The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-06 00:00:00

pass it at the present moment. Next year the value of the
property around tho camp would be so much increased as
to render it just that the inhabitants should support the
extra police rendered necessary thereby.
The committee divided—
For the vote
Against. it
14
Majority —ll7
Upon the vote of 3,0001. for the inspection of burial
grounds:

Mr. HA.DFIELD complained of the manner in which
this inspection had bawl exercised. Grounds had been in-
terfered with which had been opened for public convenience
without a just consideration for the rights of property.
Mr. WILSON said that the duties of these inspectors
were regulated by two acts of Parliament passed some few
years since.

Mr. PELLATT thought there ought to be some expla-
nation given upon the_vote.

Tho iota was agreed to. -
Upon the vote of 21,2621. for Battersea Park,
Mr. P. O'BRIEN corupleinecl that although this was a
vote for a municipal and local purpose, Mr. Williams did
not find fault with it, while he was loud in denouncing
votes of public money for local purposes elsewhere. He
supposed that in the fact that this was in the borough of
Lambeth was to be found the reason for the hon. member's
silence on this occasion.
Mr. WILLIAAIS informed the hon. member that not an
inch of the park was in the borough of Lambeth. (Hoar.)
The fact was that when he cause into the house he found
that a large stun had been expended for the park, but he
had been assured that if the schemes of Government wore
carried out the entire expenditure would be returned.
Col. DUNNE' thought a limit ought to be drawn in the
expenditure of public money for municipal purposes.
Mr. EVELYN must express his astonishment at the
course adopted by the hon. member for Lambeth. He could
not forget how that hen. gentleman upon a former occasion
had opposed a grant in aid of the rates of the counties of
Hants and Surrey for public purposes. Tho hon. member,
however, was not so ready to oppose the application of the
public money for objects connected with the metropolis, in
which his constituents had an interest. It was quite evi-
dent, therefore, that if the hon. member was a rural re-
former, he was a metropolitan conservative.
Sir B. HALL might state that he had boen over the
ground not long ago, and he was able to inform the com-
mittee that the .park would be open to the public in the
courses of the next summer, He hoped also that the sum
of 21,262/. would bo found qnito sufficient to cover all the
expenditure necessary; while he might add that of the
whole 325 acres which had been purchased 125 had been
reserved from the interior of the park, which would be let
for building purposes, so as to reproduce a large sum of
money.
Mr. WILLIAMS defended his consistency, and eulo-
gise the public spirit of his constituents, the inhabitants
of Lambeth, who had of themselves, unassisted by any
public money, created one of the very finest parks in the
metropolis. (Great laughter, and cries of "name.") Ken-
nington Park. (Roars of laughter.)
Mr. P. O'BRIEN—It is nothing but stones.
Dr. MICHELL declared there never was a worse job
than that same Kennington Park, of which the lion. mem-
bar was so proud. (Renewed laughter.) I4st year, as
they would all remember, a very largo sum was voted for
puttinz the park in order.
Mr. WEL LIAMS—No.
Dr. MICHELL—Yes, there was 1,001. voted for the
purpose.
The vote was then agreed to.
The next vote was for a sum of 35,7531. towards defray-
lag the expense of constructing an embankment and pub-
lic roadway between Vauxhall and Battersea Bridge, and
an approach from Chelsea to Sloane-street.
Dr. MICHELL declared that if tho last vote involved a
job this was ton times worse. (Laughter.) They were
doing with the public money that which ought to devolve
upon private individuals, whose property would be mate-
rially benefitted by the outlay. When they wanted roads
or bridges in Cornwall they made them at their own ex-
pense, and ho did not see why the inhabitants of the me-
tropolis should not do the same.
Colonel DUNNE concurred in the objection to the vote,
and expressed a hope that next session something like a
combined action would be got up against such proposals.
Sir B. HALL said the vote was required to carry out
the intentions of an act passed in a former session. The
Marquis of Westminster would be required to pay a sum
of money commensurate with the advantages derived by
his property, and when the works were completed the
money would be paid.
Mr. SPOONER, wished to know whether the present
vote was the last that would be required for the purpose ?
Sir B. HALL could give no such assurance. At the satee
time he would promise that if any further F urn were re-
quired a statement of the proposed outlay should be laid
on the table previous to being incurred.
Mr. HADFIELD also objected to the vote. In Man-
chester, Sheffield, and elsewhere they got no public money
for the formation of parks, and he could see no reason why
the metropolis 'alpue should be entitled to such assistance.
Those whose property was advantaged by such improve-
ments ought to pay for them, and none other s. There was
Westminster Bridge, hard by, ono of the greatest tho-
roughfares in the world. That bridge was being rebuilt,
and at the public careens.), while all the time it was those
living in the neighbourhood whose property would be
benetited that ought to pay for the expenditure.
Mr. L. DAVIES wished to know what sum the Marquis
of Westminster would have to pay ?
Sir B. HALL—Between 8,0001. and 9,0001., that being
considered to represent the improved value of his
perty. He might add, the bridge would be open before
the end of the year.
Mr. KENDALL thought the Government might have
done this year what they had promised to do in future, and
have laid detailed estimates of all the expenses connected
with this project before the house.
Dr. MICHELL .would unquestionably divide against
the vote. He moved that it be rejected.
Sir W. JOLLIFFB thought they ought to know whether
the Government contemplated the redemption of the tolls
upon the bridges and roads round London. It seemed
to him, otherwise, that it was rather unfair for the
Government thus to compete with those who had expended
their money in the construction of roads and bridges to
the groat advantage of the public, and interfere with their
legitimate returns.
Sir 13. HALL thought that any such intention on the
part of the Government would be strongly opposed in that
house. Two years ago he had sat upon a committee with
reference to that subject, which recommended that a me-
tropolitan board of works should be created as the proper
body to consider the question of the redemption of tolls
and other matters. Well, such a board had been created,
and he was happy to perceive by the report of their pro-
ceedings published in the newspapers, that the subject was
under the consideration of the board, add he hoped would
be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
The committee divided—
For the vote
'Against it
Majority
The vote was then agreed to
On the next vote, 1,5441. for services connected with the
Windsor improvements,
Mr. SPOONER considered that the item of this vote
required explanation.
Mr. WILSON explained that it was a balance of into-
' rest due to the Windsor Improvement Commissioners.
After a conversation, the vote was agreed to.
1,1509/., works at Carisbook Castle, in the Isle of Wight.
—Agreed to.
9,000/., Record-office.—Agreed to.
6,91:31., furnishing British embassy-houses abroad.
Mr. WHITESIDE complained that the architect who
wont to Paris to superintend the arrangements for her
Majesty's reception at the Paris Embassy bad charged
9001. for superintending an expenditure of 5001. The hon.
and learned member also criticised with severity the est-
peudituro for the ambassadorial palace at Constantinople.
Ho should move that both votes be reduced by the sum
of 2,330/.
Mr. WISE supported the amendment. The total ex-
penses of erection at the Paris, Madrid, and Constanti-
nople embassies, had been 230,000/.
Sir B. HALL explained the items of expense at the
Paris Embassy. With respect to the architect's expenses,
be thought they were justified by the period of time dur-
ing which be was detained in Paris. There were several
items in this vote which ought to have been brought under
the notice of the house in a former year. He thought it
right to have all the items which cause to his knowledge
brought before the house, and he did not believe there
would be any of these outstanding accounts in future.
Mr. WHITESIDE said that if had any doubt before
about dividing the committee on this vote, that doubt was
moved by what the right hon. gentleman stated.
In reply to Mr. Pisersame

