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

!THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY

dered his resignation in consequence of that circutn-
stance, and that alone.
Lord D. STUART asked the Noble Lord the Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs if he could inform the House
whether the Russian army, which had entered the prin-
cipalities of the Danube, had retired into Russia? Was
the report to that effect truc ?
Viscount PALMERSTON believed the report to
which the Noble Lord alluded was correct. The last ac-
count he had from the consul in Moldavia stated that the
Russiae troops which entered Moldaria had retired, or
were about to retire, from that principality. That body
of troops had entered Moldavia at the reqeest of the
Rospodar; by the last accounts it was retiring, and no
part of it had entered the principality of Wallachia.
Lord J. RUSSELL moved the order of the day for
Vominittee of Supply.
COLONIAL CORRESPONDENCE.
Lord G. BENTINCK rose to move, " That an humble
address be presented to her Majesty, that she will be
graciously pleased to direct the Earl of Elgin and
Cneardine forthwith to transmit to her Majesty's
Secretary of State for the Colonies copies of the omitted
correspondence between the Provincial Secretary of
Canada and the Secretary of the Montreal Board of
Trade, and will direct that the same be laid before this
Rouse." Ile had expected that his motion would have
been unopposed, but he understood it was objected to by
Government, on the ground of the word " omitted," and
also of its proposing to direct Lord Elgin " forthwith "
to transmit to her Majesty's Secretary of State copies of
that correspondence. He did not think he could have
Lade use of a more appropriate mode of expression, but
be supposed Ministers were somewhat sensitive at an im-
putation of any correspondence having been omitted by
the Colonial-office. The omission of which he com-
plained was on a subject of great interest to the cotn-
Inanity, arising out of the fact of Government having
thought proper to lay before the House correspondence
between the Governor-General of Canada and the
Secretary of State relating to the navigation-
Uwe. The general complaint was that Ministers,
in laying correspondence before that or the other
Rouse,•thought themselves entitled to select only such
dispatches as told for the policy of which they were the
advocates. The Provincial Secretary had reprimanded
ihe Council of the Board of Trade of Montreal in severe
terms for the manner in which they had addressed the
Queen and both Houses of Parliament. That repri-
mand was sent home, and he contended that Lord Elgin
Should also have sent home a copy of the rejoinder
made to him by the secretary of that board, by the in-
struction of the Council. He wanted to know if the
Governor had received instructions to send home only
such dispatches as suited the views of Government. On
the 7th July, only four days before it became noto-
rious in that House that Ministers did not intend to pro-
• coed with the measure for the repeal of the navigation-
laws, Earl Grey wrote to Lord Elgin to say that Mi-
- Eiders were sensible of its extreme importance to the
Canadas, and entertained a confident hope that it would
pass into a law. Could it believed that Ministers
on the 7th July last seriously entertained a confident
hope that the measure would pass into a law? In-
stead of encouraging the vain and futile hope that a com-
petition between New York and a colony so disadvan-
tageously circumstanced, in respect to climate and posi-
tion, as the Canadas, could result in that colony being
Placed on an equal footing with New York, it was the
duty of the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies
to have demonstrated that such a result was wholly un-
attainable; and that no repeal or modification of the
navigation laws could possibly secure for the Canadas
any such advantages as were fallaciously held out to
them. Instead of exciting in the breasts of the Cana-
dian colonists the silly hope that the repeal of the navi-
gation laws would place them on an equal footing with
the merchants and farmers of the state of New York, it
was his bounden duty to have informed them that any
iuch expectation was a delusion. It was a mere mockery
to pretend that the repeal of the navigation laws
could place Montreal and New York on an equal foot-
- ing. The average duration of the voyage from New
York to Portsmouth was twenty days, and of the
voyage back thirty days, while the average voyage from
Quebec to London was forty-five days, and from
London to Quebec thirty-five days. How then could
it be pretended than an equality could be established
between two countries so differently circumstanced ?
But besides that there were other difficulties equally in-
surmountable. The navigation of the St. Lawrence
Was continually interrupted and made dangerous, not
only by shoals and rapids, but by fogs and snow-
• storms, and the result was that not only were from
- 'twenty to thirty days more required to complete the
tleyage between Montreal and London than were
'necessary for the passage between New York and Len-
dons but the charge of insurance was proportionately
larger, the risk being very much greater. The rate of
insurance on ships from New York to London ranged
. from 40s. to 60s. per cent., whereas the rate charged on
resaels trading between Montreal and London was never,
even at the moat favourable period of the year, less than
4/- per cent. There were, moreover, several other ex-
penses of an incidental character, which no legislation
could affect, such as that for steam-tugs up the St. Law-
. rence, &c., he., which in the aggregate amounted to a
very large sum ; so that in Canadian ships of 400 tons
there was an increase of 10d. a barrel in the freight
