The Sun.
London, England, 1856-04-01 00:00:00

POLICE BILL.

Sir G. GREY postponed the further consideration
of the Police Bill from the day for which it stood on
the paper until that day fortnight.
A pause for a few moments here occurred, it
being expected that some member of the Govern-
ment would rise and make a statement with re-
spect to the sigoing of the treaty of peace in
Paris yesterday ; but, Lord Palmerston not being
present, the businees of the house was proceeded
with, and, amidst much laughter, the motion that the
Speaker do leave the chair was put and agreed to.]
The house then went into committee of supply ; the
first vote taken was 195,1411. for the royal paaces
and public buildings.
Mr. WILLIAMS complained of the great increase in
this vote. Iu comparing the sum now asked for with
that voted last year he found the increase amounted to
no less than 70,197/. [Lord Palmerston here entered
the house.] He thought the sums of money that had
been expended had been far too large, and he would
only mention the sum that had been expended on
Hampton Court Palace in proof of his assertion. Ile
found since the accession of her Majesty no less a sum
than 165,0001. had been voted to beautify that palace
—a palace that in all probability her Majesty hal
never seen.

Sir B. HALL defended the vote, and said it was not
one so large in excess of former votes for similar items
as insinuated bythe hon. member who had just addressed
the house. The great item of expense over former years
was 19,0001. for public office 4, &c., rendered necessary in
consequence of the extra duties required relative to the
war. Allusion bad been made by the hon. member with
reference to the extra vote required for Hampton Court
Palace, but he (Sir B. Hall) thought the house would
approve of it, when be informed them it was to provide
apartments for the widows of distinguished officers of
both services. These apartments were granted in Hamp-
ton Court Palace by the Queen, and during the
paSt year the following ladies, widows of distb.guished
Olken had been accommodated there, viz. :--M rs. Strang
ways, widow of General Strangways ; Mrs. Cureton ;
Mrs. .B tier,' widow of Admiral Boxer ; Mrs. Shad-
worth; and Lady Torrens. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Spooner, Mr. Adderley, and other hon. mem-
bers addressed the house on this vote.
Mr. WISE said the hon. member for south Stafford-
shire (Mr. Spooner) had called the attention of the com-
mittee to an important point, viz., what become of the
balances of the sums voted by this house for specific
purpse4, and he asked the Government for an explana-
tion. The hon. gentleman called attention to the cost ef
the furniture for public departments. During the past six
years 166,000/. had been voted by the house for furni-
ture for public deparmaents, besides paying 586/. for
rent of furniture. The estimate of last year fur furni-
ture had been greatly exceeded and they were
now called upon to vote the balance. lie saw
19,0001. entered for gas. candies, fire, soap,
and towels for the public offices, which he thought a
large sum.

Sir B. HALL explained that in some caeea, as that
of repairing the statue of Charles IL at Coaring•cross,
the surplus money not required for one item ha I been
expended in those repairs, and it frequently happened
that the estimates were exceeded in some instances and
not in others, when the money was transferred from one
to the other.
Atter some further discussion, .
Mr. 11. BAILLIE asked what was intended to be
done with Burliogtoo Horse
Mr. WILSON said it was in contemplation to ra•
build Burlington House, but until- the plans had been
decided oh It was intended that the societies basing
apartments
in Slmerset House should occupy it, t
give mare room for the trausa?.tion of public business
in the latter building.
In reply to a question from an hon. member relative
to 1,200/. for laying down red cloth for the distribution
of Crimean med,ls last year being contracted for, or if it
had been purchased anfl devolved on any person as a
perquisite,
Sir B. lIA.LL said that most of the cloth used on that
occasion was borrowed. _ .

The vote was ultimately agreed to.
•The next vote, for 7,868/. for additional works for
warming, &c , Buckingham Place, was agreed to.
On the vote for 91,6341. for the Royal parks,
pleasure grounds. &c.,
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY thought this an extravagant
rots, and called attention to the great increase that bad
taken place in the last two years in this depirtment.
He thought it unfair to the mass of general tax-paYer4
that so large a sum should be expended
on these parks. He objected to the Government
laying out 10,000/: as proposed for Hyde Park, and he
moved as an amendment that the sum be reduced by
5,0001.

