The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-05 00:00:00

SUPPLY.

style of architecture. Whatever his (Lord Palmerstces)
opinion might be with regard to the respective merit of
Italian and Gothic architecture, nothing would be done in
the selection of the style until next session, and then
another vote would be required. He totally dissented
from the doctrine that had been laid down, that be-
cause they had already incurred some expense with
refbrence to one plan that therefore they should adopt that
plan, and he took that opportunity of condemning the
course adopted by the noble lord opposite (Lord J. Manners)
in reference to this. He repeated what he had said on
another occasion, namely, that he considered the plan in
the Gothic style suited to a monastery, but quite unfitted for.
a public office, both internally and externally. He denied
that there was anything national in the Gothic style, which
was introduced from Belgium, or some other part of the
continent. Here the noble lord went through a list of pub-
lic buildings in this country and Ireland to show that a
number of the public edifices were, not built in the Gothic
style. With regard to the propriety of this style in the
new building, the opinion of those who were to inhabit it
was against its adoption, and to shew that the general
feeling of those who sent in plans was against the suita-
bility to the building of the Gothic style to the building, he
mentioned that 200 were in different styles, and 30 only
were in the style in question.
Lord J. MANNERS vindicated himself from the accu-
sation of the noble lord (Palmerston). With reference to
the Colonial-office, instead of having a new Colonial-office
he thought the requirements of that office were adequately
provided for by the accommodation afforded by Pembroke
House. He referred to Manchester, where the Gothic style
was preferred, as shown by the first prize being awarded
for a Gothic plan for a building for civil business. He
called on the house to reject the noble lord's (Palmerston)
views, and not to erect him into a sort of pope in this
matter. (Laughter.)
Sir J. PAXTON said that having investigated the plan
of 11. Scott in detail, he thought it fully carried out the
intention of the house in the first instance. The system
of ventilation which Mr. Scott proposed was prepared to
carry out, was as perfect as anything of the kind could be,
and as regarded hght, so far from there being any defi-
ciency, Mr. Scott had actually overdone his work in pro-
viding against any such defect. Mr. Scott had presented
them with a beautiful design, and he trusted it would not
be rejected until there had been some stronger expression
of the house against its adoption.
After some remarks from Mr. Liddel, Lord Elcho, Mr.
Coningham, and Lord J. Manners, the vote was agred to.
STATUE OF RICHARD CCEUR DE LION.
On the vote of £1,650 for a pedestal for the statue of
Richard Coeur de Lion to be erected in Palace-yard, some
discussion arose, but it was ultimately agreed to.
A sum of £5,6419 was voted to discharge the claims of
Mr. Pennethorne for his professional services.
THE SERPENTINE.
On the vote of £17,000 for cleansing the Serpentine in
Hyde-park,
Mr. FITZROY said that when he acceded to office he
found that a plan was proposed for purifying the Serpen-
tine, which not only was not suitable but was very unpo-
pular. He then ascertained that in order to carry out the
plan adopted in St. James's-park for removing the mud,
draining off the water, and laying a concrete bottom, a
sum of between £50,000 and £60,000 would be required.
He next applied to Mr. Hawkesley, the eminent engineer,
who made a report which was approved by Mr. R. Stephen-
son and Sir M. Pete. That report was to the effect that it
would not be necessary to drain off the water, and that the
mud vas not of a noxious character. if.r. Hawkes-
ley pfoposed, in order to purify the water, to
place a filtering apparatus at the head of the Serpentine
through which 2,000,000 gallons of water would flow daily,
and in the whole 60,000,000 in a month, which would effect
all that was necessary.
NORTHERN DIVISION OF LEICESTER.
Mr. STIRLING, the chairman of the committee ap-
pointed to try the petition against the return of Lord J.
Manners tind Mr. Hartop for the above county, announced
that the committee had cometo the resolution that those hon.
members were duly elected.
The house suspended sitting at four o'clock.

