The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-25 00:00:00

GERMAN V.

Telegraphic dispatches from Berlin of the 23d
instant announce that his M.jesty the King of Prussia
has passed a quiet night, that the wound in his arm
presents a favourable appearance, and that there is as
yet no sign of fever.
Other telegraphic dispatches of the same date an-
nounce the arrest of M. Wrends, a printer, and of
Messrs. Meyen, Streekfuss, and Kunowski, all of
them authors, fur having, it is alleged, assisted in an
illegal formation of political clubs.
M. Bernstein, the editor of the Urwahlcr news-
paper, has likewise been arrested.
The Lithographische Correspondenz of the 22d inst.
states that. Max Seteloge, who attempted to assassi-
nate the King, is a native of P4.tsdam, and that he is
31 years of tip ; that he wa, brought up in the Pots-
dam " Asylum fin- Soldiers' Sous, and served in the
Artillery. Two years ago he became a lunatic, bind
as such he was confined in the hospital at Spandau.
Though eventually discharged from that place, he
has nevertheless exhibited strong signs of insanity.
lie pretends, and indeed he pretended for some time
past, that he was the inventor of chocolate and of
gun cotton, and he used to talk wildly about obtain-
ing the assistance of the Bey of Tunis for the purpose
of founding a colony. He was in the habit of handing
petitions to the King, setting forth the principles of
his coloniration scheme, and the advantages which
were likely to result from it. It is to be presume&
that the King's want of attention to these petitions
urged the lunatic to the perpetration of his attempt
at assassination.

TATTERSALL'S—THIS EVENING.
Six o'CLocx

DEBBY.
4 to 1 apt Bolingbroke
6 to 1 agst Clincher
6 to 1 agst
8 to 1 agst The Nigger
9 to 1 agst Pitsford
12 to 1 agst Voltigeur
20 to 1 agst The Italian
40 to 1 opt Deicoon

OAKS.
8 to 1 apt Eliza Middleton
10 to 1 agst
ll to 1 apt, Gillyflower
11 to 1 i+ gat Probity
12 to 1 agst Countess

IMPERIAL PA it LIAMENT.

110 USE OF toTimoris, May 24.

PETITIONS.
Mr. HENRY presented petitions from Ashton and
other pieces against any alteration in the system of re•
rising the burgess lists.
FOREIGN POLICY.
Mr. B. COCHRANE then rose to bring under the
consideration of the House the foreign policy of the
Government. He could not allow one Supply night to
pass without taking the opportunity of expressing to the
House, and through the House to the country, the
general, the universal feeling of discontent with
which this country was regarded in eb•ery, part of the
continent.—(hear, hear.) He could al.sur. the House that
the universal feeling of cirecco towards this country was
one of general discontent. Greece had been ruined by
the foreign policy of the Noble Lord.
Vti:twidserofthteheN
Formerly he had
towards Greece. It then seemed to be the wish of th
had ttiurenhi d Noble
bl
Noble
Lord's Lord
Noble L rd nth otect the people ~ .
,•1 exreece agents
the honour of supporting the views
countries,e
f:
fact,st PI
r)bi
rija ag:
had
'nil
)'i
hei' t 1:
ft:
canl.c bie'
1' : II
I l'hti
assure I:
:'li'
"...ri
ri
v.
the ril ( f
House, , and the.
le had been annuli. The '' hi Lord's- '
~(-) e glie • in
Turning- r u Gic,.ve to other
by at leant one-baS.
cporinultri)Ento thleisteen'u6ntrt' if•.;ii r the present year
feelings which wets
country. thethatiatgit:::alsngPapsniedecr)teeCttthily:
there expressed against this
-110, therefore, wanted to have some ex-
planation of this policy which was injuring England
so much in the estimation of Europe, and why Lord
Miuto was sent to Italy to surport revolutions in
Naples, in Rome, and in Tuscany? What had been
the result ? Where was the influence of England ? It
had none whatever. Where were the liberal institu-
tions ? The policy of the Noble Lord had overthrown
every chance of liberal institutions and good govern.
ment. It was for these reasons that he (Mr. Coch.
rave) had wished, in the presence of that House, to
state the real facts of the case connected with the
policy of the Noble Lord. He (Mr. B. Cochrane) took
a broad view of the case. The only 1117 which

