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

THE SUN,

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 25, 1850,

Again, en alteration had been made in the disposition of
the benches. Origint.lly there were six rows, but on
being tested, this proved so inconvenient that it was
found necessary to remove one row, and an encroach-
ment was consequently made on the space devoted to
strangers.
Sir W. CLAY thought the Hon. Member for Middle-
sex had hardly made sufficient allowance for the great
difficulties with which Mr. Barry had had to contend.
All who had dabbled in bricks and mortar knew how
hard a matter it was to keep within original estimates.
If this was difficult when only one employer was to be
consulted, how much more so must it be when there
were a thousand, every individual of whom was at
liberty to make suggestions and raise objections?—
(Hear, hear.) It must be remembered that Mr. Barry
had to deal with one of the largest buildings in the
world, devoted to various purposes, and with respect to
wash he had scarcely any experience to guide him.
After all that had been said he believed the event would
prove that Mr. Barry had solved the difficulty, and they
would find themselves in a very comfortable and cer-
tainly very handsome House, though he did not believe
it could be more comfortable than the one in which they
now sat. It was impossible to attempt an adequate de-
fence of Mr. Barry, because that would involve the
necessity of going through minute details to which
the House would never 'Wen ; but the account fur-
nished at the beginning of 1849 appeared to him
to contain his complete defence.—(An ironical
cheer from Mr. Osborne.) One cause of the increase
of expense was the enormous cost of the founda-
tions, and another the arragements for ventilation.
He quite agreed with the Hon. Member for Marylebone
that there never was a better ventilated chamber than
the one in which they now sat; and any one who remem-
bered the deadly atmosphere of the old house on a
crowded night must feel grateful to Dr. Reid. Perhaps,
however, it was a mistake to give him co-ordinate power
with Mr. Barry in making the arrangements. With re-
spect to the alterations, they had been approved by the
Committee, and the explanation of the Right Hon. the
Chancellor of the Exchequer showed. how slight they
had been since 1844. It had become very much the
fashion to undervalue the design, but speaking the opi-
nions of many more competent judges than himself, he
had no hesitation in saying that it would be a noble and
magnificent work, and would reflect high honour on
the architects when they were gathered to their fathers.
If objections might with justice be made to the site and
order of architecture, let it be remembered that the Le-
gislature was answerable for both. He doubted now
whether they had made a wise choice as to the latter.—
(Hear, hear.) It was very well to say " hear, bear,"
now; but Hon. Members should recollect that the order
was chosen almost unanimously. Probably the flowing
continuous lines' of Grecian architecture might have
been better adapted to so vast a pile; but taking it all in
all, he believed it would be as fine a specimen of archi-
tecture as the world had ever seen.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND thought their constituents had
some right to ask how it was that they had been spend-
ing so many millions for a House of Commons, which,
after all, they had not got, (Hear, hear.) Probably, as
bad been observed, Parliament itself might be to blame,
but it did appear to him very extraordinary that Com-
mittees, consisting of such very intelligent gentlemen,
who had approved of these places, should have rested
content with seeing one great wide space in the middle
of the building called a House of Lords, and another
wide apace called a House of Commons, and not bare
thought it necessary to inquire whether it would hold
the requisite number. It could be no very difficult mat-
ter to ascertain. They had only to take the fattest re-
presentative and multiply him by 658.—(Laughter.)
Sir W. CLAY—You would have had a House twice
too large.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND—It 'was certainly the greatest
absurdity that a set of intelligent men should have sanc-
tioned the construction of a chamber totally unfit for its
purpose.—(Hear.) He had not the smallest doubt that
Mr. Barry,must have bad-eery considerable difficulties to
contend with, and did not think it at all fair to lay all
the blame on his shoulders; but on this they might de-
