The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-26 00:00:00

small sums of money claimed by him for Easter offerings ;
and to ask if it was his intention to take any steps to allay
the excitement and prevent its recurrence ? The hon. gen-
tleman then moved for copies of any correspondence that
had taken place on the subject. He entered into some de-
tails of the hardships and cruelty that had been inflicted
upon poor families in consequence of their goods having
been seized and sold for these offerings.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he had received a communication
on the subject referred to, from which it appeared that there
was some dispute as to the legality of Easter offerings in
the parish of Accrington, and if that were so, it was a ques-
tion that could be decided by appeal to the usual legal tri-
bunals, and one in which the executive Government had
no power to interfere. His conviction was that Easter offer-
ings were in the nature of a voluntary gift, but he could not
see that there was any ground for interference on the part
of the Government.

AFFAIRS OF POLAND.

Mr. HENNESSY asked whether there was any objet

tion to produce a certain despatch written by Lord Palmer-
ston, on the subject of Poland, in which it was stated that
the "rights of the Czar were incontestable ?"
Lord PALMERSTON said he had looked to the de-
spatches in qUestion. There was no expression in them
such as had been stated by the hon. member, and there
could be no objection whatever to produce the despatch
asked for.

DISTRICT ECCLESIASTICAL REGISTRARS.
Mr. H. SEYMOUR moved for a series of voluminous
returns connected with the registrars and the officers em.-
ployed under them, in the different towns of England and
Wales, together with the amount of fees received in the
various consistorial and other courts. The hon. member
complained of the nature of many of these appointments
which were made, and hoped that the Government would
not withhold the information which he sought to obtain.
Sir G. LEWIS said there was great difficulty in obtain-
ing the information which was asked for, and he had last
year tried to obtain it, from the bishops, and in reply to the
circulars which were sent he received remonstrances com-
plaining that to supply the information would involve great
expense, and they declined to furnish it unless those who
prepared the returns were to be remunerated for their la-
bour. He was, therefore, unable to agree with the motion.
Mr. SEYMOUR asked if the Government would con-
sent to grant a committee next year on the subject ?
Sir G. LEWIS said the Government could not give any
pledge on such a subject. It would be a matter for the house
to decide when the motion was made.
Mr. B. OSBORNE thought it was rather unfair to ask
the right hon. gentleman, who was in that transition state
of being half a Minister of peace and half of war, and consi-
dered that the right hon. baronet who was to be the Home
Secretary would be the best qualified to give an answer to
the question.
Mr. DISRAELI protested against its being supposed that
the Government had any power to pledge the house to
granting a committee. That was a matter entirely for the
consideration of the house, and the practice of inducing the
Government to give pladges of such a nature ought not to
be indulged in:

SUPPLY.

The house then went into committee of supply.

