The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-15 00:00:00

where some gross mismanagement. The sum now ap-
plied for would not be adequate to defray the expenses
from the 31st of March in the present year to the same
day in 1849, for, as ho had already observed, there were
official documents on the table of the House, which
proved that a sum of not less than 76,010/. had already
been incurred, and had yet to be discharged. They seemed
to be always running after a debt. Somewhere or
another there was a hiatus valde defiendus. The Com-
mittee to which the miscellaneous estimates had been
referred had not sifted the matter with sufficient care.
They had contented themselves with merely recording
it as their opinion that an adequate control was not
exercised over the large expenditure on account of the
new Palace. The additional sums that would be re-
quired for the completion of the mere building were esti,
mated to amount to 600,0001., which, with the 1,021,000/.
already spent, made the total 1,621,0001. But in the
latter sum the expense of finishing was not included :
there would be the library fittings, the Members' refresh-
ment room, and the repairing of the chapel of St. Ste-
phen, which were calculated to amount to 379,000/. more,
making the total cost about 2,090,0001. Now, as
1,021,0001. had been spent, there remained a suns of
900,0001. to he voted, and he should very much like to
know how it was possible that that sum could be covered
by the 30,000/. now to be voted.
Lord 'MORPETII said that 945,000/. hud been voted,
oahsdfoa
110,:OtbtiOceo/sen.
natmai
additional sum
p)
taken
n ltos
oanudf
palb,c)oecn,eoofustoinol ietls.; s usuhoe,
oat
tirdi
kit
ahsb.tiesl.
very nearly
in consequence
yt
agreed na. eaasr true ,eoboteoh,aot paid.aonl
It had not been actually issued; but it had been agreed
for, and the contractors were making the work on the
faith of the vote then submitted to the House. If the
Committee, therefore, agreed to the vote, there would
remain a sum of 20,000/. for carrying on the works until
the Ist of March, 1849.
Mr. B. OSBORNE thought it would be advisable to
finish off the works at once, by employing a great body
of men. Tney might obtain the means by loan, if neces-
sary. He wished, however, to ask a question with re-
gard to the Reid and Barry squabble. Was that squab-
ble still continued? It it were going on, ho thought the
House might continue voting money for ever, before the
Houses of Parliament would be built.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord MORPETH. could not tell whether perfect har-
mony existed between Dr. Reid and Mr. Barry in their
personal relations, but the ventilation of the new and
present House of Commons had been entrusted entirely
to the control of Dr. Reid.
Mr. DRUMMOND thought it unsafe that the Victoria
Tower should be carried to so great an height. If they
built more than thirty feet a year, they might depend
upon it the whole building would very soon be crushed.
The House of Commons had imposed impossibilities upon
Mr. Barry. Every room was to be fire-proof. To be
fire-proof they must be insulate, but every room was to
perfectly ventilated also, and to effect that there must be
openings and pipes, which could not be done if the rooms
were insulate.—(A laugh.) With regard to the question
of remuneration, he did not know why they were to ask
Mr. Barry to make them a present of a large sum of
money, because the alterations had been made on the
original plans, for which the House cf Commons wore
themselves responsible.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
no alterations had been or could be made in the plans,
without the consent of the Treasury being obtained.
Lord DUNCAN complained of the want of a control-
ling power over Mr. Barry. Mr. Barry referred all in-
quiries to the Woods and Forests, and the latter referred
to the Treasury.
After a few words from Sir D. NORREYS and Lord
MORPETII,
Mr. URQUHART declared that the cause of all this
confusion was to be found in the practice pursued by the
House of granting whatever votes were brought forward,
without an inquiry into its application. Was it a proper
mode of conducting business, to allow a sum of 700,0001.
to run up to 2,000,000/.? They should take a lesson from
this, and not overlook the moral it conveyed.
Mr. MUNTZ wished to know whether any alterations
had been made in the plans?
Mr. B. OSBORNE explained that the alterations made
in the plan had, according to Mr. Barry, been made
upon the authority and by the directions of the House
of Commons. He wished to know why the apartments
for the officers of the House were not completed before
the other parts of the building, as those gentlemen, par-
ticularly the Speaker and their worthy Clerk, Mr. Ley,
were located very uncomfortably elsewhere, at a very
great expense to the country.
Mr. O'CONNOR said that as it was a question of
taxation the matter ought to be referred to a Select
Committee.