remained to England was France. If those questions
were brought forward, and they ought to be brought
forward, and if every one of those complaints was well
founded, he was not wrong in stating that the policy of
the Noble Lord had revolutionised Italy. It seemed
that the only thing which the Noble Lord could say was,
that all Europe had been revolutionised, and that Eng-
land bad remained free. If we were in that posi-
tion, was it noble, generous, or just, to send
agents into other countries to disseminate revolutionary
principles? All he (kr. B. Cochrane) could say was,
that the Governments of Italy, and of every other coun-
try, said that they attributed their calamities to the in.
tervention of Lord Palmerston.—(Hear, bear.)
Lord PALMERSTON said he could only say that
the speech which he had just heard led him to alter
an opinion which he had formed, namely, that it
was desirable that an English gentleman should
travel abroad in order to understand foreign affairs.—
(Cheers and laughter.) It certainly appeared to him
that the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. B. Cochrane) was quite
as good a judge of foreign affairs before he went abroad.
—(Renewed laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman could
scarcely have read the dispatches of Lord Minto.
Mr. B. COCHRANE—I have read every one of them.
Lord PALMERSTON said, then he was sorry to
bear that the Hoe. Gentleman's time had been mis-
spent, for the perusal had left but little impression
on his mind.—(Laughter.) The mission of Lord )Mato
was never intended to effect a revolution in Italy, nor
was it attended with that effect. Lord Minto had had
a totally different object in view, and that was to
save those states from revolution. (Cheers.)
He (Lord Palmerston) must say, his opinion undoubt-
edly was that if the advice which Lord
Minto was instructed to give when asked, but
not till asked, had been more generally followed,
many disastrous consequences which they now deplored
• would not have taken place.—(Hear, hear.) The
country which first asked Lord Minto's advice was the
kingdom of Sardinia, and it was a proof of the soundness
• of the advice of his Noble Friend (Lord Minto), that
Sardinia, was almost the only one of those states which
• enjoyed tranquillity, order, and constitutional govern-
s meat.—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches, and a de-
risive laugh from the Opposition.)
Lord CLAUD HAMILTON said that the Noble
Lord had certainly shown a very singular proof of the
good effect of Lord Minto's advice. He hoped
that it was, not in consequence of that ad-
. vice that Sardinia had • committed those hostile
aggressions which, but for .the extraordinary forbear-
ance of the attacked power, would have led to an hos-
tile occupation of her own territory. . '
Lord PALMERSTON Said that so far from this ag-
gression of Sardinia upon the Lombard territories having
been the result of any advice of Lord Minto, the papers
on the subject would prove that this Government had
-made repeated remonstrances on this proceeding.
The House then went into Committee of Supply, Mr.
BERNAL in the chair.
On the motion that a vote of 33,1601. be granted to
- her Majesty for the expenses of the Royal palaces and
public buildings,
Colonel SAL WEY moved that the sum of 5931., for
the maintenance and repairs of the Military Knights'
houses in Windsor Castle, be disallowed. He con-
sidered that it was a public robbery that the
Dean and Chapter of Windsor should continue to draw
a revenue originally 600/., and now swelled up to
22,0001. per annum, which had been granted to them
on the condition that they maintained these poor Knights
of Windsor, and that they, the Poor Knights, should
only continue to rec,ive a common thy-labourer's wages,
and in addition that the public should be taxed to re-
pair their houses.
Sir G. GREY said that the house in which the
military knights lived was a part of Windsor Castle, and
it was on that account that it appeared in the votes.
As to the right of the Poor Knights to share in the in-
crease(' revenues of the Dean and Chapter of
Windsor, that was a legal question, and
their remedy was open to them in another place.
The question had been submitted to his predecessor, the
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, and the
opinion of two of the law officers of the Crown, the
present Chief Baron and the late Sir W. Follett, had been
taken upon it, not certainly to the advantage of the
Knights.
After some observations from Colonel SALWEY,
Colonel TIIO MPSON trusted his Gallant Friead would
divide on this sat feet.
Lord SEYMOL it said that the only effect of dividing
in the question would be to leave the Poor Knights of
Windsor without a home.
Sir DE LACY EV ANS thought the object of the
motion was laudable, but, after the observations of the
Noble Lord at the head of the Woods and
Forests, he thought it would be better to
withdraw the present motion and bring forward a more
comprehensive one on another opportunity.
The gallery was cleared fur a division, but none took
place, the amendment having been withdrawn.
Mr. COBDEN observed a charge for repairs and fur-
niture is the British Ambassador's house at Paris. He
wished to know whether, in addition to the rent of that
establishment, this country was liable to a charge fur
furniture?
Lord SEYMOUR was understood to say that the
barge for furniture only applied to the official rooms
of the embassy.
Colonel SIBTHORP, referring to the charge fur re-
airs at Buckingham Palace, wished to know whether,
in addition to the grants made by the House, some
