The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-29 00:00:00

SATURDAY

t_.l4/ ENIN G, MAY 29, 1858.

nation rather than an increase would have taken place in
those estimates.
The vote was then agreed to, as were also the following
votes :-
16,3581. towards completing the expenses of war ser-
vices.
39,511/. towards defraying the charges of general officers.
333,237/. towards completing the allowances to retired
officers.
139,1321. towards completing the allowances and pen-
sions to officers' widows.
34,313/. towards completing the allowances to wounded
officers.
21,372/. towards defraying, the expenses of Kilnaainham
Hospital.
802,863/, towards completinc, the allowances to the out-
pensioners of Chelsea Hospital.'
86,410/. towards completing the cost of the superannua-
tion allowances.
46,219/. towards completing the expenses of maintaining
the Royal Palaces.
Mr. WILLIAMS could not conceive how such a sum
could be proposed for the maintenance of the Royal
Palaces.

Agreed to.
110,6511. towards defraying the rent and expenses of
maintaining and repairing offices.
Mr. WISE, in reference to this vote, said it was much
to be regretted that the numerous small offices were dis-
tributed in various parts of the metropolis, and not con-
centrated.
Mr. WILLIAMS (after a few words from Mr. HAMIL.
TON, explanatory of the vote, and expreisivo of the inten-
tion of the Treasury to give their best attention to the sub-
ject), said that he saw a sum of 6,3811., and another sum
of 7,0731. put down in the estimates or furnishing and
maintaining those palaces, and also items for keeping up
certain old abbeys in Scotland.
Lord J. MANNERS said that the buildings referred to
belonged to the country. and if they were to be kept up at
all they must be so by the country. He could assure the
hon. gentleman, however, that he would do his utmost to
keep the expenditure down. As to the cost of coals and
firewood, he admitted that it was large, but this would be
almost the first year in which any attempt had been made
to introduce supervision into this department, and he hoped
that, by means of such supervision, considerable saving
would be effected. As to the large number of houses re-
quired for the war department he admitted that the hon.
gentleman was quite right as to the facts, but as they came
under another item, perhaps it was better not to discuss
that question until they came to the proper time.
Mr. WILLIAM i said he found sums down for the
maintenance and repair of such places as Arbroath Abbey,
Dunfermline Abbey, Dumblane Abbey, and others in
Scotland. We had many old abbeys in this country. but
their maintenance and repair did not cost the people at
large anything. If these abbeys belonged to any place in
particular it was Scotland, and Scotland ought to pay for
them.
Sir G. LEWIS said the reason why the old abbeys and
public monuments in Scotland were charged on the public.
while those in England were not, was, that the latter were
generally endowed, or were parts of large estates, while in
Scotland there were no such private and independent means
of support. With respect to the numerous houses that
had to be hired for public business, and the rents that had
to be paid for them, while he admitted that at first sight
it might seem more extravagant than to have a concen-
trated suite of public offices upon one spot belonging to
the Government, he doubted whether, on close examina-
tion, this would not prove an erroneous idea. It would be
re•elleoted that meny of those houses were hired merely to
meet an accidental exigency, and could be relinquished
whenever the emergency passed away. Many of them also
wero devoted to business which required no immediate re-
ference to, or communication with the Secretary of State,
and he believed that the concentration of the public offices
which had been so much talked of would not effect the
saving, or be in the end so economical as was generally
supposed. While he hoped that the present Government
would continue the arrangements for the erection of at
least a Foreign-office, and another, say for the War De-
partment, he trusted they would not commit themselves
to any plan for creating a great portion of Westminster,
and then come to the house with estimates to the extent
of a million, which, in all probability, would be doubled
before the works were finished. (Hear, hear.) In fact,
it appeared to him that many of the plans which had been
suggested on this subject had less tho economy of the
public purse in view than to give the civil service a more
imposing character, an l to embellish that part of the town
at the expense of the country. (Hear.)
After some remarks from Mr. SPOONER,
Mr. BAXTER said the sums allotted to the support of
the Scottish abbeys were paid by agreement on the abbeys
themselves being handed over to the Government.
Mr. SLA.NE Y. defended the expenditure upon these old
monuments, because of the gratification which visits to
them gave the public at large, to whom they belonged.
The vote was then agreed to.
On the next vote of 26,9261., for furniture for public
dices and apartments,
Mr. WYSE called attention to the fact, that within the