of sour, He hoped, that the Canadians would
not allow themselves to be deceived, no mat-
ter how authoritative the quarter might be from
which the misrepresentation might emanate. He
Would take leave to forwarn the colonies that, if any
. people were to suffer from the repeal of the navigation
laws, none that he knew of would suffer more than those
'very, colonies. They were in no very flourishing condi-
tion even at the present moment, as was evidenced by
this fact, that of the 45 merchants who were engaged in
the lumber trade in Quebec, 21 were already bankrupts,
and 19 others were in the hands of their bankers. He
trusted that the House would acquiesce in his motion,
and so read a lesson to Governors-General and other
persons holding high office in the colonies, which might
give them to understand that they were not for the
future to presume to give only partial extracts from
their official correspondence, or to lay before the Legis-
lature information connected with their respective de-
partments which was prepared in such a manner as to
effect a political purpose rather than to throw the full
light of truth upon a 6ubject of vast importance. He
• Should like to know bow it happened that Lord Elgin
Pursued a course which, though it had been adopted by
the Colonial-office on former occasions, had been strongly
condemned by public opinion—that of laying before Par-
- liament only so much information as chanced to favour
hie own political views.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not think it necessary or
Convenient, just at that moment, to enter into a discus-
sion as to whether the repeal of the navigation laws
would or would not be beneficial to Canada, or as to
whether it would or would not answer the objects which
the Montreal Board of Trade had in view. It would be
very much better to reserve all discussion upon those
• +questions until some measure with regard to the nevi-
Ration laws bad been proposed, when the matter could
- be formally and properly canvassed. The only question
• that the Noble Lord had notified his intention of mov-
ing was, that an address should be presented to her Ma-
• jesty praying that what was omitted from the corre-
spondence already in the possession of the House, as
having passed between the Provincial Secretary of Ca-
• nada and the Secretary of the Montreal Board of Trade,
should be produced. His (Lord John Russell's) objec-
' tion to that motion was simply this, that the motion
appeared• to convey an incorrect notion of the facts of
the case.—(Hear, hear.) Anybody rending it would
- suppose that the Earl of Elgin and Kincardine was to
blame for not sending the whole of the correspondence
that bad taken place ; and that, in fact, he ought to
be formally reprimanded for the same, and ordered to
• transmit the omitted portions at once. Oa the 31st of
May the Earl of Elgin wrote a dispatch to his Noble
Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which
he-stated that a certain correspondence had taken place,
and that a certain memorial had been drawn up for pre-
• sentation to both Houses of Parliament, which he sent
for the consideration of Earl Grey. That correspond-
ence consisted, besides the memorial, of a letter from the
President of the Montreal Board of Trade, and of the
answer returned thereto by the Provincial Secretary of
Canada. The answer of the Provincial Secretary re-
proved the President of the Montreal Board of Trade for
. a,particular and very improper expression which he had
. used in his original communication. The expression was
nothing more nor less than this, that unless the navigation
d the St. Lawrence were made free to the United States,
- the result would be the dissolution of the ties which at
'resell; connected Canada with the mother country.—
(Hear, hear.) After that reply of the Provincial Secre-
-tart was written, there was another letter from the Pre-
sident, defending rather than retracting the unbe-
, .coming expression he had used. The Earl of Elgin
and Kincardine wrote on 'the 31st May, and whether
' the reason of his omitting to send this part of the
_ !correspondence was that his dispatches were already
Made up, and that he did not think the reply of the
• President of sufficient importancelto warrant the dis-
turbing the seal, was anaatter which he could not take
, upon him to determine, and which, moreover, was but
of very trivial significance. The production of the whole
-correspondence was, in his opinion, of very little im-
• portancel but it would be a matter of very considerable
. importance indeed if the present motion, which was vir-
tually one of censure on Lord Elgin, should be agreed
to, the House being all the time in ignorance as to
whether censure was fairly to be attributed to him or
•Inot.—(Hear, hear.) The President of the Montreal
Board of Trade had thought fit to defend an unbecoming
expression, and it appeared to him (Lord John Rus-
sell) that the letter in which he did so was of very
little importance one way or
.the other.—!,hear, hear.)
However, he had not the least objection to its being
laid upon the table of that House, and it would, perhaps,
• meet the views of the Noble Lord if his Hon. Frie.ml
ehit .(hl av of
the Under,Secretary for the Colonies were that evening,
or on some future evening, to move for the pro
d 2 ..t
the whole of any further correspondence that might -
taken place on the subject of the navipecion laws be-
wheaudl d
a not
stroo ffnegr
ob-
jection -
tween the parties referred to in the pr.ese-at motion.—
• (Hear, hear.) To that resolution be
slightest opposition, but he certainlyjection to the present motion, wi:O.ch was not such as
ought to be adopted by that Ho`ase. not being at all in
conformity with, the facts of t'ae case,—(Hear, hear.)
After a brief, 'conversation, the motion was negatived
without a dieneion.