Mr. SPOONER objected to being called upon to vote
a sum of 2,1001. for the repairs and maintenance of May-
nooth College. When the Bill of 1845 was passed it
was distinctly understood that the permanent grunt of
30,0001. a year from the Consolidated Fund would cover
all the expenses of maintaining the college ; and in his
view the words of the Act bore out no other construe
lion. He would move that the item 2,6851. for repairs of
Maynooth be struck off the votes.
Mr. BANKES seconded the motion.
Mr. DUNCAN considered that there was a distinct
understanding that the 30,0001. granted to Maynooth in
the year 1845 should be the last application to Parlia-
ment for money for such purposes.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—There
was always a distinction drawn between grants for educa-
tional purposes and grants for repairs.
Mr. BRIGHT voted against the Maynooth Bill in
1845; on the same principle he would vote against this
item.

• Mr. V. SMITH said the Hon and Gallant Member
for Middlesex was indebted for all the facts he had ob-
tained to the report of the Select Committee. He ad-
,mitted it was objectionable to pay for extra salaries.
The Committee over which he had the honour to pre-
side had decided that point. If Sir Charles Trevelyan
bad given his whole attention and time to these Irish
af-
fairs, why he then must have neglected his ordinary avo-
cations, which some one else must have performed for
i•hitn, a very sufficient reason why increased remuneration
should not be awarded to him. While on this subject
he might, perhaps, observe that a very great discre-
pancy existed in the salaries paid to gentlemen in public
offices, which was caused by the different nature of those
offices; and as all the situations recently created by the
House of Commons had had very moderate salaries at-
tached to them, he thought it most advisable that an
attempt should be made to distribute equitably all the
salaries paid to public officers.
Mr. GOULBURN thought the House indebted to the
lion. Member for Middlesex for having brought this sub•
ject under their attention. The Hon. Gentleman hail
given them un opportunity- which the report of the Com-
mittee did not give them, of evincing. their sentiments us
to the zeal and attention with which Sir C. Trevelyan
had performed the duties entrusted to his care. With
respect to the vote now under discussion, he was deeply
impressed with the value of the services rendered
by Sir Charles Trevelyan, and he was sure that the
House yrould not be unwilling equally to recognise the
claims those services gave to that gentleman. Her Ma-
jesty had been pleased to grant an honourable distinction
to Sir Charles Trevelyau ; but it was equally the right
and the duty of the House of Commons, as well as of the
Crown and Government, to bestow a reward upon a
faithful public servant. Honourable Gentlemen should
not forget the mode in which the government of the
country was carried on ; it was essentially a parliament
government, the business of which was carried on within
those walls ; and it therefore became their duty to re-
gard the nature and character of the services rendered to
all public officers. From his experience of the Treasury
he could state that he found the services of the junior
lords most efficient and valuable.

