arrived.—( Hear, hear.) So
little was known on the subject to the candidates themselves,
that one of the preferred parties had even taken steps in con
junction with one of the disappointed architects to exhibit his
plan with others that had been rejected, when to his surprise
and delight he found that his design had been approved of.
Mr. WARBURTON thought there could not be a greater
absurdity than to require an estimate from different architects,
inasmuch as the opinions of different individuals about even the
cost and value of the materials varied considerably.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS expressed his belief that the Com-
mittee had not the power either of requiring estimates from
the different architects who had sent in plans, or of limiting
them to any particular expense.
Sir FREDERICK TRENCH was certain immense diffi-
culties would have been avoided if a maximum of expense had
been fixed. He had no doubt that the best plans had been
selected, but he had as little doubt that to carry out and com-
plete any one of them would cost two millions of money.—
( Hear, hear.) After all, none of the plans which had been
selected by the committee might be approved of by Parliament,
and then the House would have to begin afresh. The whole
of the plans sent in were about to be exhibited ; and if any
Hon. Member saw one which he considered to possess greater
merit than any of the four selected by the Committee, be
would have an opportunity of stating his opinion to the House.
Mr. HUGHES HUGHES begged to state to the House a
fact which would perhaps tend to show that the expense need
not be so great as some Hon. Members had anticipated. It
was this—one architect who sent in a design was told that it
would be impossible to erect so magnificent a structure as he
proposed, unless at an enormous expense. His reply was, "It
might be well done for 500,0001."
Mr. CHARLES WYNN did not imagine that the esta-
blishment of a maximum of expense would have been attended
with any great benefit. It was very easy to fix a maximum,
but how was it to be enforced ? It was impossible that any archi-
tect could give security that his original estimate of 300,000/.
should not ultimately be nearer 500,000/. or 600,000/.
Lord STANLEY was very desirous to correct an erro-
neous impression which had gone abroad relative to the award
of the Commissioners. He had seen it very generally stated
that they had awarded 1,500/. to the gentleman who had sent
in the first plan, and 5001. to each of the other architects
whose designs they approved of. Now, unless he was much
mistaken, they had no power to make any such award. All
they had to do was this—to select a number of plans, not less
than three, nor more than five, to be referred to a Committee
to be appointed subsequently, composed of Members of both
Houses of Parliament ; and to declare each of these plans en-
titled to a premium of 500/. A further recommendation of
the Committee was, that the architect of the plan ultimately
selected, if lie were not employed to build the Houses of Par-
liament, should receive a further premium of 1,0001.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted
the accuracy of his Noble Friend's recollection of the extent
of the powers entrusted to the Committee.
Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN trusted that the gentlemen who
had devoted their time and talents to this very important ser-
vice, would receive adequate remuneration.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. HAWES replied, and said he would leave the case for
the decision of the House.
Lord SAN DON observed that it had been hardly ever
found, in any ease, that an architect was enabled to give in a
correct estimate of the probable expense of a building,
until it was actually erected. He hoped the principle of
the resolution which had been moved by the Honourable
Member for Southwark would be recognized and adopted by
the House.
The gallery was then cleared for a division.
The numbers were—
Ayes
Noes
Majority -72
NAVIGATION OF THE SHANNON.
Lord CLEMENTS rose to move for a copy of the instruc
tions given to the Commissioners appointed under 5 and 6
William IV., c. 67, for the improvement of the river Shan-
non, with the date of their appointment and the date of their
• first meeting in the capacity of Commissioners. The Noble
Lord was convinced that the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer was most anxious to forward the
improvement of the river Shannon, but he feared that the
slowness with which ;the Commissioners were carrying on
their labours, might be an effectual obstacle to its final accom-
plishment. The labours of the Commission might, he thought,
have been discharged gratuitously, and much more speedily.
Ever since the Union, Ireland had been promised assistance
from Government for the improvement of the Shannon, but he
confessed he saw no prospect of its termination. He wished
to know from the Right Hon. Gentleman, was there any pro-
spect of its being terminated within the period of our natural
lives ?—( Oh, oh.) Was it intended to apply to Parliament
for additional powers ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
the only objection made by his Noble Friend was, that he had
been too cautious before lie consented to an outlay of public
money. To that charge he pleaded guilty. He certainly had
been cautious and most prudent, It was necessary to have do.
cuments and plans, and the amount of money necessary, before
any was expended. It was quite true that gratuitous assist-
ances might have been obtained ; but if the individuals who
gave this assistance possessed the necessary local knowledge,
they would also possess considerable local bias, which would
be greatly disadvantageous to the progress of the work. It
was right to see that, in the expenditure of public money, none
of it was converted to the interest of private individuals,
Mr. F. FRENCH thought that much, if not all, of the de-
lay which had taken place was attributable to the Right Hon.
Gentleman who had just sat down, because be had not brought
in his Bill until August, and the Commission was not appointed
for four months afterwards,
Mr. HUME thought there was no ground for censuring the
• Chancellor of the Exchequer, who could not have acted other•
wise than he did. There was the utmost necessity for precau-
tion, and for fully considering the question before any money
was granted
Colonel CONOLLY agreed with the Right Hon. Gentle-
man opposite, that there was great necessity for deliberation.
He would take leave to suggest that the money should be lent
at the lowest rate of interest that it could possibly be procured
at. —( Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. O'BRIEN regretted that the Commission was not
appointed when the Bill was passed. He thought, however,
• that when it was appointed, it consisted of very fit and proper
persons,
After a few words from Mr. Warburton Mr. O'Connell,
Colonel Trench, and Mr, M. O'Connell', the motion was
ILUANcIISI3Put Os
aUidr
thlaLt Oh
eF
agreed to.
rosei)t9:ll.rii4Onformity
Mr, 113
with the notice which he had given, to move for the appoint-
ment of a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances
attending the late election of the municipal council of the
borough of Poole. If the circumstances which were stated
in the petition which he held in his hand from a number of
the inhabitants of Poole were heard before the Committee, he
felt that he should be justified in asking permission of the

~ 48
120