Sir B. HALL defended the vote in general, and that
for Hyde Park in wtrticular, entering into details of what
had been done in that park for the convenience of the
public and beautifying the place, and what it was neces-
sary still to do to clhaplete it.
Mr. BLACKBURN called attention to the increase
of this amount from 62,010/., the last vote for the Royal
parks and ple4sure-grounds to 91,000/ , the sum now
asked for. He considered the hon, baronet had not
asked to reduce this vote enough. He- (Mr. Blackburn)
thought the committee should reduce the vote
62,000/.
Lord J. MANNERS said the expenditure included in
the vote had arisen from the remarks which had been
made in that house and in the newspapers, in which
such improvements ns bad been made had been pressed
*Tithe right hon. gentleman. lie objected to reduce the
vote by an arbitrary sum, which might cause the relin-
cinishment of some useful improvements. If any parti-
cular improvementvras thought unnecessary, let it be
pointed nut. •

Mr. BOWYER wiahed to know why the alteration in
• the p^.rks hat been under,en
an expense of nearly 23 Flo (li‘i not see why
,0010/. shoul ; have been-incurred
at a time when there would he suca along bill to pay for
war expenses. (Hear.)
• Mr. SPOONER thought it absolutely necessary for
ethd of this
that
the hou-le to put sortie reitriction oinnonexpn
description, aad he was also of op
should be done to resist the.pressure put upotn°Jlle something
1
of departments, which frequently induced them thoeads
ex-
pend sums of public inn,‘ey without giving the pnbl
paving
a
corresponding benefit. There was a large item for • g
the footway from flyde-park corner. Now, he ehonld
like to know whether that expense- ought not to have
been paid by the parish authorities ?
Sir B. HALL said the parish authorities paved one
side of the path, and bad called on the Government to
pave the other.
Mr.. BOWYER was not satisfied with the explanation
which had been given, and moved that the vote be re-
- dnced by the sum of 22,140/.
Sir. B. HALL, in reply to a question put by 'Mr.
Spooner, relative to the fictiog up of the reservoir in the
Green-Park, said that the Lerds of the Treasury had
as-
seated to the proposal, and he had taken the necessary
• steps to put that portion of. the park into the same posi-
tion in which it was in 1726.
'Mr. HA.RCOURT VERNON said that in his opinion
the iright hon. baronet was carrying the wide footpaths
to a'very unnecessary extent.
Mr.,I4A,RROW objected to the item for the footpath
at Kniihtsbridge, Nvh:ch: appeared to have been put
doWn beespse the inhahitant4 of that part of the metro-
polis preftwed walking on' flagged pavement rather than
on a gravel walk. The inhabitants had put on a certain
amount of ureesure for the benefit of their particular, lo-
cality. (Hear.) Why,-ron what principle such improve-
ment could be charged to the public he could not pos-
sibly conceive. (Rear.)
Sir B. HALL inquired if the hocourable member
wished the'parish officers of Knightsbridge to take legal
proceedings against the Government to compel them to
do that which they were bound to do ? •
. what
Mr. BARROW said he should like to know by
- sprocem of law the authorities at Knightsbridge could
compel the right hon. baronet to put downa flagged
ptveieent where no such pavement bad previously ex-
isfcd.., (Hear.) ' • - • ,
* Mr. W., AV ILLfAMS:oljected to the) expenditure for
Wirolsor-park, and could not see why the public were
43,144 4,/ioti to pay for fodder for the deer, for fishing

tackle, and for other articles from which they derived
no enjoyment or benefit.
Mr. DAVIS said he should like to know what legal
obligation existed with respect to the pavement to which
allusion had been made. He should be unwilling to
vote for a reduction of the grant if the Government
were compelled by law to provide such a footway.
Sir B. HALL did not believe that any one but the
Government could be called upon to make the footway.
It was not under the Metropolitan Commission, but un•

der the Office of Works, and they were bound to keep it
in order.