Mr. GOULBURN—The intention of the Government
was always that the repairs for the college should be the
subject of an annual vote. This plainly appeared from
the language of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member fur
"Fain worth. It was their intention that the Board of ,
Works should take care of the repairs of the building.
in order that they might be conducted with the greatest
economy. He would support the grant.
After a few words from Mr. M. J. O'CoNNELL against
the motion, and from Mr. LAW in its favour,
Mr. GL ADSTONE said that the express words of the (
Act appointed the Commissioners to see that the works I,
were properly repaired from " time to time." He con-
sidered that the sum they were called upon to allow was
very large. It was true that it was for two years, but it
was still at the rate of 1,3001. a-year for repairs. It
was perfectly clear that the 30,0001. was not merely
for the purpose of new buildings, but in order to cover the
cost of repairing, those which were old and dilapidated,
and puffing them into thorough repair. It was
necessary, before the House came to this vote, that
they should know the nature and character of these re-
pairs. He was afraid that if these ordinary repairs were
to be the subject of an annual vote, the House were mis-
taken in supposing they had been deprived of the late
Maynooth debate, for it would return in a new form. If
that should be the case, he would suggest whether it
would not be desirable to vote a certain sum, which
should be in the nature of a fabric fund, and then throw
upon the trustees the responsibility of repairing the col-
lege from time to time out of the fabric fund. If there
was not some distinct explanation as to the precise ob-
jects to which this money was applicable, it might be as
well to postpone the vote.
Mr. HUME was quite sure that the vote of a large ,
sum was to prevent the annual discussion of this ques-
tion. He felt disposed to consider this grant of 30,0001.
as the final grant, and that the House ought not to vote
clnymaro. 110 wianed the whole expense to be kept
within 30.0004
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
he held iu his hand an estimate for the year 1846.7,
being the next year to that in which the 30,0001. was
voted, which showed that the 30,000/. had not been suf-
ficient. He would write for a detail of the present esti-
mate, and if it turned out that any portion of the sum
ought to be charged on the 30,0001. it should be so
charged.
Mr. LAW asked whether it would be shown that
30.000/. had been exhausted; or, how much had been
exhausted?
Mr. MUNTZ thought the better plan would be to
leave this unpaid till next year's grant. This grant of
30,0001. was made on the express understanding that it
was to put an end to all heart-burning:, and cover
all expenses. He should certaiuly vote against any
further grant.
Mr. HENLEY said that the House had not sufficient
information before them to vote this money. They
ought to be told whether the 30,0001. had been expended
or not. If it had been voted for the purpose of putting
the college into repair, he did not see what right there
was to come again upon the country. Unless they had
further information, he should vote against the grant.
Mr. SHIEL observed that when it was proposed to
lay out 5,0001. on the repairs of Dublin Castle, no spe-
cification of particulars was required, and yet, when a
sum was proposed for Maynooth, it was said, show us a
reason why you demand a sum of 2,000. The questions
of amount and of principle were quite distinct. The
question of principle had been disposed of by fixing the
charge on the Consolidated Fund. There must have
been an appointment of the money; that money appor-
tioned to extension had not been exhausted, the money
for repairs had been exhausted. Could any one doubt
that repairs were required? Was it wise to refuse this
sum of money to be applied to Maynooth when you took
into consideration that 30,0001. only was given to Roman
Catholics, whilst 36,000/. a year was given to tho Pres-
byterians?
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the vote
Against it
Majority in favour of the vote —.7l
The next vote was 8,100/. for the expenses of King-
ston Harbour.
On the vote of 30,0001. for the salaries and expenses
of the two Houses of Parliament, and allowances to re •
tired officers.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
it was right he should state that the Speaker had had
under his consideration a great number of suggestions
made by the Committee over which his Right Hon.
Friend had presided, and a scheme for the better regu-
lation of salaries was nearly ready.
In reply to a question from Mr. HUME,
Mr. V. SMITII observed that the emoluments of the
officers of the House of Lords who were paid out of fees
had been made the matter of investigation by a Com-
mittee of Peers who were at present sitting. It was
probable that they would recommend that a different
system should be adopted for the future, and if so the
vote on their account would next year be taken en an
amended estimate. With respect to the officers of the
Commons, he was of opinion that the whole of the
fees which they received ought to be paid into the Ex-
chequer.
Air. BRIGHT remarked that the Chairman of Com-
mittees of the House of Lords received a salary of
2,5001. a year, while the Chairman of the Lower House
whose duties were much more onerous, only received
1,5001. Both were paid from the Treasury, and not by
fees. _ _

