The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-15 00:00:00

his objectilnable decorations. Ha agreA with the Hon.
Member fir Montrose that Mr. Blrry was not so much
to biarne as asserted. The Committee were to blame
for not having in the first instance full estimates and
limits from the architect. He hope.; that the Committee
would take care to have estimates for what was yet to
be done.

Lord H. VANE hoped the Hon. Member opposite
(Mr. Greens) would come to some uaderatending with
the Commissioners on the subject.
Mr. J. E. DENISON said that the great question
they had to consider wiv, who were the parties respon-
sible for the management of that building and of the ex-
penditure upon it. Nothing appeared to him more irre-
gular than the whole of the proceedings in that matter,
and he entertained a strong opinion that the manage-
ment of the works ought to be placed under the control
of some responsible authority.
Mr. FRE WEN said that on the 28th of March he
had given notice that he should, on the motion for going
into Committee of Supply, bring under the considera-
tion of the House the distress which prevailed in the
hop-growiae; districts of Suesex. That notice did not,
however, appear in the votes of that day, and he
wished to know whether he could then bring forward
his motion ?
The SPEAKER said that as the notice did not ap-
pear on the paper of that day, the Hon. Member
could not bring it forward. He believed it had become
a dropped order,and the; the Hon. Member had omitted
to renew it.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said ha thought it ex-
tremely desirable that the House should know who
were the parties entrusted with the control of the
works in the new Houses of Parliament.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
his impression was that the Commissioners were respon-
sible for the control of the works. lie believed that
the case which had been adverted to of works having
been undertaken without a proper stuction on the pert
of the Commissioners, had arisen from the fact that
one of their members, namely, his Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Lancaster (Mr. Greene), had been absent from
England at the time, and that another of them had been
laid up by illness.
Mr. GREENE said that the arrangement upon the
subject was that the Commissioners should have the con-
trol of the works, subject, however, to the approval of
the Lards of the Treasury with regard to the cost of
them. The case of which a complaint had been made
had arisen from the circumstance just stated by his
Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Ho believed that Mr. Barry must have misunderstood
the language which he (Mr. Greene) had used upon
the subject. _ _

Mr. ‘d-. BANICES said that as the cost of these works
was subject to the approval of the Lords of the Trea-
sury, it appeared to him that they were the parties re-
sponsible for any improper outlay. He believed that the
wishes of the Committee of last session, with respect to
the new chamber for the Members of that House, had
not been fully complied with. The windows of that
chamber had been painted, and as the windows had also
been reduced in size, the consequence was that the room
was at present so dark that one could hardly read in it
in the noonday.
Mr. HUME said be wished to know whether the
Commissioners had required Mr. Barry to give in any
estimate of the cost of the decorations of the new House
of Commons?

Mr. GREENE said be was not able at the moment to
answer that question. The fact wai, that thd arrant..e-
ments with respect to the new House of Commons had
been left very much in the hands of the Committee ap-
pointed by the House to conduct the matter.
Mr. HUME said it had been proposed that there
should be an inquiry into the circumstances which had
attlided the massacre of the dyaks iu Borneo; stud ho
wished to ask whether it would not be just and proper to
suspend the payment of the head-money until the House
should have decided whether or not that inquiry should
be instituted? _ _

The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Member could not
then put that question.
Sir F. BARING said he hoped he might be allowed
to answer the question, although it was somewhat irre-
gular. The fect was that the Government had no
power cf stopping the payment of that money, which
they were bound to pay under the provisions of the Act
of Parliament.