The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-11 00:00:00

SUN, LONLON, TUESDAY EVENING AUGUST 11, 1857.

of the public service. What the Government now pro-
xxo3ed was, to acquire the ground in the neighbourhood
of Downing-street: on which two or three public offices
should hereafter be erected. No steps, would however
be taken with zegard to expenditure until the house had
sanctioned it ; but in the recess Government woull con-
sider the merits of the respective designs, with a view of
submitting a plan for the consideration of Parliament
next session. (Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY considered that the motion of the hon.
member for Maidstone would place them in a worse diffi-
culty than they were at present, that of having designs,
but no site on which to erect them. Before the Govern.
ment decided on receiving designs they should have pro-
cured a site. It was a great hardship, and he did not con-
sider it honest on the part of the Government, to have
given those gentlemen who had sent in designs so mach
trouble, and have put them to so much expense, and then
tell them that they had no intention of carrying their
plans out. (Hear, hear.) A great deal had been said
about the emergency of the case, from the Foreign-office,
and especially the Colonial-office, being in so bad a state
that fears were entertained of its falling. He admitted
the offices were in a bad state, and the latter premises
had been falling for the last 29 years ; but he thought it
was likely to last for some time longer—at all events till
they bad had an opportunity of considering and deciding
on the plan to be submitted.
Mr. BRISCOE objected to the magnitude of the de-
sign for the Foreign-office, which would require an out-
lay of 380,0001. He considered a reception-room, ts pro-
menade-room, a double colonade for flowers, and a
central ball, 50 feet in length, for music and suppers, in-
compatible with a building for the transaction of public
business. The design was a very beautiful thing, but it
was only a copy of the Hotel de Ville. If a Foreign
Minister was compelled to hold receptions after a style
the building indicated, he thought the result would be
that when they had a needy Foreign Secretary, Parlia-
ment would be obliged to bear the expense. Another
item for expense to be looked at was, that of furnishing
such a mansion in a suitable style.
Mr. TITE objected to a greater outlay at first, by way
of experiment, than 400,0001. or 500,0001. for offices
which he thought could be erected on the ground in
Downing-street, and he warned them from committing
a similar blunder to that in connection with the houses
of Parliament, where the expenditure had exceeded the
estimate of 850,0001. by nearly two millions. The
erection of the two designs that had been selected —one
in the Renaissance style, and, to a certain extent, a
copy of the Hotel de Ville ; and the other, half French
and half Italian, with the houses of parliament near them,
would produce the most incongruous appearance,
and would be such as no man of taste could for moment
tolerate. He urged on the Government not to
embark in building speculations without having first
well considered their plans, or they would involve them-
selves in an outlay that would in all probability extend
from five to ten millions.

The house then divided, when the numbers were—
Ayes l3B
Noes
Majority
The amendment was therefore lost
On the motion that the Speaker to leave the chair,
Colonel NORTH called the attention of her Majesty
Government to the hardship inflicted on a large and me.
ritorious class of officers by the operation of the roya'
warrant issued in October, 1854, by which it became law
that after an officer had commanded a regiment for three
years—perfectly irrespective of the number of years
be had served in the army—that officer was entitled
to become a full colonel. The consequence was that
mere boys, in point of service and exper►ence, were pro-
moted over the leads of officers who had served with
the utmost credit and gallantry in all parts of the world.
The subject had been brought under the notice of the
Government a year and a half a.:o, and again at the end
of the last session by Col. Lindsay, but as the Govern-
ment had not shown any interest in the matter, as a con-
sequence, he had been counted out. Considering that
the question was one of justice to a large class of officers
he did not think that the course adopted by the Govern-
ment was one which reflected any credit on the Govern-
ment. Previously to the warrant of Oct., 1854, no officer
except a Queen's aide-de-camp could be promoted over
the head of another; and what these officers complained
of was, that the warrant had been made retrospective.
The consequence was, that those men, many of whom
had been promoted for gallantry in the field, found
themselves passed over by boys, both in service and in
age. 140 officers had been passed over. The thing
could have been easily remedied at the time by bring.
ing forward those officers in a brevet, making a larger
number of full colonels, and a smaller number of
lieutenant-colonels. He had proposed that course as
one of common justice, and with a view to prevent
the galling feeling which those officers bad expe.
rieoced in seeing their juniors passing ever their heads.
His complaint againF t the Government was that they
had not taken into consideration the recommendations
of the royal commission which sat on the warrant, to