Dr. BOWRING said he did 710 t think that justice
could be done to the suggestions of the Select Committee
unless some reference were made to the evidence on
which those suggestions were founded. Five members
of the Committee were in favour of a reduction of the
number of these officials to two, and six against ; and the
motion for a reduction to three was carried by a ma-
jority of seven to four.—(Hear.)
Colonel DUNNE expressed his gratitude to his Hon.
and Gallant Friend for having brought the case of Sir
Charles Trevelyan before the Committee. He could
not concur in any vote complimentary to Sir Charles
Trevelyan ; and ho trusted that if the Government
should find it necessary to extend more relief to Ireland,
they would take care to send Sir Charles Travelyan to
earn honours elsewhere. _ _

Mr. MONSELL said that he felt as strongly as any
man the great ability of Sir Charles Trevelyan, but he
felt that that gentleman's policy had the effect of thwart-
ing the recommendations of men, not more anxious and
zealous, but better acquainted with Ireland than he was
—such as the late Lord Besborough, and Captain Lar-
com, and others. He thought that it was a most un-
fortunate circumstance to have sept Sir Charles Treve-
lyan to Ireland, and he believed that the present unfor-
tunate state of Ireland, in which the people would be
much less able than they otherwise would have been to
meet the approaching distress, was rendered worse by
the measures which had been pursued. He could not
give his support to this vote.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL regretted, if the policy of the
Government and of Sir Charles Trevelyan were to be
discussed, that the question had not been taken up at an
earlier period of the session. He could not forget that
the House had originally concurred in the unfortunate
course that had been pursued, and that the entire blame
was not therefore to be thrown upon the Government or
Sir Charles Trevelyan. He bore testimony to the con-
stant attention which Sir Charles Trevelyan had devoted
to Irish business, and he thought that it would be now
rather an insidious course torefuse the additional year's
salary that was proposed to I s given to that officer. At
the same time he could not approve of the line of policy
that had been pursued.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that however Sir C. Tre-
velyan might have employed his intelligence, the Minis-
ters of the Crown were responsible for his acts.—(Hear,
hear.) The Public Works Act was adopted after several
meetings of the Cabinet with Lord Besborough, and
whatever errors might have been committed, the Go-
vernMent were to blame for them. Sir C. Trevelyan
stated in his evidence that he worked three hours before
breakfast ' • that he then went to the Treasury, where
he worked all day ; and that the pressure upon him was
such, that he wondered that he had been able to get
through it alive. If the Government had done wrong
in including the vote in the civil contingencies, he
hoped that their error would not be visited upon one of
the most intelligent and laborious officers that he had
ever known.
Mr. LABOUCHERE bore testimony to the zeal and
public spirit evinced by Sir C. Trevelyan.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said he must really recall the at-
tention of the House to the question before it, with
which he would not consent to mix up the policy of the
Government in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) The question
was, whether a certain sum of money should have been
given to this officer, from any fund whatever, without
the consent of Parliament?—(hear, hear.) He thought
that the whole transaction was illegal. Whether that
were the proper time for him to mark his sense of the
impropriety, he should leave the House to determine.
Mr. muoirr hoped his Hon. Friend would postpone
the proposal of any expression of opinion until the
matter should come before the House in a different
•
shape.
The vote was then agreed to.
18,7001. was granted to complete the payment of the
salaries and expenses of her Majesty'slSecretary of State
for the Home Department.
On a vote of 72,5001. being proposed to complete the
sum necessary to pay the salaries and expenses of the
office of her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs,