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 76,0101. 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 dejlenclus. 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 600,000/., 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 379,0001. more,
making the total cost about 2,090,000/. Now, as
1,021,0001. had been spent, there remained a sum of
900,1)00?. to be voted, and he should very much like to
know how it was possible that that sum c.,uld be covered
by the 30,000/. now to be voted.
Lord MORPETH said that 945,000/. had been voted,
50,0004 more had been issued this year in consequence
of votes taken on account; so that very nearly 1,000,0001.
had been spent 'upon the works. It was true that an
additional sum of 10,000/. had been agreed to be paid.
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 20,0001. 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? If it were going on, he thought the
House might continue voting money for ever, before the
Houses of Parliament would be built.—(Hettr, 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 of Commons were
themselves responsible.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
no alterations bad 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. Burry 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
MORPETIft
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 700,000/.
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. HUME thought that there had been Select Com-
mittees enough upon the subject. He bad 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 any 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
labour's' of the Commission, who were most unremitting
in their attentlens 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 bad 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. URQUHART,
Mr. MN 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 4,050/. being proposed to defray the
expenses of certain works and buildings in the Isle of
Man,
and maintained
theMCr.o t
o whi that
ai tt
tolrUtaMoEt.
Bobajoekcrteudotooythanedvoltne,solvenoy
had reference, ought to be united.
Mr. BANKES said that the public attention in the
Isle of Man had been much directed to the subject, ands
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... 50
The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote was for 12,71 W. for the Holyhead Road.
Mr. SPOONER complained of the yearly expense o'
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 131,000/. was agreed to for defraying the
expenses of constructing harbours of refuge.
A vote of 23,167/. was then proposed for defraying the
expenses of maintaining in repair the several public
buildings in the department of the Public Works in
Ireland
D. BOWRING complained of the want of a proper
supervision in the Board of Works in Ireland.
Mr. HUME said they would never d
any good until
they got rid of the office of Lord-Lieutenant.o
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 school 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. DPAIMMOND objected to voting money for:any
sect wftiatever. Those who objected to grant money to
tb..4 Roman Catholics must, on the same ground, object
to the Regium Donum. The best iplan 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.
Committee
of
latterplace ohfavi u
having education
a plaoefoorf
wCoartshhoilpic!
Mr. MUNTZ would ;support the vote. This was a
SUPPLY.
youyou allowedw
The IT'anse then resolved itself into aCo •
apply; Mr. BERNAL in the chair.the and f
oPr
mr Protestants, s toaonotes the
If
The first vote was 30,000 L to complete the sum ne-
da church to one, and denied it to the other,
alessary to defray, up to the 31st of March, 1849, the
expenses of the works at the new Houses of Parliament. precedent or special ioaplpo se d
groundsthet
restovot e as
upon,
entirelylikely
mr.oltsTilApereby degrade those who were excluded.
without
ex
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY observed upon
of the sums which session after the vastness up new channels of wide expenditure, as well as to lead
this purpose. The
sum voted up to March, 1848, was t and bad feeling.
945,000/. Since then they Mr. OSBORNE supported the vote
had incurred expenses as ye
= uncovered by any After a few words from several other.Hon.Members,
76,010/., so that nte
that House to the ameo”,nt of the Committee divided, when there
d
out on account the sum total of mrjneys a! ¢ly laid appeare-
d-76,0101.,
of the new Pelee -3 Against the amendment .. 103
1 021 0101 41 1' no less than For it
He very much feared12
Icro was 601110- Majority, ,„, t)1
0000000 eseeese

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 grant of
30,000/. 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
tion. 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