-130

,
adopt some measure to obviate the injustice which the
adoption of that warrant would cause. The Govern-
menthad stated that they were taking the matter into
_ _

consideration, but the way in which their consideration
seemed likely to act, he would instance by mentioning
the case of the present officer, Lieutenant Colonel
Denny. Up to the 30th of June last 64 junior of-
ficers had passed over his head, while at present the
number amounted to 86. Was it not heart-rending to
gallant men like that to see themselves passed over by
officers who, compared to themselves, were mere boys,
both in service and in the number of years they had been
field officers, Many of the officers thus passed ever had
received their promotion for gallantry in the field and But-
tering from wounds, and having lull reliance on the war-
rant then in force, by which no officer but a Queen's aid e-
de-camp could pass over their heads, they had retired

from their regiaients. Owing to the unfair course of the

new warrant being made retrospective, their expectations
bad been deceived. In the natural course of things,
those officers cool' only receive their promotion by sur-
viving the whole of 164 generals on the Army List, but
how many of them were likely to survive that number
of generals ! An officer now entering the army knew
what he had to expect, but he did think it would
be only justice to those who had been so injuriously
affected by the warrant of 1854, to give them their
promotion by brevet. He trusted, therefore, that their
matter would be laid before the proper authorities with a
view of so grievous an injustice being obviated. He
813001 be glad to know how it was that while the officers
and men of the French army were esearing the Turkish
medal in 1355, net a single English soldier had yet re-
ceived it, although at this moment all the regiments
wish were entitled to it were on their way to India ? He
did not know whether it was the fault of the Foreign-
office or of the War-office ; but he did know that it was
perfectly disgraceful that the officers and men of our
army should be treated in that manner. There was
another point to which he would advert before sitting
down, that was the injustice of promoting officers com-
manding regiments to be general officers over the heads
of men holding staff appointments, of so much resposi-
bility as those, for instance, of Deputy Adjutant-General
and Deputy Quartermaster-General in Ireland. It was
not fair that men holding such responsible offices as
those should labour for years without any recognition
of their services. He trusted, therefore, that the matter
would receive proper attention from her Majesty's Go-
vernment.

Lord HOTHAIVI fully concurred in the remarks which
bad just fallen from the hon. and gallant officer. Whe-
ther the Government were dealing with the claims of
their civil officers or their military officers, there was one
rule to which undeviating and strict attention ought to
be paid—that of good faith. Na v good faith had not been
kept with the class of officers alluded to. He therefore
trusted that the Government would take some steps to
remove the grievance of which they complained.
Mr. STAFFORD adverted to the very unsatisfactory
answers which bad been given by the Under-Secretary
for War with respect to the clothing provided for the re-
giments lately sent to India—viz , the 97th, 20th, and
part of the 42d Highlanders. It now appeared that
those men bad landed in India in the same uniform in
which they had quitted Aldershot and Sborncliffe, with-
out even a single piece of white cloth to cover the
hideous black chaco. From an answer given by the
right honourable gentleman, he had concluded that
the necessary provision against the burning sun of
India would accompany the men in their voyage
out. Now it was said that orders had been sent out,
overland, to have suitable clothing provided for the
troops by the time they arrived. He hoped it was so,
and that those who had instructed the hon. gentleman
to make that answer bad not misinformed him. But the
statements made by the authorities had been denied by
the journals. The same thing had happened in the Cri-
mean war, and though the Government had first denied
the truth of the statements made by the press, they had
proved true when too late. He trusted this divergence
in the statement of the Government from what appeared
to be fact, was not the precursor of another state of
things which he could not, with all respect to the hon.
gentleman, designate by any other name than disastrous.
He hoped the honourable gentleman would inform
them of the true state of things with regard to those
troops, and that there would be no attempt to de-
ceive the house or the country on the matter, or the
disgrace and dishonour which would fall on the Govern.
ment would be infinitely greater—taking into account
the experience they ought to have obtained from
the Crimean disaster—than that which had befallen them
for their shortcomings in the Russian war.
Sir DE LACY EVANS postponed the motion he had
on the paper on going into committee of supply, to draw
the attention Qf the house to the military arrangements
being made for"meeting the contingency that has occurred
in the Bengal Native Army, in consequence of the ab-
sence of the noble lord at the head of the Government,
and stated his intention to bring the subject under the
attention of, the house when the militia estimates were
brought forward.
The SPEAKER then left the chair, and the house went
into committee of supply.
On the first vote being proposed, one of 2,0001. for
establishing a national portrait gallery.
Mr. SPOONER moved the diminution of the vote by
the sum of 2.0001., because they had no right to tax the
public for such an object. If they allowed the vote to
pass, he foresaw that it would be the commencement !of
many more votes of the same kind. No benefit would
accrue from it to the great mass of the people. We had
spent already for science last year 272,0001, under the
head of art 53,0001, and on the grounds of the new
museum at Kensington, 270,0001. making in all more
than half a mtllion of money, from which the great bulk
of the people would never receive any benefit whatever.
Those grants had commenced by small sums, and had
gone on increasing to the amounts they now were, and
if the committee agreed to the present vote it would go
on increasing in the same way. That being his opinion
be should certainly take the sense of the committee on
the vote.