Mr. lIUME thought that there had been Select Com-
mittees enough upon the subject. He had always pro-
tested against the adoption of Mr. Barry's plans, and he
now complained of the additional expense caused by the
alterations. Mr. Barry had altered his original plans
without env authority whatever, and by the mode of
payment adopted, the expense of their alterations
doubled the remuneration paid to the architect. He
should like to see some certain statement with regard to
the ventilation, and also with respect to the decorations
to be used in the House of Commons.
Lord MORPETH, in reply, bore testimony to the
labours of the Commission, who were most unremitting
in their attentions to this matter. All the decorations
and appendages of the House were referred to the judg-
ment of the Commission; but it was distinctly under-
stood that the room appropriated to the deliberations of
the Members was to be very different in its general cha-
racter from the new House of Lords.—(Hear, her.) The
Commission attributed no blame to the Architect for
the course which he had pursued, believing that all the
alterations would conduce to the convenience of the
House; but no deviations were to be made in future until
the proposal to make them had been regularly reported
and sanctioned.
Sir D. NORREYS observed that Dr. Reid had com-
plained, and with some justice, that he had not been en-
trusted with sufficient powers—the ventilation of the
passages, which formed so important a part of the whole,
having been taken out of his hands.
Lord MORPETH said the ventilation of the new
House of Commons and the apartments connected with
it had been entrusted to Dr. Reid, but that of the re-
mainder of the building was taken from him, at the wish
of the House of Lords, expressed three years ago in an
address to the Crown. He thought it infinitely better
to leave the matter in future to the three scientific gen-
tlemen appointed than to refer it to any other authority.
After a few words from Mr. URQLTHART,
Mr. EW ART complained of the want of light in the
rooms connected with the new House, especially those of
the chairman and the clerks. In no respect did the ar-
rangements of the present House appear to have been
improved upon.
Mr. DRUMMOND believed that there was not in the
world a more accomplished architect than Mr. Barry.
Nothing could be more admirable than the whole of
the details of the building.
The vote was then agreed to.
On the sum of 4,0501. being proposed
of certain works and buildings proposeditno
tdneefralyslethoet.
Man,
Mr. 11Eobjectedto
and Insolvency,tlievote, maintainedand
the Courts HUMS
of Bankruptcy
had reference, ought to be united. t
o
Mr. BANKES said that the public attention in the
Isle of Man had been much directed to the subject, and
the footing on which the matter stood at present was
considered very unsatisfactory.
Dr. BOWRING complained that the inhabitants of
the Isle of Man, 50,000 in number, were wholly without
the means of representation.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the vote .....
Against
Majority in favour of the vote... 57
The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote was for 12,719/. for the Holyhead Road.
Mr. SPOONER complained of the yearly expense of
surveying this line of road.
Lord MORPETH promised to inquire into the matter
to see if the expense could not be reduced.
The vote was then agreed to. •
A vote of 131,0001. was agreed to for defraying the
expenses of constructing harbours of refuge.
A vote of 23,1671. was then proposed for defraying the
expenses of maintaining in repair the several public
buildings in the department of the Public Works in
Ireland.
Dr. BOWRING complained of the want of a proper
supervision in the Board of Works in Ireland.
Mr. HUME said they would never do any good until
they got rid of the office of Lord-Lieutenant.
Mr. GOULBURN said there was the strictest super-
vision exercised over the expenditure in the Lord-Lieu-
tenant's department. There was one part of this vote to
which he wished to refer. He found that a building
was to be erected for a Roman Catholic chapel in the
royal military schoel in Dublin. He thought this would
lead to inconvenience and dissension between the Pro-
testant and Catholic children.
Mr. F. MAULE thought no inconvenience could arise.
Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE said that at present
while the Protestants went to church, the Roman Ca-
tholic children had to go to their worship in a dark room,
that was nothing better than a hole. It was absolutely
necessary that some accommodation should be provided
for them.
Mr. SPOONER objected to this vote on principle.
He thought it was wrong to provide any accommodation
whetever, whether it was dark or not. He had always
opposed any support being given to the Roman Catholic
religion, and he should continue to do so. He should
divide the Committee on this vote.
Mr. DRUMMOND objected to voting money for:any
sect whatever. Those who objected to grant money to
the Roman Catholics must, on the same ground, object
to the Reliant Donlan. The best 'plan was not to grant
money to any religion at all. There was abundant
ecclesiastical property in Ireland; let them make a just
and fair division of it amongst those who were entitled
to receive it, and there would be no occasion to call for
the payment of more taxes.
Mr. REYNOLDS thought • this a legitimate item.
The state was not Protestant, nor Catholic, nor Presby-
terian, but a mixture of all. As a Roman Catholic
subject of the Crown, he felt a pride in proclaiming that
the Roman Catholic people felt they had as strong a
claim
upon the State as any other religious denomi-
nation.
Mr. MUNTZ would 'support the vote. This was a
place of education for Catholics and Protestants, the
latter having a place of worship, the former none. If
you allowed a church to one, and denied it to the other,
you would thereby degrade those who were excluded.
Mr. NAPIER opposed the vote as entirely without
u p precedentnew eh
channels
nspecialwideg oti nds torest up of];
likely
to open'ellasto
lead
to mischief's, divisions, and bad feeling.
expenditure,
a
Mr. OSBORNE supported the vote.
After a few words from several other Hon. Members,
the Committee divided, when there appeared—
Against the amendment
For it
Majority ---91