109
66
-43

Sir B. HALL said that Mr. Albano, the architect, was
not paid by percantagesi but by daily allowance and ex-

penses.

Sir D. NORREYS said that if an architect had been
sent from this country to superintend repairs, &c., for the
sake of economy, the experiment had failed.
Sir B. HALL said it was impossible to defend the vote
in some respects, because it contained items of 1854 which
ought to have been brought under the notice of the house
in that year. He gave precise instractions to Mr. Albano
when he wee sect to superintend repairs.
Sir F. BARING suggestedthat the vote should be with-
drawn for the present, and submitted to a select commit-
tee, because at present they did not know how much they
ought to pay. He did not think any blame attached to the
right hon. gentleman. He should move that the chairman
report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. HUTCHINS complained that the payment to the
architect was over 100 per cent on the amount of repairs.
Mr. SPOONED, said that the same architect had received
4()71. for superintending a Protestant burial-ground at
Madrid which cost only 3101. (Hear, hoar.)
Mr. MUNTZ said the whole system was bad. Whatever
Government touched it mismanaged ; but there was no use
in taking. They must divide against every item if they I
wished to make an impression the Government. (Hear.)
Sir W. JOLLIFFE thought the Government could not
press this vote at present.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it ap-
peared to him to be quite now to appoint a committee to
inquire into a particular vote. Ho admitted that estimates
should have been framed before the expenditure was in-
curred. Mr. Albano was an architect employed by the
Board of Works, and he understood ho was paid by daily
allowance and by travelling expenses. He V 754 sent to
Paris to perform a special duty, and by some official negli-
gence he was left there longer than he ought to have been.
(Laughter.) He begged to observe that neither ha nor his
right hon. friend nor the Secretary of the Tressury was
responsible for that. He stated the fact, and having stated
it he put it to the committee whether any practical advan-
tage could result from the appointment of a committee of
inquiry.
Mr. DISRAELI said ho should support the motion of the
right hon. baronet the member for Portsmouth. It was the
duty of the committee, where the Government were unable
to explain or defend their own votes, to take the subject
into their own hands. The committee of inquiry which the
right hon. gentleman proposed would not only inquire into
this particular vote, but into the eau's() of the expenditure.
Ho considered that a practical mode of dealing with the
question, and he should therefore vote for the right hon.
gentleman's motion.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hail not at-
tempted to vindicate the laches, and if the house thought
an examination by a select committee necessary he had no
objection, and therefore would withdraw the vote.
The vote was accordingly withdrawn, as was the motion
for reporting progress.
2,0811. for work and furniture at the British Consulate
at Constantinople.
6,0a01. for works at Spgrn Point in the River Humber.
637/. for works at Menai Straits. _

1,0531. for the saJaricsof certain professors at Cambridge
University were universally adopted.

- -
On 15,6291. for salaries and expenses of the Encumbered
Estates Commission in Ireland being proposed,
Mr. WRITESIDE complained that the Chief commie,.
sioner Was the judge of the Court of Exchequer, who was
compelled to neglect his duties in ono court to perform those
iu another. It was a subversion of the independence of a
judge to pay him a salary to peiforal the functions of an