Sir J. PAKINGTON said there was a charge of
1,6001. for paving the footroad of the Birdcage-walk.
Now, he did not see any reason for spending money to
compel the public to walk on a pavement if they prefer.
red walking on gravel. - (Hear, hear.) He certainly
should vote against that item, and was not satisfied with
the explanation relative to the pavement at Knights-
bridge.
He approved of the course which had been
taken in filling up the reservoir in the Green-park.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND said, if it was necessary for
the house to endeavour to protect the Government from
pressure from without, it was not less necessary to pro-
tect a metropolitan member from pressure of that de-
scription. (Hear and laughter.) If the right bon. baro-
net had only exhibited at the reservoir a board, bearing
the words "Rubbish may be shot here," the expense of
filling up the basin would have been saved. (Hear.)
Sir J. SHELLEY believed that flag pavements were
more economical than pavements of any other descrip-
tion, a proof of which might be seen in the fact that flags
were almost invariably used by parish authorities.
The CHAIRMAN said the original amount proposed
by the vote was 91,684/. An amendment hai been
moved, that it be reduced by the sum of 5,0001., and
another, that it be reduced by the sum of 22,1401. The
question he had to put was, that a sum of 69,5441. be
granted.
The committee then divided. The numbers were—
Ayes
Noes
M:aj•ority against the reduction --84
The CHAIRMAN then. put the question that the
grant be for 86,6841., being a reduction of 5,0001. from
the original vote.
TILE TREATY OF PEACE.

Mr. F. FRENCH said, if the noble lord at the head of
her Majesty's Government did not think it worth his
while to give information tag the House of Commons as to
the treaty of peace which •was said to have been signed,
he thought it would have been respectful to the house
that some other member of the Government should have
given the information desired before they went into com-
mittee of supply. In order to give the noble lord an op-
portunity of making an explanation, he would move that
the chairman report progress. It was true that the guns
had been fired to celebrate the signature of the treaty ;
but it was to be remembered that.those same guns were
fired for the capture cf Sebastopol, when in fact it had
not been taken.
Lord PALMERSTON—I was in the house three mi.
nutes after the halt hour, which usually is the time when
notices of motion are given and questions put. There
were notices of motion previous to going into committee
of supply, and there were also notices of questions ; and
I was as much surprised as other members would be
that the house was in committee at so unusually ear'y
an hour. If I had come down 3 Minutes sooner I should
have made a statement which am quite prepared to
make now, though a very snort one, and which conveys
no information to members beyond that which they al-
ready possess. (A. laugh.) If it is a satisfaction, how-
ever, to my hon. friend to be informed officially of that
which he already knows individually, I shall feel great
pleasure in enlightening his mind. (A. laugh.) The
house is perfectly aware that yesterday, about 2 o'clock,
the treaty of peace was signed at Paris. (Hear.) The
house will have seen by the announcement in the Gazette
that it was determined by the Congress that the particu-
lar conditions of the treaty should not be made public un-
til the ratifications had been exchanged ; and that indeed,
is the usual course, from the very obvious reason that de -
ference is due to the contracting powers. At the same time,
without going into any details of a question the main cir-

cutnstances of which are a!ready known to all the word,
becau:,e they have been published in every country in
Europe, I may say that my conviction is that the treaty

of peace will be deemed satisfactory by this country and
by Europe. (Hear.). It will be found that the objects
for which the war was undertaken have been fully ac-
complished. It will be found that by the stipulations of
that treaty the independence and the integrity of the
Turki6h empire will be, secured as far as human arrange-
ments can effect that purpose. It will be found that the
treaty is honourable to all the contracting parties to- it ;
and I trust that while on the one hand it has put an end
ti war, which every friend to humanity must naturally
wish to see concluded, on the other hand it will lay the
foundations of peace, which I trust, as far as regards the
dangers from which the war arose, will be lasting and
enduriig. During the negotiations which have led to
peace, I am happy to say that the same cordiality which
prevailed renting the allies in carrying on the war has
also mainly. contributed to peace, and we shall leave
off at the termination of this war in even stricter
and more close and more extended alliance than ex=
isted during the continuance of the war, and tbat the
future permanence, not only of the good understanding,
but of the intimate cennecti-,n between the great Euro-
pean powers has been cemented and strengthened by
communica,:ions which have been made during these
negotiations. I have nothing more to say than this—
that it must be gratilying to the country to know that
nothing could exceed the ability with which the Bri-
tish negotiators have performed their arduous and diffi-
cult task during these negotiations. Lord Clarendon
and Lord Cowley have not only maintained the honour
and the interest of the country which they represented,
but they have, by their conciliatory conduct, secured
the respect, esteem, and good-will of those with whom
they bad to communicate. (Hear, hear.) Thu ratifica-
tions are to be exchanged as soon as they can be received
from Constantinople and St. Petersburg. The limita-
tion of time has been four weeks, but I should hope
that at least within three weeks those ratifications may
be exchanged at Paris. (Hear, hear.)
The motion that the chairman report progress was
then withdrawn, and the committee proceeded with the
consideration of the vote.
Cul. DUNNE protested against drawing money from
all parts of the country to lay out in Loialon, while they:
refused to Irelend.the-emalleat grant.
Tile committee then divided on the amendment that
the vote be reduced by E,OOOl.
For the amendment • 28
Against it