Mr. DISRAELI said he intended to make some re-
marks on certain transactions which had occurred, and
were occurring, in the administration of this department;
but he felt he could not do so at one o'clock.—(Bear.)
Perhaps the Noble Lord would let the vote pass over to
some other day, and allow the Chairman to report pro-
gress at once.
Lord J. RUSSELL suggested that the Hon. Gentle-
men might take the debate on any other vote. lie might
as well take that opportunity of stating that he would
take the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill on Thurs-
day next, and the Committee of Supply again on Wed-
nesday. at twelve o'clock.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK wished to know whe-
ther the Sugar Duties Bill would come on on Friday?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL could Mot say positively.
Ho preferred naming. Monday next.
Mr. DISRAELI said that the better course for dis-
posing of the matter under consideration would be, that
the Chairman should report progress and ask leave to
sit again on Wednesday, when they would take the vote
on the Foreign-office.
That course was finally agreed to.
The House resumed.
The CHAIRMAN reported the resolution, and ob-
tained leave to sit again on Wednesday,
at twelve
o'clock.
The Spirit Dealers Bill and the British Spirits Ware-
housing Bill were both committed pro forma, amend-
ments added, and the Bills ordered to be reprinted.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE obtained leave to bring in
a Bill to facilitate the transfer of landed
property in
Ireland.
The Bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be
read a second time on Thursday.
NOTICE OF MOTION.
Mr. HERRIES stated that he would on Tuesday
(this day) call the attention of the House to the reports
from the Committees of this House and the House of
Lords, on Commercial Distress, and to move that this
House will, early in the next session, take the same into
its serious consideration.
Tho House adjourned at Two o'clock.

Mr. V. SISITII thought that the Committees of
that House ou.;ht to be more cautious in calling wit-
nesses. It often happened that they called witnesses to
speak to ♦ery insignificant facts, and much money was
thus unnecessarily squandered. By Captain Wynne's
Committee money was thus expended this session to
the amount of 1,719/.
After a brief conversation the vote was agreed to.
The next vote was 14,700/., to defray the salaries of
persons connected with the Treasury department.
Mr. OSBORNE called attention to the fact that dur-
ing the last year a sum of 2,500/. had been awarded to
Sir Charles Trovelyau by the authorities of the Trea-
sury, without coming down to that House to obtain
its sanction. The precedent was an evil one, and ought
not to be permitted to pass unnoticed. There could be
no more objectionable practice than that of giving boons
to public officers without at least first consulting that
House as to the propriety of such a proceeding. He
should wish to know whether it was the intention of