Mr. V. SMITH said the Hon and Gallant Member
for Middlesex was indebted for ell the facts he had ob-
tained to the report of the Select Committee. Ile 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
had 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
him, 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
Hon. Member for Middlesex for having brought this sub-
ject under their attention. The Hon. Gentleman had
given them an opportunity which the report of the Com-
mittee did not give them, of evincing their sentiments as
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 would 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 Trevelyan ; 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
thorn 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.
Dr. BOWRING said he did not 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 he trusted that if the Government
should find it necessary to extend more relief to Ireland,
they would take care to send Sir Charles Trevelyan 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 Ler-
com, and others. He thought that it was a most un-
fortunate circumstance to have sent 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,lif 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 Isgivea 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 ho 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.—(Bear, 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. BRIGHT 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.
12,700/. was granted to complete the payment of the
salaries and expenses of her INlajesty'elSecretary 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

item.
Mr. GOULBURN—The intention of the Government
was always that the repairs for the college should be
romthe
subject of an annual vote. This plainly appeared f
the language of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for
"Famworth. 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'Coatarew. against
the motion, and from Mr. LAW in its favour,
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the express words of the
Act appointed the Commissioners to see that the works
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 repairs
years,s. but it
was still at the rate of 1,300/. a-year fepair 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 wore old and dilapidatedwas,
and putting them into thorough repair. It
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 iu a form. If
f
that should be the new
case, lie would suggest whether
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 thethere col-
lege from time to time out of the fabric fund. If
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 30,000/.
as the final grant, and that the House ought not to vote
any more. He wished the whole expense to be kept
within 30,0001.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
he held in 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 30,0001. 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 30,000/. 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
wa to put an end to all heart-burnings, and cover
all expenses. He should certainly 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 30,000/. 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 bad 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 30,000/. only was given to Roman
Catholics, whilst 36,0001. a year was given to the 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. sum' 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 on 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 bo paid into the Ex-
chequer.
Mr. BRIGHT remarked that the Chairman of Com•
mittees of the House of Lords received a salary of
2,500/. 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.
Mr. V. SMITH thought that the Committees of
that House ought to bo more cautious in calling wit-
nesses. It often happened that they called witnesses to
ttphispeakserrATmsss
caohfar
rune.
sanction.
verynscrooaonntruecaisleonxoecßbntsnteor.
nosyrri
seoefßarcftoNe:ievh,insignificant
squandered. fac t s , andßy much
Captain money
w y n wasns
Committee money was thus expended this session to
of
wdeeilaywc9sTrevelyan
precedenttt conversatione4ih7 eaot
Treasury
e. thene
ta:
oosvunort
tyeo
defray was
pse
department.
ecu3r et
oet
udh t
a. tt o .
salaries
dur-
ing
the last year a sum ofy t
h 2
e,
wsoaa OsuLt hadahno
reivt been eseo
of
fe
tahned awarded to
Trea-
sury, without t hou
permitted coming
to pass down u
ntnoo
ti
uthated
T .Househer
eto o obtainuld
be
o
o
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
the Government to carry out the recommendation of
the Committee to whom the miscellaneous estimates
were referred, by diminishing the number of the Lords
of the Treasury
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER 'ob-
served, with respect to the latter inquiry, that the Go-
vernment did intend to carry out that suggestion. The
Noble Lord the Member for Caine (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
Government to fill the vacancy. With regard to the
case of Sir Charles Trevelyan, all he could say was, that
there was no one who was acquainted with that gentle-
man who was not aware that the duties of that gentle•
man were most onerous and distressing, and that he had
discharged them in the most exemplary manner. It
would have been impossible that the relief could have
been arranged on an adequate scale if it had not been
for the exertions of Sir C. Trevelyan. As to the money
granted to him, it appeared in the civil contingencies.
Mr. DISRAELI admitted the value of Sir C. Treve.
he co
uld not but
cltyooawnnfoeirsrdrsseedrovuuicpt
Under
-Secretary
after the order of the Bath had been
ecarne
think that a pecuniary reward was in bad taste. When
the vote came under the distinct consideration of the
utanrpyreocfedsetnatteed, mark of honour
House he should oppose it.
Mr. OSBORNE said it trafortunately happened that
the money had been already paid. The Right Honour-
able Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad 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 vote 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.
Mr. SPOONER said he should oppose this vote on the
ground that the Government had no right to reward any
public servant, however important its services, without
first obtaining the sanction of the House of Commons
tvoiotehse
tgrent. Another principle was involved in this
question. Mr. Trevelyan received 2,5001. for his ser-
vices
have been duringlritshhe
distress;lr i
greatlysho distress;ver
pahiids i
of hishien ordinaryahrayd th services
psoe w r
evtr nit
then
during of
devoting so much time to the public business.
Mr. BRIGHT asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to state from what fund the money was paid. Was it
out of the eight millions voted for the relief of the Irish
distress ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER repeated
that the money 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. GLADSTONE entirely concurred that it was the
duty of the Government to have submitted this vote to
beautSiirt
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.
idinnotht
pcpiveialrcboyntninagmeen,ci
To take this amount from the civil contingencies was
most unfortunate, because the object of that fund was
under the general item of 4,045/. for e-xara,
totally different.payleseindtesd,
viCsethat in this 4,0451._ there was included an item of `2,500/.
araTviircneecvsl.ealdHS'could any gentleman have formed an, idea
to one individual?
Lord J. RUSSELL defended the grant to Sid Tro.
Velyttu, on the ground of his oluinent services, . .