additional sums were not paid by the Woods and
Forests?
Mr. HA YTER did not believe that any sum of
money whatever was expended on Buckingham Palace,
except with the cognizacce of the House. The Woods
nd Forests undoubtedly took care of the Royal parks—
("Oh, oh," from Colonel Sibthorp, followed by great
a ugh ter).
Colonel SIBTHORP said ho should like to know what
had become of the manic arch?
The vote was then agreed to.
22,000/ for additions, alterations, and fittings at the
Ordnanee-office, Pall-mall. •
Mr. COBDEN wished to know if the estimate would
over the whelp expense?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—It will.
The vote was agreed to.
14,672/. to defray the expense of making an orna-
mental enclosure and forming a public garden in front of
Buckingham Palace.
In answer to a question by Lord JOCELYN,
Lord SEYMOUR said that it was intended to plane
the marble arch near Stafford House and the Green
Park. No portion of ground would be taken from the
public in any way, and they would have access to the
gardens.
Mr. OSBORNE asked if the vote included all the ex-
penses necessary. Perhaps the House was not aware that
altogether the arch bad cost the country 120,0001. What
was meant by groundwork of the garden?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER agreed
that it would not do to leave the arch where it was.
Various sites for it had been under consideration, and
the best appeared to ba that locality opposite the stable
yard at the entrance to the Mall. It was proposed to
replace the wooden boarding in front of Buckingham
Palace with an iron palisade, smiler to that which
formerly existed, atel to f inn two plots of garden in
front of it at the tiger end of St. James's Park, to which
the public will be admitted.--(llear.) St. James's Park
was a place of groat resort, and he was happy to say
that, notwithstanding the number of people who went
there, no injury had ever been done to the shrubs or
flu we-s. The proposed flower-gardens would not only
heighten the architectural appearance of the palace, but
would enlarge the space devoted to the recreation of the
public. Tne present vote was not all that would be ne-
csszary to compltee the design.
Mr. GOULBURN remarked that there were two dis-
tinct questions in the vote—the making an ornamental
garden, and the completing the repairs of the palace and
the removal of the arch. Notwithstanding the clear
statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was
impossible for the House to understand what ground was
to be taken for the proposed gardens, and he should sug-
gest that it would be more convenient if the Govern-
ment were to lay a plan on the table of the alterations
proposed.—(Hear, hear.) As to the arch, he had some
doubts as to the propriety of placing it in' the centre of
the Mall.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
no ground was to be taken from_. the public, except a
small strip in front of the iron palisade. To all the other
portions of the proposed flower-gardens the public would
be admitted. ,
Mr. OSBORNE thought if this was only a part of the
sum necessary, the more prudent we would be to post-
pone the vote till the whole estimater was before them.
He should move its postponement.
Mr. BERNAL—It is not cotnpetent for
a
Member to move the postponement, ofthe vote.
Mr, OSl3Olt NE—Then I move it negatived,be DEUMMOND thought, that before
placing the
arch in the place proposed, they should ascertain wh
ther a coach could be taken through
Towerit.--(O h2oulld
net was
o:
t
Mr. et Hon.
said that the arch in the ,Victoria
admit of this.—(Hear, hear.) Was he to understand
that the removing of the arch 300 yards was to cost
10,0001.?—(No,
no.) The vote was for the removal
an approach to Buckingham
of the arch, and making
Palace."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
sum included making the enclosures, erecting the iron
palisade in front of the palace, and removing and erect-
ing the. arch,
Mr. V. SMITH was anxious to see the arch removed,
but thought that sufficient explanation of the plans had
not been given.
Colonel SIBTHORP expressed his intention of sup-
porting the Hon. Member for Middlesex. The country
was iaet in so prosperous a condition as to warrant these
expenditures for repairs, alterations, and decorations.
Lord SEYMOUR remarked that to negative the vote
would be to leave the arch where it was. The items of
the vote were—removal of the arch about 4,000/. ; iron
railings to the palace, G,OOO/.; 5 per cent. commission on
the expenditure to the architect.—(Laughter, with an
exclamation, " There is no architect.") The 'expense
this year would be about 14,000/, and probably the
whole expense about 26,0001.
Mr. S. HERBERT thought as there Wll3 a technical
objection to any Member moving the postponement of
the vote, the Government should of themselves postpone
it.—(Elear, hear.) No one wished the arch to remain in
its present position, but be would sooner see it remain
there for a few months, than have it removed to an in-
appropriate site. The arch itself was a most beautiful
work of art, and ought to be placed in a suitable situa.
tion. He believed it was an intention of Lord Lincoln,
when at the head of the Woods and Forests, to propose
a continuation of the Mall eastward through Spring-gar-
dens to Charing-cross, and that the arch should be
placed at the east entrance, exactly opposite to Bucking.
ham Palace-gate, at the other end of the Mall. With
regard to the present plan he thought the House ought
net to act prscipitetely, and hoped theGoverument would