Mr. INGRAM meant to support the vote, because h
Was sure that the labouring people of this country fell

as much interest in the portraits of their eminent men as
the higher classes.
Mr. GILPIN meant to oppose the vote, because he
held that such a gallery ought to be part of the Na-
tional Gallery. He believed an extra staff of officials to
be needless, as those belonging to the National Gallery
were quite sufficient to perform the duties of the proposed
portrait gallery.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the vote had originated in the House of Lords, where
last session an address to the Crown had been agreed to
on the subject of the establishment of a national portrait
gallery of an historical kind, similar in nature to the sta-
tues which t'ley had in one of the corridors of that house.
In consequence of that address the Government had pro-
posed to the house last year a vote of :3,000/. for the
foundation of that gallery. The house, after a debase,
and upon a avigi 2, had agreed to that vote, accordingly
trustees had been appointed, and the foundation of the
gallery had been made. Some donations had already
been made to the gallery. Among others, the lamented
Lord Ellesmere had presented to it a portrait of Shakes.
peare, of which he was the p-messor. Underthese circum-
stances, he trusted the house would not reverse the vote
they had come to last year, and refuse the moderate sum
now asked f r. It was not intends-I to apply any portion
of the money to the payment of officers beyond the very
small stipend of, he thought, 1001. a-year, which was to
be paid to the secretary of the trustees. At present the
space in the National Gallery was too limited to allow of
the portrait gallery being placed there, but whenever the
house agreed to any plan for the enlargement of the pre-
sent National Gallery, it would be then compe-
tent for the Government to assign one or two rooms in
connection with the National Gallery for the exhibition
of the portraits connected with the new historical por-
trait gallery. They, of course, would be in the cars of the
officers of that gallery, so that all the money voted would
be spent in the acquisition of pictures.
Mr. WILLIAMS wished to know what had been done
with the 2,0001. voted last year before the house voted
any more money.