The house then went into committee of supply.
£6,000 was voted for class-rooms, library, and other ac-
commodation at Queen's College, Aberdeen.
On the vote of £11,500 for an embankment of the wall at
one side of Windsor Castle, the removal of the dilapidated
portions of the edifice and the hundred steps leading to the
north terrace, some discussion arose, but it was ultimately
agreed to.
On the vote of £482,000 for erecting the new bridge at
Westminster and the approaches thereto,
Sir IL WILLOUGHBY said that the vote provided
only for the approach at one side of the river, and he did
not see why such wealthy counties as Middlesex and
Surrey should not be required specially to contribute
towards the work by which they would be specially bene-
fited. He wished to know if the sum in question would be
all that was likely to be required for the undertaking.
Mr. FITZROY said that if any dependence could be
placed on the statements of engineers, fie had their testi-
mony that the sum specified would be sufficient for the
completion of the bridge and approaches. With regard to
Middlesex and Surrey contributing specially to the
construction of the bridge, he referred hon. members to the
report drawn up under the auspices of Sir William Moles-
worth, from which they would perceive that according to
act of Parliament, Westminster bridge was taken
out of the category of other bridges. The act
stated that this bridge was to be considered • a
national and not a local work, and that any expenses
attendant on it should be defrayed out of the Consolidated
Fund.
Mr. AYRTON considered that Government would have
acted more wisely if they did not inter#ore in the construc-
tion of works like the present, but leave theta in the hands
of a municipal body, as was the case in Liverpool and other
large towns.
After some discussion the vote was agreed to, as well as
an additional sum of £40,000 solely for the approaches.
NEW FOREIGN OFFICE.
_ _

On the vote of £130,000 for the purchase of a portion of
the site, and towards defraying. the cost of the erection of
the New Foreign Office,

The house resumed at six o'clock.
LIMERICK CITY ELECTION PETITION.
Mr. GASKELL repirted from the City of Limerick
Election Committee that Major Gavin had been duly
elected. (Hear. hear.) The committee also reported,
" That tertian riotous and tumultuous proceedings took
place at and after the election, but it was not proved that
they took place at the instigation or with the sanction of
the sitting member. That no application had been made to
the returning officer to adjourn the poll; that these pro-
ceedings were not proved to be of such duration or of such
a character as to prevent electors from going to the poll."
NOTICES OF MOTIONS. _ _ _

Mr. ONsLow, early next session, to move an address for
a royal commission, to consider whether some equitable
mode of assessment might not be substituted for the pre-
sent' system of turnpike and bridge tolls.
Mr. BRADY, on Thursday, to call attention to the dis-
missal of a poor-law medical officer.
EAST INDIA (CIVIL SERVICE.)
On the motion of Mr. KINNAIRD, an address was
agreed to for copy of a despatch from the Government of
India, dated the 3d of June, 1859, reviewing the report of
the commissioners for the revision of civil salaries and esta-
blishments throughout India.
CATHOLIC SAILORS IN THE NAVY.
Mr. HENNESSY asked the Secretary to the Admiralty
whether the Government were prepared to carry into effect
the recommendation of the late Board of Admiralty respect-
ing the treatment of Catholic sailors in the royal navy ?
Lord C. PAGET said that strictly speaking there was no
recommendation on the part of the late Board of Admiralty
left with their successors. There was in existence a letter
from Sir John Pakingtou to Lord Derby in answer to a
memorandum without signature which asked for further
facilities for Roman Catholic worship in the fleet and hospi-
tals. Sir J. Pakington distinctly stated that he had not taken
the opinion of the board on the:subject, and consequently the
present board had no official knowledge on the matter. He
might state that the present board wore moat anxious, as
far as was ebnaistent with the discipline of the navy, to
give every facility for divine worship to Roman Catholics
and other sects dissenting from the Church of England.
THE WEE DON INQUIRY.
Mr. WISE asked the Secretary of State for War when
the report of the royal commissioners appointed to inquire
into the state of. the books and stores at Weedon, Wool-
wich, and the Tower, would be presented to Parliament ?
Mr. S. HERBERT said the report would be laid on the
table before the adjournment.
NAVAL YARD IN SCOTLAND.
Mr. COCHRANE asked the Secretary to the Admiralty
whether, as Scotland furnishes so much of the material for
ship-building, and such a large proportion of the workmen
employed in the dockyards, it wouldnot be for the public ad-
vantage to have a Government building-yard established in
Scotland?
Lord C. PAGET was afraid he must inform the hon. gen-
tleman there was no intention on the part of the Government
to propose any such scheme.
BENGAL ARTILLERY.—DELHI AND LUCKNOW

