The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-02 00:00:00

foreign power in question for permission that vessels with
the mails might pass, but he had not yet received an
answer to the application.
Mr. G. SANDARS bad been informed that as many
as 36 vessels, most of which were foreign, had been
allowed to pass this blockaded port.
Lord PALMERSTON said Government had sent out
a steamer to ascertain if the blockade was completed,
but the shores of the Elbe could not be so effectually
blockaded as to keep out all vessels. No doubt some
Teasels had effected an entrance at night, but it must be
remembered thy: they did so at a risk, and were liable
to be afterwardi seized and condtemned.
SUPPLY.
The House then went into Committee of Supply.
On the question that 103,4671. be granted for addi-
tions and repairs of Royal Palaces,
Mr. B. OSBORNE said no man in the House had
greater respect for the Sovereign of the country than
himself. While he was sure he was only expressing the
feeling of the House in saying that he was most anxious
that the Sovereign should be lodged in a way that would
do credit to the country and the station she occupied
in Europe, at the same time he thought the House
was bound to inquire into the system in which these
enormous sums were year after year brought before the
House of Commons for public palaces. He was sure the
Sovereign would he the last individual in the country to
wish that system to continue without proper inquiry being
made into it. Now on the first page of this estimate he
saw 7501. for Buckingham Palace ; but if the House
would take the trouble to turn over the next few
pages. they would find an additional sum of
50,0001. fur the same building. By the report
of a Committee appointed in 1831 to inquire
into the state of Windsor and Buckingham Palaces
it appeared that, exclusive of the marble arch, there had
been expended on Buckingham Palace no less a sum
than 613,2961, which, added to the 150,0001. granted last
year, made an aggregate sum of 763,2961., besides the
grants for furniture, &c. Now, for such a sum as that
they ought to have been able to build a palace fitting
the Sovereign of the country, instead of which they had
got a patched up building, erected in a hole. So
much, then, for BuckinghamPalace.—(Laughter.)
He had not the least disrespect for the Sovereign, but
he could not forbear calling attention to a vote of 6,5001
for new stables at Windsor, and for supplying them
with water. Then, again, flushing and cleansing the
drains was charged at 16,5501. The Noble Lord at the
head of the Government stated, last night, that where
round figures were put down that it meant that a further
sum would be required. He, therefore, called particular
attention to the vote, because it might be inferred
that it was only preliminary to a further sum. The
House might say that it was a small sum ; but he found
from the report of the Committee of 1841, that the
expenditure upon Windsor Castle, from 1824 to 1836,
had amounted to the enormous sum of 1,498,516/.—
(Hear, hear)—making, with what was required this
year, a total of 1,515,000/, exclusive of the sums voted
to the Woods and Forests for furnishing and other
matters. They told other nations that they were
the guardians of the public purse ; but he denied
that they were. It was disgraceful that so large
a sum should have been spent upon two palaces, one of
which was not fit to put a Sovereign in. He would not
put the H ,use to the trouble of a division, as he might
only get a "baker's dez m" to go out into the lobby with
him ; but he called upon the House to express
a strong opinion upon this excessive expenditure.
Why, if they went on at this rate, the whole of the re-
venue of the country would be swallowed up in the build-
ing of palaces.—(Hear, hear.) Why, the estimate for the
new Palace at Westminster was 750,000/.; but already
they had spent 2,000,0001. upon it—(Hear)—and they
were disfiguring the House of Lords by erecting a hideous
gallery, which would spoil the beautiful proportions of
the building. And in the new House of Commons not
a word would be heard, hut perhaps that would be an
advantage to some Hon. Members.—(Laughter.) Again,
he saw in the estimates a small sum, since it was 41. 14
but he mentioned it for another reason—namely, from its
beitng applied to the purposes of the abominable Palace
Court, to which he wished to draw the attention of the
Noble Lord the Member fur Marylehone.—(Hear.)
The miscellaneous estimates were, however, so large
that it was impossible to follow them. He suggested
that for the future all the sums expended upon public
buildings should be carried on, as at present Members
thought that new sums were required, and they were
consequently deceived.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped
the Hon. and Gallant Member would not deny that
Buckingham Palace was a handsome building. To save
money it was essential that repairs should be made.
Mr. OSBORNE did not object to repairs.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—At
the time the money referred to was expended on drains
at Windsor Castle there were no drains.
Mr. SLANEY said he remembered that a survey was
made of Windsor by Sir H. Delabeche, and that he
reported that improved drainage was necessary for the
health of the town.
Sir DE LACY EVANS hoped that the barracks at
Windsor would not be forgotten.
The vote was agreed to.
BUCKINGHAM PALACE.

On the next vote, 14,2001. for enlarging and improv-
ing Buckingham Palace,
Mr. OSBORNE inquired whether there was any esti-
mste of the expense of furnishing Buckingham Palace?
The CHANC.ELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
able to give what the Hon. Gentlemao,he betived,_would
regard as •-ta very satisfactory answer—that the public
would be put to no expense at all in that respect.
Mr. OSBORNE said, that in this vote there was a
sum, he,observed, of 2001. for the expense of pulling
down the marble arch. This arch had cost upwards of
80,000/. in the cr. ction, and now there was to be a
fur:ll-3e sum for pulling it down. He should very much
lik,? to know what was to be done with this arch?
The CIIANCELLOsit of the EXCHEQUER said
that, in reply to the Hon. Member, he really could not
say what was to be done with the arch, for nothing had
at present been decided upon, but one thing was very
plain, and that was that the arch could not continue
where it was.—(Laughter.)
The vote was then passed.
COMMITTEE-ROOMS, So.

On the vote for 3,2841. to defray the cost of Committee-
rooms and ether temporary accommodations in the new
Houses of Parliament,
Mr. OS liiiRNE said he hardly thought that the House
were aware- that since the temporary accommothtions
had been aff aided not less than 200,0001. had been
spent upon them.—(Hear, hear.) Then, again, there
was another item to which he thought no suffi-
cient attention had ever been directed, and that was the
charge of 120,e00i. for ventilation. Not that he was in-
clined to find fault with the ventilation—(Hear, hear)—
but he wished the House to see what they paid for it.
Then there was another charge which ho wished to
brieg under their notice, and in doing so he was anxious
to bear the opinion of the Under-Secretary for the
Colonies, respee:ing those hideous galleries which were
now being erected in the House of Lords. That Right
I. in. Gentleman was a member of the Fine Arts Com-
mission, and. as in all probability they would see the
expense of them charged in next year's estimates, he.
should like to have his opinion.—(Hear.) He objected
ta money being. expended on temporary erections, and
would advise the Hoti.) to refuse their countenance,
fur it was his firm impression that unless the House put
the screw on the Chancellor of the Exchequer they would
never sit in the new House at all.—(Laughter.)
The vote wa.; then agreed to.
HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.

The sum of 95.7711. for completing th© Harbour a
Holyhead for the accommodation of her Majesty's mai
s:eam-packets was then agreed to:
HARBOURS OF REFUGE.

On the vote for 141,5001. fur completing the Harbours
of Refuge,
Mr. M. GIBSON wished to inquire whether these
harbours were for commercial or for military purposes.
lie understood that these harbours, for commercial pur-
poses, were. more likely to be harbours of destruction
than of safety. The French, he understood, termed the
harbour at Dover a harbour of aggression instead of
After a few observations from Mr. THORNELY and
the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER the vote was
agreed to.