Mr. BOWYER then moved to. reduce the vote by the
sum of 2,1751., the estimate for the two footpaths.
Mr. .li. C HA NI BERS observed that multitudes parsed
over the foo path from Hyde-park-corner to Knights:-
bridge, and he thought the house ought not to demur to •
the expense of it. - He asked where the•proposed•pave-
merrt was to be in Bird-cage-walk ?s!
Sir B. HALL said some years ago. when '.Lord Car;
lisle was chief commissioner of works he way balled upon
to put down a ravemerit from' Great. George-streetsto
Buckinharn-gato, and a pavement was laid doSvis 'tWo
feet six inches or three feet wide. It was now proposed
that there should be a wide pavemelt.
After a few words from Mr. BARROW and Mr. BIG GS,
thocoinrnittse divided,
Vor the amendment - l9
Against it
Mr. BLACKBURN then-called attention to an item
of 2,570/. for making a' read from' Holyrood to.Ducl
d-
ingstone, Which he did not think was wanted! or de.
aired by anybody: !
Sir R. BULKELVIV said-he would askihe, right hon.
! bast. a cprests)n which inigidr;OrPrise. him, but he did not
' expect an answer from 'hiiri that .
l'u
evening, The question
was ion
wouldaw
was what objection there could be to the
St. James's Palace ? (Flear.) git down
a good prospect from the top of St: Samehes.:;treet, and
would enable them to build goverion&-lt isuildin nacre
in the Style of the present day, Hiqt,ss:ks4y,s
nothing 'particularly interesting in St. Jarrie's's4Pala:e:
and it was a hideous structure. Theyssser, Voting
annually large sums for enlarging and bearitifyiug
Buckingham Palace, and he could conceive no reason
why such a hideous building as St. James's Palace
should be allowed to exist. , !!
Mr. BAILLIE was assured that the vote refexro to
by the hon. member for Stirlingshire was
lob • its object being merely to insprotro!tbe Pt?perty of
.certain persons iu the neighbourhood. He,was informed
that the
of g'Portiori of those beautiful rooks called Arthur sea,.
Proposed road would involve the blowing away. ,
fir B' :I!'4111,14 said his attention had been directed to
of
!Edinburgh.
this Matter, 14 the:firat instance, by the Lora Provost
satisfied bh4 that the viols used works would be a very
Ile had since made inquiries, which had
great improvement to tbe%"Cotl,i h metropolis ; and there
was certainly nothing in- the transaction-which in the
a .
lifter some cOnveria.tion3
slightest degree rwsembled —oh
ba-
ronet agreed to postpone4.4e
ever, the right hon.
wsect, and the vote, re-
duced by the sum in question
99,383/. for works at the !,z;ewasitforeed
of
under the direction of Sir C. Barry.
In answer to an Hors. MEURER, parliament
• Sir B. HALL stated that two court yards in
g
the
"
rear of the western portion of the building
.bad '
th
nails, been paved with a preparation of India-rubber, but
that that having become rotten it had been found
sary to replace it with pavement. Sir C. Barry was not for the experiments with the new rnaterial
Mr. W. WILLIAMS wished to know whet would b
the total cost of the buildings, and also whether any6
ar-
rangement had been come to with Sir C. Barry, with
respect to his commission
Sir B. HALL said that his predecessor, the late Sin
W. Molesworth, made a report to the house on Jan, 9,
1855, its which it was stated that the sum required to
complete the building from that date would be 280,2721.
He (Sir B. Hall) had every reason to believe that that
sum would be sufficient.
Mr. BAILLIE asked whether it would merely com•
plete the buildings at present in progress, or whether it
would suffice for the new buildings of which Sir ,C.
'Barry had given in a plan—a plan, namely; which in-
volved the removal of the law courts ? Ile might just
rowark that a vdy good site had lately been provided