Mr. COX, believing this to be the thin edge of the
wedge, should oppose its introduction. He did not see
any use in a portrait gallery at all. If they wished to
make tho National Gallery of use, why not turn out the
Royal Academy, and make that space available ; other-
wise they would have a National Gallery in three or bur
parts of London. He believed that no good woul i come
of throwing away the money of the people in such a way.
Sir J. TREVELYAN said that it the working classes
were allowed access to the gallery at times when they
could visit it he would support the vote.
Mr. BRISCOE complained that ho had not been per-
mitted to see the pictures a'ready purchased. If only
original portraits were to be purchased, he did not see how
they were to form such a gallery, and did not think any
adequate object would be gained to justify the expendi-
ture of 2,0001. a-year. He should oppose the vote.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE wished to know if they were to go
on spending money from which the public could derive
no advantage, for they had no place to exhibit the pic-
tures He had hoped Burlington-house might have been
appropriated to exhibit some of the national treasures.
As no one could seewhat they had bought with the 20001.
voted last year, he should oppose the vote altogether.
Mr. LA BOIJCHERE said the question the committee
bad to decide was, whether it was worth while to have
a national portrait gallery. He was of opinion that it
would be most valuable in its effects on the people at
large, who would regard such a collection with more in-
terest than they would ever accord to any mere collec
tion of works of art. If the house sanctioned the prin-
ciple, it would be time when they got a sufficient collec-
tion of portraits to think of a gallery in which to put
them. .When a gallery was once formed, and attained a
certain degree of excellence, portraits of great value
would no doubt be contributed by persons who would be
proud of seeing their ancestors placed in a national col-
lection of that kind. It was impossible to discuss the
proposition whioh some hon gentlemen entertained—
that there was no interest in a collection of that kind.
It was a matter of individual opinion, and for himself he
could not conceive anything more interesting, instruc-
tive, and valuable than a gallery of historical portraits.
He should be very sorry if the house should, by refusing
that vote, intimate its opinion that the nation had no
interest in the question.
Mr. DRUMMOND said it was commonly supposed
that collecting a national portrait gallery was a very
simple matter, bat he had known a case, when searching
for national portraits, where a large number of family
portraits had been stowed away by a nobleman in a room
over his stable, without their names, and with their faces
to the ground. That 2,0001. would be the most foolish
vote that could be passed, for the Government always did
those things worse than anybody else.
Mr. B. HOPE thought the case cited by the member
iser West Surrey was the best possible argument for pro•
viding for the pictures being placed with their backs to
the wall as soon as possible.
Mr. CONINGHAM said he was opposed to the vote
on two grounds—first, because there was awl.; ma-
chinery already in existence at the National Gallery ;
and, secondly, because he was totally opposed to the
appointment of irresponsible trustees, one of whom at
least had proved himself utterly unworthy of public con-
fidence. The hon. gentleman then alluded to Sir C.
Eastlake's purchase of the spurious Holbein, and hoped
the house would never hear it put forward again that
Sir Charles Eastlake was a very amiable man, in reply
to a charge of such gross waste of the public money.
Mr. DIRAELI defended the vote and complained of
the hon. member for Brighton in allowing his dislike
for Sir C. Eastlake to prejudice his mind upon a national
gneation. The right hon. gentleman then reviewed the
various purchases that had been made for the nation by
existing trustees, and gave his opinion that for taste,
skill, and national value' the fund placed at their dis-
posal could not possibly be better expended.
Mr. FRENCH deprecated the time of the house being
occupied for hours together abont the respectability of
Sir C. Eastlake, whenithe country was in astate of agita-
tion about the war in China and India, and about other
Important matters.

Mr. CONING I:1AM said he meant to impute nothing
against the personal respectability of the present trustees.
The committee then divided. The numbers were—
For the vote B5
Against 3l
Majority
—54