pend, that cut and contrive as they would, they would
be obliged to knock down the end of their House of
Commons in order to extend their building. He bad
had some experiende, and knew that there was no more
difficult subject in the whole range of practical science.
He knew many houses belonging to great noblemen and
gentlemen of wealth in which immense sums of money
had been expended for the purpose of warming them,
but he did not know of a single successfel instance. All
complained of being in ice cellars. No one seemed
anxious to assume the responsibility of the building.
Every one said to Mr. Barry, " You are no child of
mine." It would be wise to put an end to all this dis-
play of ornament—these pictures, which, if sent through
Europe, would not fetch 51. a piece. He knew, however,
that it was of no use to run counter to public opinion.
They were all lovers of the fine arts, and thought it was
only necessary to have money to get as many Rsphaels
and Michael Angeles es they wished, forgetting that art
was not to be created by money. They might, how-
ever, console themselves with the reflection that all
these brilliant external ornaments were not altogether
thrown away, for they would make the most magni-
ficent menagerie of swallows' and sparrows' nests in the
world.—(Laughter.)
Colonel SIBTHORP thought the House might have
rested well contented where they were. He called at.
tention to the fact that some parts of the new building
were alrerdy crumbling is consequence of the state in
which the stone was worked. He agreed with the Hon.
Member for Middlesex that they ought not to vote away
the public money without inquiry, and they had no sa-
tisfactory statement from the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer as to what they would have to pay. A greater
waste of money was never perpetrated than in building
these houses, which, after all, would never be calculated
for public business.
Mr. COBDEN thought the House was indebted to
the lion . Member for Middlesex for having called at-
tention to the subject. One good at all events had re-
sulted from it—that the responsibility of the under-
taking, which had been so long in abeyance, was at
last fairly fixed on that House, and he very much feared
that the whole sum expended upon it would be brought
forward as an indictment against it, if not as an argu-
ment against its very constitution. But what
was done was done, and there was no use
in repining ; it was gone. He had heard it said by a
very accomplished nobleman, and a very important
judge in such matters, that these works would cost
the country nearer 4,000,0004 than 2,000,0001.—(Hear.)
It was for this reason that he was anxious for the House
to assume the responsibility, and act as though respon-
sible. He saw no reason why the control of the expen-
diture should be placed in the hands of a Commission
embracing individuals who were not Members of the
House. Why not entrust it to a standing Committee,
at all events during the session? He thought it would
be a great improvement, also, if as in the case of the
ordnance estimates and the estimates for Holyhead
harbour, for instance, the estimate for the year was
accompanied by a statement of the previous expenditure.
Had this system been adored in past years the country
would have been saved this enormous expenditure, He
hoped, therefore, that the Right Hon. the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would consider the suggestion.
Captain 13OLDERO said he never could understand
why Mr. Barry should have been left without control,
when an efficient superintendence might easily have
been secured by having recourse to the Ordnance De-
partment or to the Woods and Forest'. The experience
of the last 50 years had certainly proved that no public
work was ever undertaken in which the expenditure did
not exceed the original estimate; but still there was no
instance on record in which the difference had been so
great, and yet the work was not halt finished.
Colonel SALWEY thought they had suffered them-
selves to be led into extravagant expenditure, by giving
the building the name of a palace. Her Majesty was
content to live in a house, and so surely might her faith-
ful Commons. The Hon. Member for the Tower Ham-
lets had told theta that the building was the largest in
the world, but was it not extraordinary that they could
not find accommodation in it for the Members of that
House?—(Hear, hear.) He wished to ask the Hon.
Member for Lancaster how many Members it would ac-
commodate ?