postpone the vote till some explanatory plan was on the
table.—(Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER recol-
lected talking with Lord Lincoln on the subject of his
plan, but thought that the expenditure necessary to ob-
tain the ground would be a formidable objection to it.
But with regard to the arch, it must go.—(A. laugh.)
He agreed that a scheme of this sort should be well con-
sidered, and was perfectly ready to adopt the sug-
gestion of the Right Honourable Gentleman to postpone
the vote.—(Hear.)
Vote accordingly postponed.
3,129/. to defray the expense of providing temporary
accommodation for the Houses of Parliament.
Mr. OSBORNE called the attention of the Committee
to the questions connected with this vote. He wished
to know who was responsible for the expenditure of the
money for the new Houses? He was sorry to see around
him so beggarly an account of financial reformers, when
a vote of this kind wa.s to be discussed. In 1837 a Com-
mittee of the two Houses sanctioned the estimate given
in by Mr. Barry of 707,104/.—(Hear, hear.) But thero
had been already spent 2,045,923/.—(Hear, hear.)
In the report of the Committee it was stated that
this estimate of Mr. Barry was not to be considered as
having their sanction. In fact it was no estimate at all.
There were included in it a sum of 497,0001. for furni•
ture and decorations. The useful portions of the build-
ing ought to be completed in the first instance. Mr.
Barry had promised that the building would be com •
pleted in six years. It was now sixteen years since it
was begue, and it was not yet finished. In 1837 Lord
Duncannon stated that the expenses of the building
would not exceed 124,000/. ;Let the House compare that
with the estimate sanctioned by the Commission in 1849.
He wished to know who was the party responsible for
spending the money? The Hon. Member for Lancaster
was merely a sort of scapegoat in the matter, and had
no control or responsibility. There was little or no
control over the architect. In 1844 Mr. Barry stated to
the Committee that the Woods and Forests had never
asked for a plan, and that he could not tell what the
ultimate cost of the whole building would be. Unless
the House interfered, there was no saying what the ex-
pense would amount to. In 1848, the Noble Lord at the
bead of the Government, speaking on this question, said
that he hoped the estimate would not be excessive; but
as to being responsible fur an architect, that was out of
the question.
Lord J. RUSSELL—That is not a correct 'statement.
Mr. OSBORNE—It was taken from Hansard. In
1844 the Lords' Committee reported that Mr. Barry had
departed from the original plan, and had made altera-
tions to it without any authority, and they called the
attention of the House to the subject. With regard to
one branch of the expenditure, it appeared that the Coin-
' mittee of 1841 estimated the expense of warming and
ventilating the House of Commons at 86,0001. It had
already cost—not including the nine boilers-124,0001.
—(Hear, hear.) He believed it was not competent for
him to move in Committee the resolutions he bad placed
on the votes, but he should certainly move that the vote
bo negatived unless a correct estimate of the furni.hings
be supplied. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer would be able to give them an assurance that the
House would soon be finished—that no commissioners
of fine arts would be allowed to increase the expenditure
or delay the works, and that they would be told whether
those extraordinary shelves lately introduced into the
House of Commons were intended for galleries, or
merely receptacles for the journals of the House.
Sir DE LACY EVANS said be did not wish to in-
terpose between the Chancellor of the Exehequer and
any statement he might have to make, if that was not a
regular time for him to introduce the motion which he
had on the paper.
Mr. BERNAL (Chairman) said the vote before them
was a sum of 3,1291. for the temporary accommodation of
the Commons.
Mr. OSBORNE said he expected some explanation on
the question.
Captain BOLDER() complained that every expense
connected with the House of Commons had not been put
under one head, as it ought to have been.
The vote was then agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN next put the question that a sum
not exceeding 154.660/. should be granted to her Majesty
for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the works
at the new Houses of' Parliament for the year ending
the 31st of March, 1851.
The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER had no
wish to avoid giving explanations; but, on the contrary,
was glad the Hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. B. Os-
borne) had afforded him the opportunity of making them.
The Hon. Gentleman said that after the old Houses of
Parliament were destroyed, six years was the time which
they were told it would take to replace them; but the