Upon the vote for 2,0001. for inquiring into the causes
of cholera in the West Indies,
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said there bad been five in-
quiriee in six years upon this subject, and he thought it
was quite time that inquiry should cease.
The vote was agreed to, and likewise a vote for 5001.
for certain works at the mouth of the Humber, after
some remarks in opposition to Mr. A. Smith and Mr.
Adams, and Lord Hothara, which were replied to by Sir
C. Wood.
On the vote of 10,0001. to the London Diocesan Build-
ing Society for building additional churches and parson-
age houses for the metropolis,
Mr. WILLIAMS opposed it. It was pretended that
this was a contribution on the part of the Crown, to be
paid out of the Crown property commonly called the
Woods and Forests ; but that property did not belong
to the Crown, having been surrendered in consideration
of a payment out of the civil list. He trusted that the
committee would resist the vote, especially as presently
we should have plenty to do with our money. The civil
service estimates were 741,0001. more than they were
last year.
Mr. WILSON said that in the precincts of London
the Government had a net rental of 150,0001. per annum,
and property in reversion, which, when the leases fell
in, would give the Government a net rental in the metro-
polis of half a million sterling. Besides this they had a
large number of public buildings occupied by Government
for Government purposes, briogiog together a very large
population. The Marquis of Westminster, the Duke of
Bedford, and other owners of property had put down
their names for large sums of money, and the Govern-
ment thought it was their duty to do the same as other
large owners of property—namely, to provide churches
for the property it held. (Hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON supported the vote. The popu•
lation of the metropolis was increasing at the rate of
60,000 a-year ; but the means of divine worship were
not by any means keeping pace with that increase.
Mr. GILPIN said the large owners held the property
on their own responsibility, and it was their duty to
support religious and benevolent institutions. The Go-
vernment held the property on Labatt of the people, com-
posed of many religious sects, and to grant money for
any particular sect was an interference with the funda-
mental principles of religious liberty. (Hear.)
Mr. WHITESIDE supported the vote, although he
knew such a privilege would not be extended t) the
Church of Ireland if it was asked for. This was a vir-
tuous vote, and, coming from the Treasury, he was
surprised at it. (Laughter.)
Mr. M. MILNES thought that upon the merest
utiiitarian grounds it was desirable to vote the proposed
grant.
Mr. AYRTON opposed the grant on the ground tbat
it was unnecessary. He believed that in London there
was an abundance of Church property to provide for all
the spiritual wants of the metropolis, but it was grievously
misapplied.
SirM r .
F.
ACKE
BAlTlNGcheerfully supported
favourthe vote.of
the
grant.
(Hear.)
He thought it was the duty of the Crown to meet the
voluntary efforts which bad been made on the part of
wantthe greatofc proprietorshureh
accommodation. London
H Mr. BRISCOE thought that some portion of the reve-
nues of the see of London ought to be appropriated to
the purpose for which this grant was asked, and then
there would be no occasion for an appeal to the public.
to
ea.)
meet the existing
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the late Bishop Blom-
field subscribed 5,0001. towards the proposed new
churches.
Mr. BEALE said he should vote against the grant.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER con-
tended that the Government, as a large holder of pro-
perty, was bound to make corresponding arrangements
for the spiritual accommodation for those who resided
upon it.
Mr. DRUMMOND did not think this was the hest
b
way of providing church accommodation for the people,
at the same time, he should not vote against the
grant.
Mr. COX reminded the committee that the Govern-
ment had promised to bring iu a bill for the abolition of
Church rates this session, but they bad arrived nearly
at the close of the session and no such bill had made its
appearance.
Mr. lIADFIELD opposed the grant, contending
that in exact proportion to the liberality of that house,
private efforts abroad were contracted.
The committee divided, and the numbers were—
Forthe vote ................................. 97
56
Againstit ...................................
_4l
Majority .................................
The vote was then agreed to.
On the vOte of 10,0001. to enable the Lord High Com.

missioner of the lonian Islands to improve the fortifica-
tions of Col fu,

Mr. WISE wished to know what was our exact posi-
ti.m in the lonian I buds—whether these works were
to protect the Corfuites or to protect us from the Cur-
fuites ?

Mr. LABOUCHERE said it was important that
England should occupy that important military position
which was afforded by the possession of the lonian
Islands. It would be unreasonable to throw ail the
expense of the fortifications on the inhabitants of the
lonian Islands.

Mr. WILLIAMS wished to know if the forts were
intended to defend us against the lonians, or the lonians
against other people I He believed the former, for the
lonians were our de .dly foes. The possession of these
islands was of no use, and were a great expense.
Mr. LABOUCHERII said that the forts were required
both for t aoitary and military purposes. High authori-
ties had conideroil their possession of great value to us.
Mr. BENTINCK denied that the lonians were
hostile to us. They were a well-conditioned set of men,
and well-di-posed to us. The mischief had been dore
by discontented Englishmen, who went about and
wanted to introduce the English c )nstitution into a
garrison town,
Mr. A. STAFFORD said that the vote was rather
too small than too large. He bore testimony to the ex-
cellent management of Sir H. Ward in preserving tran-
viltty in those islands during thedangerous crisis of the
late war.