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the principal portion of the vote was required for the pre-
paration of the ground for
ofth e new building, which was
stated to be afloat on a basis With regard egr
tdhteofitih e
expensetioi of the building, the Governmentl first
1 a position to state what wonld be the actual cost of
these works. Heretofore the course adopted was to pre-
sent to the house a moderate estimate, and as works pro-
ceeded the country
found itself involved in enormous ex-
pense. The sum required for these offices might startle
amount
them by its large but the figures might be relied
on. Mr. Hunt, the surveyor, stated that the cost fur the
erection of the building;, accordin
would be £230,000, and a res gto the design of Mr. Scott,
Soiple builder had undertaken
to construct the work for a sum 32,000. That included
everything comprised ingtohnecipelsanoVMr. Scott, but did not
which oecurr-d during the
provide for those eontin
Hunt estimated the
progress of a large building. Mr.
whole cost for erecting the buildins.
making a tot;iroT
at and the
amount for the site at £120,000;
That total did not provide for furniture and other 'Ml3,o°°.
expenses.
With respect to the plans, as had been stated on a
previous
occasion, it was not intended to alter them before the re-
assembling of Parliament.
Lord E LCHO reviewed the proceedings already adopted
in reference to the Foreign-office. He did not agree with
those who considered the Gothic style was unsuited to the
new offices, for he thought it was. appropriate to the de-
. ,
such a bmidin, With recrard to its
uartments required in '
being incongruous he considered that* rather an advantage
as nothing to his mind was more disagTeeable
oble lor
brokeonoton in arcitecture. 1
to Pan ri and othyer cities h
in support of his n
opinion.d referred
Mr. THE defended the COMinittee that had inquired
info the subject, and contended that the Italian style of
architecture was more suited' to public buildiAga than the
Gothic. He denied that .the latter style was national, or
that it would be congruous with a large mass of building
that would be permitted to remain undisturbed in the
neighbourhood of the new offices.
Sir J. SHELLEY said one of the largest items of expen-
diture would be for the residence of the Foreign Minister,
and he strongly objected to any such residence, which he
thought unnecessary.
After a few remarks from Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Bruce,
Mr. Coningham, Sir E. Colebroke, Mr. Cross, Mr. Stir
-
ling, and Mr. Buxton,
Lord PALM.ERSTON said • there was nothing in the
particular present vote that committed the house to any

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, AUO-ETST 5, 1859.

charged by petition with corrupt practices, and who has on
the withdrawal of the petition accepted the Chiltern Hun-
dreds." This would provide time for some inquiry.
(The debate was here interrupted in order that the Hull
election committee might be sworn.)
On its resumption,
Mr. ROBERTS suggested that a select committee should
be appointed to inquire into all the cases of withdrawal
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought that Dr. Mitchell had re-
ceived hard usage from the side of the house with which he
usually acted, and that the hon. member for Birmingham
deserved much credit for the manner in which he had spoken
in the case.

Sir C. WOOD, in order to give time for considering the
question, moved the adjournment of the debate, which was
accordingly adjourned to six o'clock this evening.
Lord PALMERSTON suggested to the hon. and learned
member to move for the attendance of Dr. Mitchell.
Mr. ROEBUCK moved that the hon. member for Bod-
min be ordered to attend in his place at six this evening.
Agreed to.