,he Government to carry out the recommendation of

the Committee to whom the miscellaneous estimates
were referred, by diminishing the number of the Lords
et the Treasury?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rob-
served, with respect to the latter inquiry, that the Go-
vernment did intend to carry out that suggestion, The
Noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Shelburne)
had just sent in his resignation as one of the Lords of the
Treasury, and it was not in the contemplation of the
uhldresgayarwd
was, that the
eGaoseveorfnsiniernct
htoarifielsl the
was acquainted with that gentle-
Tr ev evlayeaann,nayl h eWciot
man were most onerous and distressing, and that ho had
there
wwhaos
wu
ao one
not
wahwoare that the duties of that gentle-
could have
been arranged on an adequate relief
had not beadequate scale if it
discharged them in the most exemplary manner. It
would have been impossible that the
en
for the exertions of Sir C. lrevelyan. As to the money
granted to him, it appeared in the civil contingencies.
Mr. -DISRAELI admitted the value of Sir C. Trove-
lyan's services, but after the order of the Bath had been
conferred upon him, an unprecedented mark of honour
towards an Under-Secretary of State, he could not but
think that a pecuniary reward was in bad taste. When
the vote came under the distinct consideration of the
House he should oppose it.
Mr. OSBORNE said it unfortunately happened that
the money had been already paid. The Right Honour.
able Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not
yet informed the House from what fund the money
to pay this reward was derived, nor why he
had not asked the House for a distinct rote for the pur-
pose. The practice of the Government thus dispensing
the public money, without the knowledge or sanction of
Parliament, was most objectionable; and it involved a
serious principle, to which he was greatly surprised to
see the present Government commit themselves.
d
pgtfivg
oriurucol ‘sbetetnlhls s rtnec.
doSs
obtainingget Prrl
during;aOva ratlt tiNthr,
:Et
however
hG,hoßren:nr
o,saidelevst
vrveah ern:
Government
he
aiei
distress;
irnsnspihrttnoroeohceructi
had
received
asddicehi
no
ehpdnwh.
ip:2raiosi
was involved
setnotdehriti
.vinooosi
rvvoreoeyorscwi vote
mireioni
uhT
astitoohcenhnueriyests;
s
during the Irish distress; his 'ordlinary services then
must have been greatly overpaid if he had the power of
devoting so much time to the public business.
Mr. BRIGHT asked the Chancellor of the
eExchequer
to state from what fund the money was paid. Was it
out of the eight millions voted for the relief of the Irish
distress
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER repeated
tliaTttehe C?nlioney had been paid from the civil contingen-
cies upon which the account appeared.
Mr. HUME said a great irregularity had been per-
mitted, because this money had not been made the subject
of a special application to the House. Had it come from
the House, the amount would have possessed double the
value in the estimation of Sir C. Trevelyan, besides being
more honourable to the Minister.
Mr. GLAI)STONE entirely concurred that it was the
duty of the Government to have submitted this vote to
the House in the first instance. There was no general
rule connected with the public service, in which it was
' more necessary to guard against exceptions than the one
that the salaries received by public officers, particularly
in high office, should be in consideration of all the time.
To take this amount from the civil contingencies was
most unfortunate, because the object of that fund was
totally different. Besides, in the civil contingencies Sir
C. Trevelyan's payment did not appear by name, but it
was included under the general item of 4,045/. for extra
services. How could any gentleman have formed an idea
that in this 4,0451. there was included an item of 2,5001.
to one individual?
Lord J. RUSSELL defended the grant to Sir C. Tre-
velyan, on the ground of his eminent services.

COURT CIRC ULAK
OS BORNE, MONDAY.

The unfavoarable state of the weather Prevented her
Majesty and the Prince and their illustrious visitors from
atby the Rev. J.
taking their early walk this morning; but the rain
h
having ceased soon after ten o'clock, the Queen and his
Royal Highness promenaded as usual, and the younger
branches of the Royal Family rode and wwalhkiepdpiinngam
the
grounds.
The Queen and Prince, and their Serene Highnesses
the Prince and Princess of Hohenlohe Langenburg, and
the Princess Eliza, and tke royal household, attended
Church. Divine
T service,ne syeerteernd yesterday
was i n o
preached rn i ng
Protheroe.
Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent (attended
batytende
Ladyd ADinvninaeMsearryiaieeD
aa t Eastws' Cowesand SirC ht Georgech Couper),
.
The royal dinner party yesterday included her Royal
Highness the Duchess of Kent, their Serene Highnesses
Prince and Princess Hohenlohe, Prince Victor, and
Princess Eliza, Lady. Auna littria Dawson, Viscount
Morpeth, and Sir George Couper.
Lord Morpeth left Osborne for London this morning.