last seven years the house had voted the large sum of
187,0001. for furniture. They voted 36,0)0/Jest year, and
now this year again they were called upon to vote nearly
27,0001. more. (Hear.) Our public offices had a voracity
for the consumption of furniture which was perfectly as-
tounding. Surely they would grumble if, as private gen-
tleman, that item in their outlay amounted to anything
like the same proportion. Furniture should last at least
ten years, and although repairs might be required the sum
for:that purpose could not b 3 anything like that annually
demanded under this head.
Mr. HAMILTON said the estimate for the ensuing year
was based upon that of last year, and he could assure the
hon. gentleman that the utmost economy would be exer-
cised under this head.
Mr. WILLIAMS quite concurred in the views as to the
extravagance of this vote.
Mr. TITE said he found under the head of the Museum
of Geology, Gower-street School, and South Kensington
Museum, an item of 5,7051. How much did tho latter
take t He could not help thinking that the vote was
lumped in order to cover an excessive vote to the South
KenaingLun Mnawnm.
Lord J. MANNERS said that, as nearly as could be
ascertained, the portion of the vote for South Kensington
Museum was 4,0001.
Mr. SLANEY considered the money was most usefully
and beneficially spent, and
After some further conversation the vote was agreed to.
On the next vote of 99,667/. for keeping in repair the
royal parks and plantations,
Mr. WILLIAMS said it appeared to him that a great
deal too much money was expended in this department,
while, on the other hand, he thought that so much was
not made of them as might be done. A considerable profit
might be made in the sale of plants.
Mr. ADAMS urged upon the noble lord the necessity of
providing additional greenhouse accommodation at Kew
Gardens. Those gardens were not for the exclusive use of
any class. They were resorted to last year by upwards of
400,000 visitors of all classes, whose good conduct and
careful protection of the property in the gardens entitled
them to the highest credit. It was painful to see many of
the plants dying for want of proper protection. In answer
to Mr. Williams, he might mention that 10,000 trees had
been taken from the nurseries in the Royal Parks for Bat-
tersea Park, Victoria Park, and other places, all of which
would have had to be paid for otherwise.
Mr. SLANEY highly approved of the money expended
on the parks and gardens, as conducive not only to the
health, but the moral well-being of the community. He
wished also to call the attention of the noble lord (Lord J.
Manners) to the fact that there were few benches in Vic-
toria Park—a place frequented chiefly by the working
classes—and hoped that this additional accommodation
would be provided for them. (Hear.)
Mr. HAMILTON Faid much credit was due to the late
Chief Commissioner, and that every endeavour would be
made to carry out the very proper arrangements which he
had commenced and contemplated.
Mr. SPOONER thought the house was rather lavish in
expending money on metropolitan parks, while the people
of Birmingham, and other localities, were left to defray
expenses of a similar uatnre out of their own pockets.
Lord J. MANNERS thought the metropolis had a de-
cided claim on the public at large ; but, in future, the ex-
penses incurred for public parks in the neighbourhood of
London would be comparatively small ; and that the bene-
fits derivable from them would be of such a general nature
that the people residing at a distance would have no just
ground of complaint. (Hear, hear.)
Colonel SYKES said the Kew Gardens were a botanical
school of instruction, established for the benefit of the
whole country, and ought to be supported by the country
at large. (Hear, hear.)
The vote was then agreed to.
160,7981. was then proposed for the new Houses of Par-
liament.
Lord J. MANNERS said that sum did not include the
expense of the bell, nor the cost incurred in finishing the
face of the clock-tower. 8,0001. more would be required,
and he hoped the home would grant it.
Mr. WILLIAMS wished to know how soon this work
would be completed. (Hear.)
Mr. HANKEY complained that the hands of the new
clock wore not sufficiently visible.
Mr. TITE said ho was quite willing to vote for the ad-
ditional 8,0001. for the unfinished clock and entrance arch
to Palace-yard ; but ho thought the beautiful exterior de-
corations would be soon damaged by the two kitchen
chimneys. He hoped some means would be taken to make
those chimneys COR3110:10 their own smoke, and thereby
prevent them from defacing the beautiful exterior embel-
lishments of the new houses.
Lord J. MANNERS said steps were being taken to re-
medy the evil complained of. (Hear.)
Mr. SPOONER thought the sum asked for was very
large, and hoped it would be the last vote asked for.
Colonel SYKES inquired whether any arrangements
had been made for the consumption of smoke.
Lord J. MANNERS was not aware that anything of the
kind had yet been-done.
Sir B. HALL wished to know whether Sir C.
Barry had furnished plans and specifications of the work
remaining to be done, and estimates of the expense, and
whether the present vote would cover all future expendi-
ture.