for the law courts in Covent-garden, and thus a consider-
able difficulty which had hitherto been felt had been ob-
viated.

Sir B. HA LL replied that the 280,872/. would only
suffice for the works iu actual. progress. At tho
fling of the session Mr. Spooner had asked him if he (the
right hon. baronet) had given any sanction to the fur•
ther plans of Sir C. Barry ? His reply to that question
was that he had not, and that he should not until the
works which had been commenced were completed. The
new plans were of a very elaborate character ; aid it
would cost 500,0001. or 800,0001. to carry them into
effect. (Cheers.)
Mr. M. WILLIAMS remarked that the charge for re-
pairs was 5,200 Z. for the very small portion of the buildings
which had been delivered over to the office of Works.
Last year it was 5,400/. ; and it was really frightful to
think what this item would amount to when the whole
had been delivered up. Surely there must be some fault
in the construction of the building. He was glad to hear
the statement of the right hon. baronet with regard to
undertaking new plans ; but he cautioned him against
being led away by Sir Charles Barry's schemes.
Mr. WILSON explained the proposals which bad been
made to Sir Charles Barry for the settlement of his com-
mission claim. Sir Charles had been offered 1 per cent.
on the measurement of all passed works is addition to kis
commission; but Sir Charles had not yet intimated his
acceptance of the offer.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND insisted that Sir Charles had a
right to 5 per cent, upon the money expended on the
works, and these overtures to compromise on the part of
the Treasury were neither more nor less than attempts to
filch from what was Sir Charles Barry's just due.
Mr. WILSON repudiated all idea of overreaching Sir
Charles. The Treasury had made him a liberal offer, and
one which he had accepted in respect of a portion of the
works.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS thought Sir Charles had no cause
for complaint, as the offer of the Treasury was a large and
a liberal one.

Mr. SPOONER also took the same view of the matter,
and expressed his belief that the house apd the country
would take the side of the Government.

Mr. WILSON repeated that the practical effect of the
offer would be this, to extend to a much larger sum the
same proportion of percentage that Sir Charles had already
consented to accept in respect to a smaller sum.
Mr. MALINS observed that Sir Charles was placed in
this position ; he could not sue the Government, but he
had offered to refer his claims to arbitration, and he put it
to the committee whether it would not be better to adopt
that course than be continually reverting to these disputes.
In the matter of Sir Charles's claims for building the Re-
form Club, the question was referred to the arbitrement of
a gentleman at the bar, and having been his counsel on
that occasion, he happened to know that the whole dispute
was settled in one morning sitting. Now, why could not
the same course be taken in the present case?
Mr. "WILLIAMS said the hon. and learned gentleman
opposite had referred to the Reform Club, for which Sir
Charles Barry hail put in a plan. He was to receive a
certain sum for this work, and he then made some altera-
tions which were not carried out, and he male his demand
for commission. The Reform Club propose(' to refer it to
arbitration, but he did not agree. The club then proposed
that it should select three persons, of whom he was to
name one, by whom the inatter.wasto be decided. He re-
fused that, and ultimately it was referred to a barrister,
and it was decided in the way the hon. and learned gentle-
man had stated.