-.
Viscount
His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge left
town yesterday morning on a visa to her Royal High-
ness the Duchess of Gloucester, at her residence in
Richmond Park.
A Cabinet Council was held yesterday afternoon, at
the Foreign•otfice. The Ministers present were—Lord
os, M.P. for Kent,
John Russell, the Lord Chancellor, the Marquis of
an interview with
the Grey,xchequerH. Labouchere,'
Lansdowne,
the Palmerston,
Earl
-Grey,
'
t
Lord Campbell, the Marquis of Clauricarde, and Viscount
gtthhieneCt°ilSei,ginirci (IlLo.oorrngo.ef
Morpeth. The Council sat two hours and a half.
Lord John Russell yesterday, at his official residence in
Downing-street.
Mr. Pomfret,
pd,e)prnurtaretti,oann,(iiiiiicsilua
jdoirngctiNrltre.ils,ohd.agi
The Marquis of Lansdowne returned to town yester-
day, from Nuneham Park.
Viscount Morpeth arrived in town yesterday morning,
from her Majesty's marine residence, Osborne, Isle of
Wight.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer returned to town
yesterday, from the Latimers.

LIEUTENANT Musuo.---Upon inquiries we find
that there is no truth in the paragraph contained in a
Sunday contemporary, that Mr. Munro would be
liberated from Newgsto to-day. Mr. Munro was tried
on the 18th of August last year, and cannot, of course,
be discharged from prison;until the 18th inst.
FoßEtax MOLASSES.—A vessel has arrived from
Cienfuegos de Cuba with 255 puncheons and 44 tierces
of molasses on board, comprising an entire cargo of the
article, the produce of OW place.

SUN; LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 15, H 43.

gentlemen thus employed to explain the import of legal
papers to those whose signature is obtained; and it seems
violently improbable that such a transaction as the cut-
ting off the entail of the great estates of the house of
Buckingham and Chandos should have been accom-
plished in a moment of passionate excitement. But
waiving all disputes as to matters of fact, we beg leave,
on the part of what we ♦enture to designate as the
soberer and more dignified portion of British so-
ciety—we beg leave, we say,, to protest against dragging
forward, in such a newspaper as the Times, the cir-
cumstances of a private transaction between father and
son, and that, too, in the very moment when the
worldly ruin of both is most conspicuous. We
think it is not decent—it is not fair. It is evidently
intended to wound iu the most painful :manner the
mind of the father, and wo are unwilling to believe
that such an attack can be anything but most painful
to his son. We cannot close these remarks--which we
are at once reluctant. to make, and unwilling to
withhold—without the frankest and fullest admission of
the blame which, in our judgment, attaches to those
who, by imprudence and extravagance, bring upon a
noble house the ruin which has fallen upon that of
Buckingham. We are even of opinion that the law
should visit with much more personal severity tha❑ it
does those who, in thoughtlessness or cupidity, make
pecuniary promises, which, when the time of payment
comes, they are unable to fulfil. We regard this us a
grave offence, but it is one not confined to members of
the aristocracy. The organ of the mercantile classes
should remember that if all who have been led by ex-
travagance of mind into desperate courses ending in in-
solvency were punished to the uttermost, the avenging
messenger would have as much to do on the east of
Temple-bar as on the west. We would say to the mer-
cantile men whose favourite journal is so harsh upon the
pecuniary misfortunes of a noble house, " Let him who
is without sin amongst you cast the first stone."