House must remember that the 'reason why the works
bad not proceeded at so rapid a rate was, because the
adequate means had never been voted for the purpose. A
commission existed for superintending the arrangements
of the new Houses, and an adequate control was given
over the expenditure, but the House must recollect that,
after all, the House of Commons itself was mainly re-
sponsible for the great expenditure that bad been in-
curred, because it was not the Government of the day,
but a Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, which
bad selected the architect and decided on the design
that should be adopted and on the whole framework of
the new buildings. The power of the Government to
interfere in the matter was overruled by the
masters of the Government in such cases—the
House of Commons. The Honourable Gentleman com-
plained that a large sum of the excessive expenditure
was incurred on the responsibility of the architect him-
self. Now that was not the fact. He had seen Mr.
Barry only that day, and was informed by him that, to
the best of his belief, on that part of the works included
within his original estimate of 707,0001., there had been
no excess of expenditure at all. A considerable number
of alterations and additions had been made that were not
included within that estimate, end in 1844 a Committee
of this House Pat on the subject, and investigated the
expenditure. That Committee imputed no blame to Mr.
Barry, but expressed its belief that alt the alterations
made conduced to the convenience and general effect of
the building; and, in reply to a question which be (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) had put to him that
morning, Mr. Barry distinctly stated that no expen-
diture of any considerable amount had been incurred,
excepting in strict accordance with the plans and
designs submitted to that Committee. The expendi-
ture up to 1847 was certainly 1,016,000 L; but then it
must bo remembered that Mr. Barry's original estimate
was for the building atone, and did not include the pur-
chase of site (which cost 82,0001.), nor the River-ter-
race, which required another 139,0001. And in refer-
ence to Mr. Barry's estimate in 1849, that everything
connected with the buildings would require an aggre-
gate expenditure of about 2,000,0001., it should;be recol-
lected that the following items were included in the es-
timate of 2,000,0001., but not in the original estimate of
707,0001., namely, purchase of site, embankment of
river, extra cost of foundations, approaches, alterations
of all kinds sanctioned in consequence of the recommen-
dations of the Committee, and the suggestions of Mem-
bers, additional warming and ventilation, fire-proofing,
gas and water fittings, pictures, decorations, furniture,
and incidental charges. The Honourable Gentleman
said there was no check or control over the ex-
penditure. Now of course, as Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, he was responsible, as far as his dis-
cretion went on this subject, as much as he
was for aly other class of expenditure; but it was
clearly not within his province to set himself in oppo-
sition to the decisious of this House. Tee only addi-
tionalai wnt
dhai
he
attained.
ithnheeoduh.
ga dh
trsrtahhneec t
principaloi ountleady ai c e 1844
tw h aes
oabbieo€ xuc ptt
se7n.wdo
oihtolueir:
justifiedof t h ebsye
items were 1,500/. for improving the main sewer, 1,000/.
fir the smoking-room, and 3,0001. for conveniences to
the library. All this outlay was made on the recom-
mendation of the Commissioners. With regard to the
Hon. Gentleman's motion, two of the estimates now
moved for by him were already upon the taele of the
House. His (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) in-
tention was to take such a sum this year as would com-
plete all that portion of the building which would be
necessary to enable the House to sit in the new building
next session, with the library and corridors requisite for
that purpose. He had made inquiries as to how much
would be required by the contractor for that object, and
also enable the other parts of the building to be gone on
with slowly, so as to avoid loss, and he found that
1i4,6601. would be sufficient. He hoped he had now
said enough to satisfy the House that no such excess of
expenditure over the original estimate as the Hon. Gen-
tleman suppose had actualy taken place, and that every
reasonable check upon the outlay was afforded.
Sir B. HALL could not understand how the original
estimate had been so much exceeded. The architect,
should have known the probable expenses of the foun-
dation when he sent in that estimate, and yet he had led
the public to suppose that the building could, be com-
pleted for 707,000/. The Hon. Baronet then referred to
the report of the Committee of the House of Lords,
which stated that according to the evidence of Mr,
Barry cart sin departures had taken place from the orig
nal plans.

_ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said be
bad stated what had been sanctioned by the Committee
of 1844.
Sir B. HALL said he was stating what was the fact.
—(Rear, hear.) In 1837 Mr. Barry had furnished plans
cbouniisdidaermabalnesion
by whico it appeared that an expenditure of 707,0001.
Was calculated on. But that had been exceeded to a
amount. If a private party contracted to
60,000/.,
would for 20,000/., which subsequently cost
architect who had they
be
warranted in blaming the
present
cerred them in such a manner? So
it was in the
been exceeded to a veraseOnsTidheerabblreigeixbtalent.
Disputes, contract h aidt
appeared, had arisen bbetween
H Mr. Barry
Of the House, and theabsedhaDdrießdetido
as t o
additionalthe ventilationexpense.
he would say he
which was
believed he had never been chamberiniihjamenet,
beeter ventilated and warmed than that in which they
never heard of a
whheether N
hoped,ila
tteh earned-
p thenlplace
s where,at— (H
ae
ta r ,
all hear)—andsons,
thermometer varied so few degrees. He empty, the
fore, that Dr. Reid would still continue to t
warm that House.
Mr. GREENE said, the return of last year showed
both the original estimate and the expenses occasioned
by alterations, and they had also a tolerably clear esti-
mate of what was intended to be done. He had no de-
sire to relieve Mr. Barry from any responsibility which
might fairly attach to him, but it was only just that the
House should take its own fair share of that responsi-
all this expenditure had been per-
bility, inasmuch as
petually ,brought under their notice from year to year,
and had received their sanction. Many alterations were
made at the express instaace of the House; for instance,
the removal of the seats appropriated to Members be-
hind the Speaker's chair. It was argued that an archi-
tect ought not to depend on the discretion of a Commit-
tee, but should be able to judge for himself as to what
would be the proper accommodation; but, however true
this might be in the case of ordinary buildings, it by no
te :anti followed that it must be equally true in the case
~ftt a building like this, with respect to which the archi-
ct bad scarcely any previous experience to guide him.