Lord J. MANNERS said he had been furnished with
such specifications and estimates, but had not had an op-
portunity of laying them on the table of the house before
the recess. He would now do so, and next week they
would be printed and in the hands of hon. members. The
noble lord then laid the specifications on the table.
Mr. WISE wished to know what was the total sum ex-
pended on the new houses, from'the commencement to the
present time.
Lord J. MANNERS was unable to state the total
amount, but the printed estimates would show the sum
expended since the last Parliamentary vote.
The vote was then agreed to.
3 ),0001. was then proposed for the War Department.
Mr. BRISCOE hoped that ample accommodation would
be afforded hereafter in one building for all the officers of
that department.
After a few words from Lord J. MANNERS, the vote
was agreed to.
A grout of 31,000/. wad v.,ted to defray the expensee
connected with Probate Registiies, and another of 4,7001.
to meet the expense of British Embassy houses abroad.
On the motion that 170,0001. be granted to defray the
expense of harbours of refuge.
Mr. BAXTER said there existed out of doors a wish that
the House of Commons would look more closely into the
question of the utility of those harbours. Ile should like
to know what the works at Dover had already cost, and
what further sure they wore likely to cost. As to the
60,000/. for the harbour at Alderney, ho was told that that
harbour would never be any great advantage to the com-
merce of this country. Ho wished to elicit the views of
the Government as to harbours of refuge, for he had heard
a great deal said as to the extravagance of which the
House of Commons had been guilty in reference to this
matter. Beyond this he had heard it stated that there was
a great deal of jobbery in reference to the subject, and that
schemes wore being hatched which it would become them
to keep a jealous eye on. Ho thought that it would ill
become them at this time to sanction any new vote on this
subject, which would involve considerable expenditure,
and which expenditure he thought would be attended with