Mr. L. DAVIES hoped her Majesty's Government would
not accept the proposition of the hon. and learned gentle-.
man (Mr. Matins); but would stand upon the high grounds
of justice in this matter.
Mr. WILSON was bound to say that Sir C. Barry had
frequently attempted to refer the question to arbitration,
but the proposition had been declined. If the Govern-
ment treated Sir C. Barry unfairly, he had that house to
appeal to.
Mr. MALINS thought it would be useless for•an indi-
vidual to appeal to that house in opposition to the influence
of the Government. (Hear.)
Mr. MALINS again advised that a friendly power should
be called in to settle the question at issue. That was the
principle on which they settled all their affairs. The peace
which had just been concluded was settled by means of
calling in a friendly power. He did not believe that there
would be any difficulty' in arbitrating upon the question.
In the case of the Reform Club, Sir C. Barry claimed for
furnishing the house. It was said that he had not the
arrangement of the furniture, but he stated over and over
again that that was one 'of the most troublesome of his
uties. The whole matter was brought under the notice of
the arbitrator, Mr. Erle—now Mr. Justice Erle—and he
gave a decision which perfectly satisfied all parties.
Mr. SPOONER said: there was a charge for embank-
ment. Was that a continuation of the charge already made
on account of the embankment?
Sir B. HALL said it was a continuation of the embank-
ment account of 1854.