Mr. LLBOUCHERE agreed with the hon. metnb(r
as to the energy of Sir H. Ward duringlthe last struggle.
He had just received from Sir J. Young, the present
chief commissioner, a gratifying statement. It was the
first time that the lonian session had terminated without
being brought to an abrupt termination. Great credit
was due to Sir J. Young for his prudent management
during his government.
Mr. HENLEY said that be supposed the lonians
were well whipped by Sir H. War,i, and had become
better boys for the future.
The vote was then agreed te.
The next vote 2,000/. for the testimonial to the Duke
of Wellington in Phoenix-park, Dublin.—Agreed to.
On the vote of 10,5001 for the purchase of a chapel
for the British residents and visitors in Paris.
Mr. WISE moved that the vote be rejected. A
chapel had been built at Paris by the late Bishop Ltn-
combo at an expense of 6,0001. This chapel was subse-
quently offered to the Gov3rnment, and afterwards sold
to aM. Chamier for an annuity of 1,0001. a year to
Blehop Luscombe, who died in six months. M. Chami-r
offered the chapel to the Government, but in spite of the
representation of Lord Aberdeen and Lord Cowley, Sir
R. Peel refused to purchase it. A further communica-
tion took place between Lord Normantiy, M. Chaini-r,
and the Government in 1849 and 1850, but Lord Nor-
manby and the Government both refused to act on ac-
count of the exorbitant sum of 10,0001. a ked by M.
Chamier. This showed what was the feeling of the
Government as regarded expense. The Govern-
ment, by the present vote, were violating the
Act of Parliament regulating the purchase
of chapels fer British residents abroad, which rc•
quired that those rt sidents should subscribe a, part of the
expense. Since the passing of the act we had paid
218,0001. for chapels abroad. He admitted that the
present system of performing service at the embassy was
a bad one. The service was performed sometimes in the
dining room, sometimes in the drawing room, and the
room which overnight was devoted to ordinary purposes
was that in which the chaplain officiated the next morn-
ing. But the House of Commons was not boiled to
provide church accommodation for those who choose to
go abroad. At the chapel which it was proposed t
purchase, there was the habit of charging one franc for
admission, which was no more than was paid by Eng-
lishmen for their pew rents at home. It was high time
that they should look after this class of votes. A year
and a half ago the owner of the chapel was willing to
part with it for 9,0001., but the Government refused,
and said that they were going to build a chapel. The
chapel had been sold to an American, but the pres-
sure exerted by our ambassador was such that the Ame-
rican gentleman was obliged to give up his purchase.
He objected altogether to the system of making con-
tracts out of the civil service contingencies. It was cal-
culated to destroy all confidence in the Treasury, which
ought to be the check on the public expenditure. He
thought that an independent commission should be ap-
pointed to examiue the report on the item of public ex-
penditure before they ware submitted to the house.
Mr. WILSON said that there was a chapel belonging
to the ambassador at Paris, and everywhere else where
we had an ambassador. The hon. gentleman had
shown the inconvenience of the practice of holding divine
worship in the room of the embassy at Paris,
sometimes in one room and sometimes in another. A
proposition had been made to the Government to build a
chapel in the old stable yard in 1849. This was not
done, and since that time the value of property bad so
largely increased in Paris that we could not now pur-
chase a site for the sum now asked for a chapel. The
question had been before the Government for many
years. The minister thought the price of the chapel
too high in 1849, and since then we had had no oppor-
tunity of purchasing the chapel. It was the most econo-
mical arrangement to purchase the chapel rather than
spend 5001. a year in imperfect arrangements. In
January last Lord Cowley wrote to L ird Clarendon to
say that the chapel was for sale. It was however then
sold to an American gentleman, but the English resi-
dents were anxious to obtain the chapel, and the Ameri-
cans, out of respect to the feeling, gave up the chapel,
and the Government then felt no hesitation in purchas-
ing it. The sum was 9,0001., the remaining 1,5001. was
for contingent expenses and repairs. It was not intend-
ed that the rich English public should get their services
for nothing; they were to pay for their seats, and the
expenses of the chapel would be paid, as the chaplain of
the embassy would contribute. The act proposed by the
hon. gentleman did not refer to the embassy chapel,
which was voted entirely out of the public funds,
Mr. T. IiA.NKEY asked if there was any other single
instance where pew rents were charged in English cha-
pels abroad !
Mr. WILSON did not think that the English resi-
dents could object to paying a sum for the accommoda-
tion they would receive.