no commensurate- benefit. - He-had heard it said that it
would be a great thing to have harbours of refuge on the
north coast of England, the north-east coast of Ireland,
and also on the coast of Scotland, but what he wished to
call attention to was this, that it was doubtful whether the
advantages would be so great as to justify their expending
a million or a half or a quarter of a million on these har-
bours. A committee was now sitting upon this subject and
should they take any course committing the country to
begin other works as extensive as those at Dover, Holy-
head, Portland, and Alderney, it would be the duty of the
House of Commons to step in and prevent what he thought
would be a profuse and wasteful expenditure of the public
money. He admitted that when the finances were in an
easy condition the taxes might be legitimately applied to
improving commercial harbours, but ho believed that it
would be better to grant small sums in aid of harbours
already in existence, and which might be converted into
harbours of refuge for all practicable purposes, instead of
expending half or a quarter of a million in one particular
place. Half-a-dozen grants of 10,000/. or 20,000/. would
do more to promote commerce than the expenditure of an
enormous sum of money at one particular place.
Mr. WILSON was surprised that his hon. friend had
taken this opportunity of saying what he had said, when
he knew that there was a committee still sitting, and on
the eve of making a report, which would be on the table
in a few days. Ho was surprised that his friend should
endeavour to prejudge that question when the committee
upstairs had been sitting so long, and without seeing the
evidence which had been laid before them. He thought
it a most unfair mode of proceeding, and he would not
follow the example of his hon. friend by discussing the
matter. He was convinced that the evidence would dis-
close a state of things which could not be allowed to con-
tinue. He was quite aware that gentlemen who had in
their minds particular localities, or a particular class of
works, might wish to forestall the report of the committee ;
but that was one of the inconveniences which must attend
a matter of this kind. He could only say that he believed
it was the intention of the committee to report in a very
few days, and, as at present advised, he had no doubt that
a motion would be submitted to the house during the pre-
sent session based on that report. His hon, friend would
have ample opportunity, with full materials, for judging
of the report on that occasion. The present vote was for
170,0001., which showed a decrease on the vote of last
year of 51,0001., and it was stated that "this sum, with
the balance remaining unissued of last year's vote, will be
sufficient for the service of 1858-9." The vote, therefore,
did not represent the expenditure of the year. A mere
reduction of the amount of the vote would not lead to re•
duced expenditure, and he wished to know how much the
expenditure for the ensuing year would be.
Mr. G. A. HAMILTON said if the hon. gentleman sup-
posed that all the information the house had was contained
in the vote, he was not surprised at his requiring further
details, but there was a note referring to a parliamentary
paper in which he would find the fullest particulars. As to
Dover harbour, the total estimate was 650,0001., and the
sum already voted 346,000/. The vote now required was
34,0001., leaving for subsequent votes 270,0001. Then
followed a detail of the work which had been done. As to
the hon. gentleman's question, the sum appropriated to
Dover last year was 34,000/., which had been expended.
For 3Alderney the sum voted was 100,0)01., of which
there was expended 87,0001., leaving to be expended
13,0 0/. in addition to the 60,000/. now asked. For
Portland there was voted last year 90,000/., of which
83,231/. had been expended, leaving to be expended,
nearly 2,000/. in addition to the 76,0001.
Sir C. NAPIER said perhaps it would have been better
for his hon. friend to have waited for the harbour of re-
fuge report ; but for his part he wanted to advert to the
harbour at Dover. He had never been able to find out the
use of it. (Hear.) In 1812 and 1843 he had resisted the
vote, and showed that to take Dover as the site for such a
work would be totally and entirely useless for trading
vessels going from east to west, for they could not get into
the harbour. He thought that the sooner a stop was put to
the matter the better, for the cost was just so much money
thrown away. This was on th 3 supposition that the har-
bour was for commercial purposes, but if the Government
would show that it was for the defence of the country, he,
for one, would veto any amount they liked. As to • the
Alderney harbour, would any hon. gentleman tell him the
use of it as a harbour of refuge ? It would be indeed use-
ful for French vessels, but not for English. Even if it was
for defence what was the use of it? Originally the use of
Alderney was that you could from thence look into Cher-
bourg, but now you could not do so. The other night he
had called attention to the defences of this country, and
ho trusted that no delay would occur in nominating the
commission he had moved for. He did not think that the
Government should lose a single day about it.
. Mr. DUFF must say that he really did not know any
way in which the money of the country could be better
expended than in making a few national deep water har-
bours of refuge for the commercial navy, and also for de-
fence. He hoped, however, that the Government would
not neglect the suggestion of the hon, member for Mon-
trose (Mr. Baxter) as to expending small sums on other
harbours.