On the vote of £25,000 for civil contingencies,

Mr. B. OSBORNE took objection to the item for colonial
bishops, to the item for granting patents to Lord Brougham,
and the Duke of Argyll as Postmaster-General, to the item
for erecting galleries in Hyde-park for the volunteer review,
which came to L 1,400, and to the item of £944 for the commis-
sion appointed for encouraging the fine artsin connectionwith
the Houses of Parliament. He believed Lord Brougham
had entitled hiinself to the gratitude of his country, and
if the patents of great men were to be paid for by the pub-
lic, that of Lord Brougham ought not to be left unacknow-
ledged. He would divide the house upon the £1,400 for
erecting the galleries in Hyde-park, because he thought it
disgraceful that the house should be called upon to pay for
such a purpose. He protested against the payment of £944
for encouraging the fine arts in connection with the Houses
of Parliament, because, in the language of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, the Commissioners had ludicrously over-
done the matter of ornamentation with regard to the Houses
of Parliament. The frescoes were in a decaying state, and
were rapidly disappearing from public view—a fact that was
not to be regretted, seeing that many of them were not of a
very seemly order. The statues were four in number, but
the Commissioners now recommended that statues toWilliam
IV., George IV., Charles 11., and James I. should be erected,
and that each of these should be seven feet high. (Laughter.)
He moved that the vote be reduced by £2,000, believing
that this profligate waste of the public money ought imme-
diately to be checked.
Mr. COWPER quoted a portion of his speech on a former
evening in reply to Mr. Osborne. He took for granted that
hon. members had read the report of the Fine Arts Com-
mission, which had been on the table of the house some time.
That report distinctly stated that it was proposed to divide
the chronological series into three departments. The first
12 were to be in the Royal Gallery, a certain number in
another place, and a further number somewhere else. The
monarchy and the history of the country were to be repre-
sented, at the same time encouragement was to be given to
art such as no private individual could give. (Hear.) St.
Stephen's Hall was filled with the statues of men who had
achieved distinction in the House of Commons, and, that
being so, the House of Lords was to represent the Sove-
reigns of the country. Hon. gentlemen might criticise the
durability of the frescoes, but means were being taken to
make them durable ; indeed some were now so hard that the
lion. member might wash them with soap and water as long
as he liked, and rub them with a towel as long as he liked,
without affecting them. (Laughter, and cries of " Oh, oh.")
He trusted they would last 300 years. (Cries of " Oh, oh,"
and laughter.) With respect to the statuary, it was ne-
cessary to have a State grant to complete it properly.
Those that bad been done were dressed in the costume of
the day. Something had been said about the building of
the house itself, but nobody could deny that the external
decorations were an honour to the country. (Cheers, laugh-
ter, and ironical cheers.)
Mr. GREGORY said, after listening to the statement of
the right hon. gentleman, ho (Mr. Gregory) thought that
he should have been either more laconic or more communi-
cative. When the question was formerly before the house to
erect 38 statues of British monarchs, the whole feeling of
the house was against it. (Hear, hear.) He objected to the
imaginary statues of Saxon kings. The house had never
had the opportunity of selecting what Sovereigns to select.
The noble lord at the head of her Majesty's Government
had spoken of the difficult of selection—whether they were
to have Alfred, which of the Edwards, &c.—at the same
time they, the noble lord and his friends, knew perfectly
well that four statues had been already selected. (Loud
cheers.) They shifted and they shuffled the whole matter.
(Cheers.) Last year there were only to be four statues ; now
they had gone back to the original 38, which would cost
the country £BOO a piece. (Cheers.) Why did they not
tell the house what they had done, and ask the house
whether it would support them or not? The hon. member
for Sheffield said, the other night, that members of the Go-
vernment were educated in the same way that barbers
brought up their apprentices—they were shave-beggars.
The apprentices tried their hands on beggars, first of all,
until they learned their trade. If we were to hold our
own before the nations of Europe in the statuary of the
house, they ought to have the very best men the country
could afford, and not mediocrities to try their 'prentice
hands on marble. (Cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER defended
the course taken by the First Commissioner of works with
respect to those statues of the English Sovereigns, and
contended that if there had been a change of opinion, it
had been in the committee of the house, and not in his
right hon. friend. With respect to the patents of Lord
Brougham, of Viscount Hardinge, Lord Raglan, Lord Can-
ning, and Lord Elphinstone, in those cases the amount of
the charges was defrayed by the public. In the case of
Lord Brougham the charge was £5OO odd, but the sum ac-
tually paid by the public was not more than £l5O. These
peerages were all granted for civil services.
Sir G. BOWYER complained of the injudicious selection
of the subjects of painting and sculpture, and gave as in-
stances the funeral of Charles 1., in which a soldier is repre-
sented as insulting the remains of the dead King, and the
murder of Rizzio—an event not creditable to any of the
painters concerned.

Mr. A. SMITH referred to a speech of Mr. Cowper in
last session, in which ho stated that there Ns ere to be but
four statues of Sovereigns—one in each corner of the Royal
Gallery.
After a few words from Mr. COLLINS,
Mr. H. SEYMOUR asked whether the Government in-
tended to erect statues to George IV., William IV., Charles
11., and James I ? .

Mr. COWPER replied in the affirmative. At the same
time it would be in the power of the house to express its
decision upon the subject next session.
The discussion was continued by Mr. Gregory, Lord J.
Manners, Mr. F. Peel, Mr. Wyld, Mr. Dillwyn, Sir G. C.
Lewis, and Lord W. Lennox.
Mr. B. OSBORNE withdrew his amendment. He would
not put the house to the trouble of dividing on the items
respecting the colonial bishops or the gallery in Hyde-Fark*
but he would divide on the hems for the patent to Lord
Brougham and the commission on fine arts for the Houses
of Parliament. He therefore moved now that the sum of
£1,456 165., being the amount of these two items, be de-
ducted from the vote.
The CHAIRMAN said the omission of the items must
be moved separately,
Mr. B. OSBORNE them moved that the sum of £944
4s, Bd. for the Fine Arts Commission be deducted from the

vote.
This motion was withdrawn in favour of another, which
was proposed by
Mr. COLLlNS—namely, that two sums of £612 and
£944, amounting to £1,456, be deducted from the vote.
Lord PALMERSTON said that Lord Brougham was
anxious that his title should be continued after his death.
The Government assented, and then his lordship expressed
a wish that that title should be inherited by his surviving
brother. To that request the Government also assented ;
and then followed the question of tne fees. The Govern-
in consequence of the eminent public
ment thought that,
services rendere I by Lord Brougham to the cause of edu-
cation and the abolition of slavery, the fees ought to be paid
by the country, It was to be hoped that no remnant of