Mr. IiORSIIIAN said that they bad willingly voted
money for the church accommodation of poor persons
abroad ; but here was a sum voted for the rich persons
wilt) went to Paris for their pleasure. There was an
admitted church destitution at home, and we were asked
to give a sum for the wealthiest set of Englishman in
existence. The details were as faulty as the principle, for
this sum was indignantly refused in 1849 as exorbitant.
He trusted that the house would reject the vo`e.

Lord H. VANE said that it was never intended that
the public money should be given fir chapels abroad ;
and for that reason an act was passed requiring that
one half of the money should be raised by the E❑glish
abroad. He did not see why the act should be departed
from. The wealthy population who attended the chapel
were able to provide for their own worship ; and if this
sum had been refused by the Government, they would
have raised the money. He did not think they were
warranted in consenting to this vote, which ho charac-
terised as of an extravagant character.

Lord PALIVIERST6N said that he could not agree in
the principle that when the poor were not provided for,
they should provide for no one else. This would prove
tkat all the revenues of the country shoull be applied
to the poor rates. This was not a valid argument.
It was asserted that the British residents at Paris
were an aristocratic and exclu•ive body. This was not
the fact. There were ten thousand British residents
in Pari,, many of them were not established there
—those who were established there were mostly of
the lower classes, who go there to live by their own
industry, but who were not in a situation to provide
the funds. It had long been a reproach to the British
nation that it had no place of worship at Paris except a
room at the embassy. It was not true that the chaelsin
to the embassy was the domestic chaplain of the ambas-
sador. Parliament did not vote money for the chaplain
for any such purpose. The officer was established to ad.
minister to all British subjects. It was argued as if this
was an exceptional car=e. Now, the very arguments of
those who opposed the grant refuted themselves, for
they stated that sums of money were voted for chapels
in consular establishments. It was true that the whole
was not voted—only the half, but the principle was the
same, and whether it was the half or the whole was only
a question of amount. At sea-port towns the Govern-
ment gave a sum eqnal to that provided by the residents ;
but the residents at sea-port towns were persons fixed
there, whereas the majority of persons at Paris were
there for six weeks or two months, and they could not
expect that persons of so temporary a residence were
likely to contribute largely towards the chapel, like those
who were fixed there for many years. His hon. friend
had stated that a number of the seats would be paid for,
so that the chapel would provide all its expenses. He
was sure that all knew the general feeling—amounting
to shame—that there was no proper place where the
chaplain to the embassy would perform divine service in
Paris. The vote supplied a deficiency which bad been
long felt. It had been talked of for many years. The
residents bad hitherto never
.subscribed for the chapel,
and they never would subscribe. He hoped the house
would consider that they were not establishing a new
principle, but that they were supplying a want which
had been long felt, which the honour of the country was
engaged in supplying, and which was a disgrace to the
country.

Lord J. MANNERS said that he did not know
where the argument of the noble lord would lead them.
At present the English residents were bound to contri-
bute one-half of the cost of every chapel erected, and it
the principle of the Deb's lord was carried out, they
would hencef irth expect that they were to pay nothing,
and demand the whole from the Government. He him-
self felt a great difficulty as to how he should vote, and
rather wished to state the difficulties in order that they
might be answered, than to argue the question. He did
not see why, after the residents at Paris had so 1 tog
kept up a place of worship, they were now to be called
upon to pay 10,5001. for one.
Mr. WILSON said the noble lord had asked if the
chapel did not at one time belong to the British embasy.
The answer to that was, that it never did belong to the
embassy at all; it was private proper 11. It was not in-
tended to make a charge at the doors tor admission, and
the main body of the chapel would be devoted to the
accommodation of the poor.
Mr. HORSMAN said he had not stated that a'l the
English residents in Paris were wealthy. What he bad
said was, that the usual visitors to the embassy were of
the wealthy classes.
Lord PALMERSTON said divine service had hither.
to been held in the dining-room of the embassy, and that
was the reason why the pour could not attend, and that
was the reason why they proposed to purchase this
chapel for the poor.
Sir W. JOLIFFE thought this was a most extraordi.
nary proposition to create a national chapel for the rich.
Mr. HARKEY would ask whether the vote would in-
crease or diminish the chapel accommodation ? If it