Mr. MONSELL did not think that the papers referred to
by the Secretary for the Treasury were calculated to de-
crease their desire to know a little more as to the harbour
at Alderney. The statement of the gallant admiral (Sir C.
Napier) was that the harbour would be of no use— (hear,
hear, from Sir C. Napier)—and what was to be the cost of
it ? hy, something more than 1,300,000/. There had been
expended already 600,000/. odd, and there remained to be
expended 703,000/, though the original estimate was only
6,0,00 J/. It appeared to him to be not too late to inquire
whether they could not limit their expenditure to the ori-
ginal plan, that which was to have cost 600,000/.
After a few words from Colonel SYKES and Mr. G. A.
HAMILTON,
Mr. BAXTER said he understood that it was ar-
ranged that the vote for .Alderney should be reduced by
30,0001.
The CHAIRMAN put the question, that the Alderney
vote should be reduced by 30,0001.
Sir C. NAPIER wished to ask if any additional de-
fences were being built at Alderney ?
Colonel SYKES recommended the Secretary of the
Treasury to make a calculation respecting Dover pier. At
present it got on at the rate of 38 feet a quarter, and an
expense of 35,000/. a-year. His opinion was that it would
cost nearer six millions than 600,00 N , and that neither the
next generation nor the one after would ever see it
finished_
Mr. M. GIBSON said it was mere fallacy to call Alder-
may a harbour of refuge. It was intended as a rendezvous
for men-of-war, and so chosen as being near the French
coast. He did not see the use of it, and he feared that in
case of war it would be a source of weakness rather than of
strength. Still if he was to vote 30,000/. he did not see
why he should not vote 60,000/. and therefore if he voted
with the hon. member for Montrose he must understand
that he had some clear and intelligible chance of retrench-
ment in view. As a general question he was in favour of
expenditure for harbours of refuge. With respect to
Alderney, he had great doubts as to the expediency of ex-
penditure there.
Sir J. PAKINGTON hoped that after the discussion
that had taken place the hon. member for Montrose would
not press his motion. He was ready to admit that Alderney
was not intended as a harbour of refuge, but as a naval
rendezvous. There might be a difference as to the ex-
pediency of its construction, but the highest military au•
thorities, including the late Duke of Wellington, had de-
clared for the necessity of the works I here. The works
which were now voted for (the Alderney) had already been
commenced, and must be completed, but next year the go-
vernment would be prepared with estimates of their own,
opinion,a n d would
oughtbe table
be
done to st awtiet h
definitivelyAlderney. what, in their
Mr. RIDLEY supported the vote.
Mr. BRISCOE understood that even if these fortifications
at Alderney were completed, it would take 5,000 men to gar-
rison them, and that even with that force it would be impos-
sible to hold them against a powerful enemy. He would
suggest the suspension of the works, which he understood
had already been adopted in Jersey.
Mr. MONSELL hoped that the hon. member would not
press his motion.
After one or two further observations, the motion was
withdrawn, and the vote was agreed to.
21,0001., Holyhead harbour.
An Hox. MEMBER asked when it was expected that
Holyhead harbour would be completed ?
Mr. GLYN suggested that the harbour should be made
a place of call for the American steamers.
In answer to some observations by Mr. W. WILLIAMS,
Mr. HAMILTON said that on the death of Mr. Rendell
by the direction of the late Government a new estimate
was made by Mr. Hawkshaw, which was that under dis-
cussion.
Mr. WILSON said that in justice to the memory of Mr.
Handell it should be stated that his estimate of 628,000/.,
was frame on a far smaller proportion with regard to the
worke, and it was in consequence of the repeated exten:
siens of the plan that the increase in the estimates had oc-
curred.
Mr. WILLIAMS could assure the hon. gentleman that
he was mistaken. The estimate was made by Mr. Rendell
at 624,000/. for the same plan which Mr. Rennie and other
engineers estimated at 1,700,0001.
The vote was then agreed to.
On the next vote, 1,0491. for the pay, establishment,
and necessary works at Portpatrick Harbour,
Mr. WILLIAMS said that it was now 14 years since as-
surance was given that there would be no further demand
for this work.
The vote was agreed to; as were
60,651/, for erection, repair, and maintenance of the
several publio buildings in charge of the department of the
Commissioners of Publio Works in Ireland.
18,506/. for the works and establishment of Kingstown
Harbour.
A sum of 88,110/. for the expenses of the two houses of
Parliament was proposed.
Mr. WISE thought the details of the expenditure of the
House of Lords should be given.
Sir G- C. LEWIS said it was impossible to give them.
Mr. WILLIAMS thought the vote ought not to bo
passed without such details.
The vote was agreed to.
A emu of 51,000'. for the expenses of the Treasury was
voted.
The following votes were agreed to :-
21,799/., Home Department.
61,9001., Foreign-office and Queen's messengers.
29,174/., Colonial-office:
67,817 e, Privy Council.
A sum of 2,720/. for the expenses of the Lord Privy
Seal's Office.
Mr. WISE said a committee had recomended that the
office of Lord Privy Seal should be abolished. It was an
office that was quite useless, and was commonly lad by
absentees. He trusted Government would consider this
subject, and see if the office could not be transfer red to some
other department. He moved the rejection of the vote.
The committee divided—
For the vote
Against it
Majority