Aff lirs,
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 ho could not do S) at one o'clock.—(Hear.)
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-
man might take the debate on any other vote. Ile 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
nesday, at twelve o'clock. again on Wed-
Lord GEORGE BENTINCIC wished to know whe-
ther the Sugar Duties Bill would come on on Friday?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not say positively.
Ho preferred naming Monday next.
Mr. DISH AELI said that the better course for dis-
posing of the matter under consideration would be, that
the Chairman should report progress and ask
tho vote
leave to
sit again On Wednesday, when they would take
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-
amend-
housing Bill were both committed pro firma)
ments added, and the Bills ordered to bo 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. HBRRIES stated that be would on Tuesday
(this day) call the attention of the house to the reports
from the Committees of this Rouse and the House of
Lords, on Commercial Distress, and to move that this
House will, early in the next session, take the same into
,s serious consideration.
The house adjourned at Two o'clock.

COURT CIRCULAR.
OSBORNE, MONDAY.

The unfavourable state of the weather prevented her
Majesty and the Prince and their illustrious visitors from
taking their early walk this morning; but the rain
having ceased soon after ten o'clock, the queen and his
Royal Highness promenaded as usual, and the younger
branches of the Alia Family rode and walked in the
grounds.
The Queen and Prince, and their Serene Highnesses
the Prince and Princess of Hohenlohe Langenburg, and
the Princess Elias, and the royal household, attended
Divine service, yesterday morning, at Whippingham
Church. The sermon was preached by the Rev. J.
Protheroe.
Her Royal Hi
, .
Dess the ghnDuchess of Kent (attended
by Lady Anna
Maria avrson, an Sir George Couper),
attended Divine service at East Cowes Church.
The royal dinner party yesterday included her Royal
Highness the Duchess of Rent, their Serene Highnesses
Prince and. Princess Tiohenlohe, Prince Victor, mad
Princess Eliza, Lady Anna Maria Dawson, Viscount
Morpeth, and Sir George Couper.
Lord Morpeth left Osborne for London this morning.

his Royal llighness the Duke of Cambridge left
town yesterday morning on a visit 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-office. The Ministers present were—Lord
John Russell, the Lord Chancellor, the Marquis of
Lansdowne, the Earl of Minto, Sir George Grey, Viscount
Palmerston, Earl Grey, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
the Earl of Auckland, the Right lion. H. Labouchere,
Lord Campbell, the Marquis of Clanricarde, and Viscount
Morpeth. The Council sat two hours and a half.
A deputation, including Mr. Hodges, M.P. for Kent,
Mr. Pomfret, and Major Curteis, had an interview with
Lord John Russell yesterday, at his official residence in
Downing,-street.
The Marquis of Lansdowne returned to town yester-
day, from Nuneham Park.
Viscount Islorpeth 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 MUNRO.—Upon inquiries we find 1
that there is no truth in the paragraph contained in a
Sunday contempoyary, that Mr. Munro would be
liberated from Newgate .to-day. Mr. Munro was tried
on the.lBth of August last year, and cannot, of course,
be discharged from prisoniuntil the 18ih inst.
FoWail *gszif.KssET."A vessel has' arrived from.
Cienfuegos dal C Ulla:Val ..
Z 5.5.
pulicjonk,and 44 tierces
of molasses on board, comprising an entire cargo of tb9
article, the pr9duce of the place,