would really increase the accommodation for the poor,
he would not object to the vote, but he believed the coc-
trary. would give greater ace )rnmoclation to the rich.
Lord PALMERSTON said at present no one could
enter the chapel without payment, and it was proposed
to establteh a large number of free seats.
Mr. PEASE could not see why the English wealthy
residents in Paris should not support their own placJ
of religious worship.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to know if a con-
tract had been entered into for purchasing the chapel ?
Colonel HERBERT opposed the vote, believing that
it wouli. not secure additiot al accommodation.
Mr. SPOONER pressed the question with regard to
the contract.
Mr. WILSON said that he had already stated that
thechapel had bean purchased and 2,000/. had Lien paid
on account of it by Lord Cowley.
Mr. M`CANN trusted that those who required ac-
commodation would be made to pay for it.
The committee then divided— 'Ai
For the vote
Agains it..

47
135
—BB
The vote was, consequently, lost, and the numbers
were received with loud cheers.
A vote of 1,5001. for toe adjustment of certain baro-
nies in Ireland wag then passed.
A vote of 10,0001. was proposed for an industrial mu-
seum in Edinburgh.
After a short discussion the vote was withdrawn.
A vote of 8,970 for wire doors, &c., for the protection
of public records was agreed to.
A vote of 24,000/, for Coelsea New Bridge was pro-
p3sed.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said that estimates for this
class of expenditure were simply trap and deluions.
They began with an estimate of 60,0001., then it was
70,0001., then 75,0001, then 84,000/., and then 94,0001.
Could anything be more ridiculous than beginning with
an estimate of 60,00/., and ending with 94,0001. ? He
inquired what amount had already been expended, and
hose much more would be required, and to what extent
the money would be reimburse.] by the tolls ?
Sir B. HALL said he bad every reason to believe that
24,0001. would complete the expenditure.
Mr. BENTINCK objected to the money of the coun-
try being expended in local improvements. He thought
they ought not to give a vote unless it was distinctly
understocd that the vote was sufficient. There had been
a good deal of talk lately about doing away with those
tolls altogether, and they ought to have a distinct under-
standing that such an idea was not to be carried out.
After a few words from Lord 3. MANNERS,
'Sir D. NORREYS said that the official estimates
were merely a means of concealing the cost of pub is
works.
Mr. BRADY said that the Dub'ic generally bad no
idea bow much this question affected private peoperty.
At the same time, a free passage over this bridge would
be a great national advantage ; and he objected to this
.bill because it gave no guarantee that the bridge would
ultimately be wholly free to the public. He would op-
pose the vote.
Lord C. HAMILTON thOught that there was a breach
of faith in this matter, as it was understood when the

grant was given that it should be repaid from the pro-
ceeds of this bridge. Government were not carrying out
the spirit of the report, for they did not show that the
bridge would be made a public bridge.
Sir B. HALL explained, and referred to the report of
the committee, who were of opinion that the tolls ought
not to be taken from foot passengers. It would require
24,0001. to complete the bridge, and the original un-
derstanding ought to be fulfilled.
After a few words from Sir H. WILLOIICaIBT,
Sir B. HALL explained.
Mr. INGRAM said that if the tolls were kept on, the
property would be worth nothing ; but if the tolls were
abolished the property would pay for the bridge. If the
park was for the people there ought to be no toll on the
bridge.
Mr. TITE supported the vote, and went at some
length into the evidence before the committee. The
bridge must be a toll paying bridge ; that might be re-
gretted, but certainly they must finish the bridge, or it
would be a disgrace to the house if it were not completed
when so nearly finished.
After a few words from Mr. CLIFFORD,
Mr. P. O'BRIEN, on the ground that public faith
ought to be kept without reference to the interest of
Chelsea or Battersea, defended the report of the com-
mittee. Some improvements ought to be carried out
by local means.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE had not maintained that tolls
ought to be maintained on the London bridges, but
while these depended on tolls, free bridges should not
be put in competition with them.
Mr. PLATT thought the whole country ought not to
be called upon to pay for local benefit.
Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the chairman report
progress.
The question was then put, and the vote agreed to.