31
-40

Tho next vote was 6,2551. for the office of Comptroller-
General of the Exchequer.
On the vote of 26,5751. for the office of Commissioners
of Works and Public Buildings,
Mr. B. HOPE complained of the working of the system
in the office of the Board of Works, and more particuhrly
of the failure in the erection of new public buildings,
owing to the impolitic interference of the Treasury under
the late Adminstration.
Mr. WILSON said that th; House of Commons, and not
the Treasury, was responsible for interfering with the free
action of competition for the erection of these buildings.
Mr. TITE expressed a hope that a select committee
might be appointed to inquire into the whole subject of
the Competitive system as regarded our public offices.
Mr. W..WILLIAMS remarked upon an increase in the
salary of the private secretary to the Chief Commissioner
of Works, made avowedly on the ground that the chief
was a Cabinet Minister.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the duties of a private secretary to a Cabinet Minister
were not confined to the mere functions of the office of
Works.

WILLIAMS objected on principle to enlarging

the salary, simply.because a c_hange might take place in
the status of the chief.
The vote was agreed to.
21,009/. for the public record and State paper-office.
On the vote of 253,0521. for the salaries, &c., on account
of the poor-laws,
Mr. M'MAHON proposed to reduce the vote by 130,0001.
the item for the salaries, &c., of schoolmasters and school-
mistresses. These salaries were already paid out of the
local rates, and they were again levied by the Imperiel
Exchequer.
Mr. HAMILTON warned the house against re-opening
the settlement of 1846, by which the consolidated fund
bore half of the expense of the Irish constabulary.
Mr. WHITE supported, and Mr. BAGWELL opposed,
the reduction.
Mr. BOUVERIE believed that the salaries of the school-
masters and schoolmistresses, under the present system,
were much larger than they could bo if drawn from the
consolidated
oli(Alalfund.
ON contended that the education of pauper
children was a national, not a local question.
Mr. I. BUTT thought it would be much better to raise
the question on the vote for medical relief.
Mr. M'MAHON withdrew the motion, but moved the
reduction of the vote by 100,000/., the salaries of the me-
dical officers in the several poor-law districts.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the settlement of 1846 was a
complex one, and he did not think it could be disturbed in
detail. He believed that Sir Robert Peel meant a fair
settlement when he relieved the landowners of certain bur-
dens in consideration of the repeal of the corn-laws.
Mr. W. MILES denied that Sir Robert Peel meant this
in the way of compensation. If honourable gentlemen
would take the trouble to investigate the question, they
would find how much more the landed interest was bur-
dened more than any other class. By the repeal of the
corn laws many small far mars had been reduced to labour.
era in this country, or were poor settlers in a foreign coun-
try. Ho admitted, however, that of late legislation had
been in favour of the farmer. He bad no objection to
enter into the question of the re-adjustment of local bur-
dens, but he thought that was not the proper time for
doing so. His wish was that eventually taxation would
be equal.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could not
see the distinction that bad been drawn by some hon. mem-
bers between medical officers and schoolmasters, and the
remuneration paid to the same. The transfer of this and
other charges, both in England and Ireland, from the local
rates to the Consolidated Fund, was not proposed by the
late Sir R. Peel as a compensation for the repeal of the corn
laws. - The course recommended by the hon. and learned
gentleman was not a wise one, and he asked the committee
to negative the motion. He did not think this a fitting
opportunity for discussing the readjustment of local taxa-
tion.

Mr. WILSON said these charges on the Consolidated
Fund were proposed by the late Sir R. Peel in mitigation
rather than compensation for the repeal of the corn laws.
He hoped the hon. gentleman would not come to an issue
on this important subject on so narrow a point of view.
Mr. I. BUTT considered this a very simple question.
The same plan that was adopted in England ought to be
applied to Ireland, and not compel Ireland to pay its own
charges for medical officers, and a share of those charges
for England. It was not just or honest to Ireland, and
unless the Government would give the committee a pledge
of considering the question with a view to its alteration,
he would vote for the amendment.
After some remarks from Lord JOHN BROWNE and Mr.
A yRTON, •
Mr: WMAHON having replied,
The committee divided, and the numbers were—
For the motioa EO
Against it
Majority ... —7O
On the vote being put,
Sir H. WILLOUGHB Y suggested an amendment of the
laws to get rid of the Poor-Law Commissioners, which
would effect a great saving.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
vote of 50,0001. on account, for defraying the charges of
IfrBsomB-9S.ir H. WILLOUGHBY,
civAilftoeorn
stionnagee neies f
remarksor
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
excess of expenditure of last year arose from exceptional
circumstances, arising out of the commission to China, the
Paris Conference, &c. All he asked for was a sum on sod
count, and he hoped the committee would allow this vote
to pass.

Sir. D. MICHELL objected to so large an amount be-
ing taken on account, and moved that the chairman report
progress.
Sir G. C. LEWIS hoped the hon. gentleman would not
persist in his motion, but allow the vote to be passed.
Ample opportnuity would be given for discussing the
question when the remainder of the question came before
the house.
The motion was withdrawn, and the vote agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN reported progress and the house re•
sumed.
The other orders were disposed of, and the house ad'
journed at ten minutes to one o'clock.

COUntry Markets.

LIVERPOOL, MAY 28.

There was a slender attendance of buyers this morning.
The only change in price was a reduction from Tuesday 01
6d per qr. on white Indian corn, the best selling at 340 t°,
348 6d per 4801bs. ; yellow corn Gd higher. Wheat an"
flour were both held with much firmness, and, if ant
change, the common sorts were considered about a psall
per bushel dearer. Oats, barley, beans, and peas all Or
ported recent values.