. Mr. M. CHAMBERS said that men of eminent ability
were invited to send in plans. Many plans were sent in,
one of which, that of Mr. Fairbairn, excited general
attention. It was pretty generally knowu that these
gentlemen had been deceived; and the result was that the
Ration, instead of having to pay 750,060/., would have to
pay many millions. Ho did not agree iu the principle
which had been laid down; that architects had a legal right
to make any specific charge for services rendered; for it
was proved °vete, day in oar courts of law that great dif-
ferences existed upon the subject. The Institute of Ar-
chitects mightliy down rules of honour for their own guid-
ance, but they e Add not set up any legal right. It was the
former practice of architects not to agree to erect a buil:ling
for any given sum ; a
,practice from which they had de-
parted. He was of opinion that if Sir C. Barry was desir-
ous of keeling up the reputation of the institute, he would
accept the oar of the' Government. He believed there
would be some difficulty about the clock, which was like
Farmer Flare borough's picture, which was expressly
painted for him' •and could not then be got into his house.
Sir B. HALL said the clock was finished, and was going
remarkably well. He believed that the clock and the belle
would be got up without further difficulty.
Mr. WISE asked what would be the cost of the clock ?
Sir B. HALL said the cost would be 1,9601., of which
1,6001. had been paid on account. The remaider would
be paid en delivery.
Mr. BOWYER wished to azk a question in reference to
the last item, 4,000/. for works of art iu connection with
the Palace of WeCnineter. He wished to know whether,
in those works of art, persons other than subjects of her
Majesty had been employed. He thought that in times like
the present their choice of artiets should not be confined
within any particular geographical limits. Some of the
frescoes were below mediocrity, and one was particularly
disagreeable to him. It represented the baptism of King
Ethelred, who had a crown on his head and wee stark
naked. (Laughter.) He was sure that there was no his-
torical authority foe that. In one of the principal figures
representing the ceremony of coufering the Order of the
Garter the legs were left'otit, as they were supposed to be
below the framework. In such a subject he thought the
appearance of zhe legs was a very important item. '(Laugh-
ter.) In other figures there was a sad want of proper dress
and clothing. These, however, were matters of taste, and
some gentlemen might suppose that the pictures were very
good. He maintained that this country would never ob-
tain any-deserved reputation unleesi it took a broad view of
art, and considered the republic of art as extending over
the whole of Europe. In sculpture, for instance, he found
that the name of Baron 'Maroolietti, one of the meet emi-
nent of our sculptors, was omitted from the list'of those
who had been invited to compete.
The vote was then agreed 'to.
On. the vote of 207,3051. fur works connected with the
packet harbour. ef -Holyhead, -
Mr. WILLIAMS inquired whether this was to complete
the expenses in counectiou with. the harbour ?
Sir C. WOOD would answer the question from the esti-
Metes themseivel he total amount required was 471,0001.,
of which it was pr, posed to take 207,0001. this year.
Agreetl.
233,0;01. was-voted for harbours of refuge.
3841. weas voted for Port. Patrick Harbour.
On the vote of'4l-0:1/.- for' public' works in Ireland,
. Mr. BLA.CKBURN complained of the increase over the
estimates of previous•yeare..• • -
, j Ir., WILLIAMS objected to the expenses incurred in
resPeot to Kihnainhana Hospital, which he thought was
treeless for the purpeees for which it was designed. •
'Mr. IVILSON explained in reference to ruany.of, the
items-that theYavere 1 o'gers *them ueual in consequence of
no vote heitig taken laet yeer.
Mr:" WISE objected to thecharges which were made for
the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and which entailed au ex-
pense of 30.00 alrear on this conntry.
Mr. SPOONER objected to-the., support of a'Romri
Catholicchaplaia-in connection with liilinainhain Hospi-
tal,whielehe found provided feria the votes.
, The vote Waeagreel to. , • -
'A,yote of 1.0,3501., for the purpose, of Kingstown Har-
' boor, was agreed to.
A vote of 83,680 T. fOr allOwarrees and payments to offi-
ete of--Parliament was agreed to; after some remarks from
Mr. PELLATT and Mr. HADFIELD on' the propriety of
allowing persons to defend their rights, in opposing bills
before committees of the house, without incurring such
heavy expenses as they were now subjected to. In the
course of his. remarks Mr. Hadfield said the railway com-
panies hail been put to an expense, of a million of money
in obtaining their acts, although railways were thegreatest
.linprovernente of modern times.
Mr. M. CHA.'d BE aS asked a question in reference to
the °hare° of 4,0001. for short-hand writers., He wished to
know whether, since the death of Mr. Gurney, any new
arrangement had beau made. He understood that Mr.
Gurney, Who was the shorf-hand writer to both housee,
-took half the amount, while the persons who did the work
received the other half. That was a most inequitable ar-
rangement.
Air. WILSON. said that when Mr. Gurney died a heti
arrangement was made with Mr. Gurney, jun., by the
SpSaker, He could not engage with Mr. Gurney as to the
amounts he, paid the persons he employed, which must be
aprivate`larrangeurent between them.
-Mr. M. CHAMBERS was most anxious that the matter
atalresrieirt-olieLndieewtroittehrse
should lie well considered: He had had the matter repree
.18tiehtUtyey,3,134wIllettZhphlilOneWbetalluls daOr hofogusreeautnalbesi;
proper footing. e
The fellowing votes were agreed to
52,00.1/.. for the vmeireerr departments of. the Treasury.
24,2011. for the Rome Department. , •
, 68.?,41.1, for the Poreigueerfice, . -
28,4521. for, the Colonial Department. , •
61,0071:for the Board of Trade.
2,700/. for the offices of the leord Privy Seal. '
24,5111. ter the office of the'Paymaster-Genera.L
6,1831. for the office of the Comptroller-General of the
Exchequer.
23,313/. for the office of Works and Publio]Buildings.
21,6e41. for the Woods and Forests and Land Revenues.
10,1471- for the Public Record-office.
e a slight discussion took place.
Upon this last-named vote
LD looked upon the vote as ex-
tremely2oe,93/, for the Poor-law Board.
had been a great reduction in the
There
larg©•
Ireland, and he trusted
of the poor-law charges in .
amount
prelude to reductions inEngland.
that would be the
Mr. S. FITZGERA.
Irelandd •g the last
in during
view to show that the decrease
character.
fete years bad been of a highly satisfactory
admitted that, but still consi-
Mr. HORSMAN went through. some statistics with a
Mr. S. FITZGERALD
that a commission upon
Mr. MACA]-4TNEY believe.
and wished to know when
the subject had been appointed,
.dered the expenses to be unduly large.
had been issued.
Mr. 'WILSON said that no commission
Mint, some discussion
On the vote of 48,8294 for the
the report would be laid upon the table 9
arose ae to the probability of an increase in the gold chin-
age during the next year.
Ur' WILSON said that the Master of the Mint had had
some communication with the Bank, and had come to the
conclusion that there would be a considerable increase in
the gold. coinage. It had been decreased lately, a large
quantity of coinedgold having been sent out to the &St.
- - The vote was agreed to.
A vote of 23,1451. for inspectors of factories and mines
was agreed to.
PR the Too of 5,964 b, for the Scottish Ezobeggeb

I 'SO