The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-19 00:00:00

but in the present state of Europe he did not think the time
had arrived for reduction in this department of the public
service.

Mr. W. FOSTER thought it would be most unadvisable
in the existing state of Germany, both in regard to political
and trade considerations, to reduce the consular corps in
that" part of Europe. Every other Power in Europe had
consuls there, and if this country were deprived of the assis-
tance of such a valuable agency it would be placed in a dis-
advantageous position as compared with other countries.
Mr. FREELAND was in favour of the reduction in the
consulates, and complained of the inefficiency displayed in
that department.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD said that the suggestions of the
committee for the reduction in the department should be
carried out,,but at the same time he would assure the house
that very little, if any, saving to the public expenditure
would be effected by reducing the consular department,
which was most inadequately reimbursed.
Mr. A. SMITH said they ought to look with consider-
able jealousy on new appointments, and he referred to the
consul recently appointed with a salary of £5OO a-year at
Reunion, where the value of the British imports last year
amounted to only £75. He concluded by moving that the
vote should be reduced by £2,300, the salaries of certain
consuls whose services he thought unnecessary.
After some further discussion,
Lord J. RUSSELL entered into an explanation to show
that the appointment of a consul at Reunion was desirable
in a political point of view. Some remarks had been made
with respect to some of the consuls being allowed to trade
and ethers prohibited doing so; the reason was very simple.
It would increase the estimates by a very large amount if
salaries were paid sufficiently adequate to all the consuls,
and, therefore, when the amount of trade was small, only:a
smaller salary was paid, but when the trade was large then
was the corresponding salary in order to remunerate him
properly, and in these cases he was not allowed to trade.
Mr. A. SMITH ultimately withdrew the amendment,
and the vote was agreed to.
On the vote of £646,646 for services in China and Japan,
Col. SYKES explained that the salary of the Plenipo-
tentiary at Pekin was too large.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the salaries were very much
regulated by the size of the places. He was happy to say
that the accounts he had received from Pekin showed that
the English Plenipotentiaries were well received.
The vote was agreed to.
The next vote proposed was £30,000 for the extraordi-
nary expenses of ambassadors at foreign courts.
After a few words from Mr. WILLIAMS,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that important information was
often derived from consuls in minor States in Germany, and
that therefore they ought to be maintained.
The vote was agreed to.
The next item was £40,000 for special missions, diploma-
tic outfits, and conveyance of colonial officers and others.
Mr. A. SMITH moved that the item be reduced by
£20,000.
After some discussion the amendment was negatived, and
the item passed.
On the vote of £60,000, expenses of the North American
Boundary Commission, a discussion ensued, but it was
ultimately agreed to.
It was moved that £185,140 be voted for superannuation
and allowances of retiring public officers.
The house resumed before the item was agreed to.
The house adjourned at 4 o'clock, and resumed at 6
o'clock, and was
THE GALWAY PACKET CONTRACT.

Mr. CONINGHAM gave notice that to-morrow evening
he would again present the petition from Mr. O'Malley
Irwin with respect to Mr. Orrell Lever's conduct in connec-
tion with the Royal Atlantic Mail Packet Company. He
wished to apologise to the house for having without notice
to the hon. member for Galway presented the petition on
Tuesday evening, but he was mistaken as to the hon. mem-
ber's absence.
STATUES IN THE ROYAL GALLERY.

Mr. GREGORY asked the First Commissioner of Works
whether it was true that the four statues to be erected in
the Royal Gallery, for which £3,200 had been voted, were
to be the statues of William IV., George IV., James 1.,
and Charles I: ; and, if so, whether such selection was in
accordance with the pledge given to the house by the Com-
missioners of Works, August 3, 1860, which pledge was that
the selection would be generally acceptable to the house ?
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. COWPER denied that he had given any such pledge
as the hon. member seemed to suppose. All he had done
was to promise that the subject should be fully considered.
He believed it was quite impossible that anyselection could
be made which would prove generally acceptable to the
house. The Fine Arts Commissioners had reported that
the Sovereigns should be taken in chronological order, as
illustrations of the history of the country.
Mr. GREGORY wished to ask another question. When
the Government refused, the other evening, to give any
information as to the Sovereigns who had been selected
for statues in the Royal Gallery, had not the right hon.
gentleman in his possession the report of the Fine Arts
Commission, which stated that two statues were to be exe-
cuted by Mr. Theed, and two by. Mr. Thorneycroft, and
were not the statues determined upon by the commissioners
those of the Sovereigns named in the question which he
had just asked ?

Mr. COWPER said he certainly had in his pessession
the report of Fine Arts Commission, but that was
equally accessible to other hon. members, and he had no
more knowledge of the subject than any other gentleman
in the house.
Mr. HADFIELD:asked, was it intended that Cromwell

should have a statue ? (Laughter.)
Mr. COWPER referred the hon. gentleman to the Fine
Arts Commission report. If he read that, he would become
acquainted with all that was known upon the subject.
THE STATE OF OUDE.—INDIAN ARTILLERY