Mr. GREENE held the return in his hand. It ap-
peared ihat the total number of seats is the new House
was 446—(0h, oh! and cries of " Hear, hear")—the
number of seats in the present House was 456—that in-
eluded the galleries in each House. The old House held
only 387.

Sir. B. HALL wished to know what the body of the
new House would contain ? And he also wished to know
what the side galleries would contain? Ile had been in
the new House, and he thought the side galleiies might
have been made larger, so as to contain two rows of
seats. He wished to know also what accommodation
would be provided for the public?
Mr. GREENE said, the number for whom sitting-
' room could be found on the floor was 277; in the presimt
House the number was 296.—(A laugh.) In the gal-
leries, the number that could be accommodated was 133,
and taking (as we understood the Hon. Gentleman, who
spoke throughout very indistinctly) the end gallery,
which would accommodate 66 more, that would give 192
in the galleries.
Sir B. HALL was anxious to know 'the precise num-
ber that could be accommodated within the Rouse—the
number in the side galleries, and the number in the gal-
lery opposite the Speaker's chair, which he understood
was now to be appropriated to Members, to the detri-
ment. of the public. What accommodation, then,
would there be for the public, and what accommode.
tion for the Peers, because he saw some little benches
on either side of the en trance, which .were nothing but
returns in detail. With
on to be given to strangers,
regard to the accomm(dati
little
Mr, GREENS
pensGß oErEhNoErseh-abdox
suppose the gallery Speaker's chair was ap-
propriated t the— A laudg
commodation to
120 persons. The S peaker s gallery would contain 44
propriated to them, bi;,:liwinodu!tdheatior
advise the police
permsorn. sA,
ladnedrmthaensitirrueumgepr'lls
RgaEllyerywobuehidind
it 70.
being brought in and seated in the House—(Great
capabilities.laugter)thawt
hwxio.aute CoalldhbetheExrcehadange was opened thatiest way to test its
expedient was had. recourse to.
Mr. GREENE' said when the ventilation experiments
were tried in the 'present House, a battalion of the Guards
was brought in.:
Mr. Aldermi n HUMPHERY had been told that the
division lobbies' would not contain 150 *Members each,
and when ho had spoken about it the answer he got
was, " Nonsensi ~ you know nothing at all about it."—
(Laughter.) It case.some of the large attendances they
occasionally !taxi in that House occurred, they would
have it somett iing like the black hole of Calcutta.—
(Hear, hear.) It was on the whole a perfectly ridi-
culous affair to l regarded every one that had anything to
do with it.
Colonel SIB THORP wished to know whether it wall
true that som
,t of the stones were already crumbing?
Mr. GREE NE was not aware of anything of the kind.
There might be a defective stone, , but the whole build-
ing was in a most 'satisfactory state.
Sir H. VF,47WEY said the opinion given to the archi-

tect by various Members was that the House ought not
to be made inconveniently large. The question was the
number that usually attended. When the House was
very full it was perhaps better that Hon. Members
should be a little squeezed than it should be made too
large.—(Oh.)
Mr. BANKES said that they were now told that the
House of Commons were responsible for all the extra-
! regent expenditure that had been incurred. He had
taken every opportunity to complain of that wasteful
expenditure of the public money, and should join the
Hon. Member for Montrose in any motion expressive of
that dissatisfaction at it. He complained of the de-
fective arrangement of the new House, by which the
libraries were at so inconvenient a distance that Hon-
Members must frequently be shut out upon divi-
sions. Indeed, all the defects of the existing House
were still observable; the passages leading to the libra-
ries were dark and inconvenient, and there would be the
great expense of keeping up the lighting and ventilation
of that labyrinth of passages. All these things were un
fortunately past remedy, but at least they could still
exercise some control over the elaborate decorations that
were proposed. He regretted also that it should have
been called a palace, as it was not decorous to her Ma-
jesty, who had had nothing to do with it.
Lord R. GROSVENOR called the attention of the
Committee to the recommendation of the Committee of
1835, in which it was resolved that sittings should be
provided in the body of the House, not for 300, but for
between 420 and 460 Members—(Hear, hear)—and
adequate accommodation for the remainder in the gal-
leries.—(Cheers.) The report then proceeded to take
notice of the accommodation of strangers, which in
their new House was to be to the extent of 120 to 140
in the gallery behind the Speaker's chair. The resolu-
tion was, that one or more galleries should be provided.
not behind the Speaker's chair, but at the lower end of
the House, for the accommodation of 200 strangers, with
separate access, and retiring rooms during the time
the House was cleared. Where those retiring rooms
were he really did not know, and he doubted whether
they existed at all.--(Hear, hear.) Then with regard
to those boxes, that wore like the pens in Smithfield,
the accommodation that was to be provided for Peers
and other distinguished strangers was to the amount of
100, and these boxes would contain, he supposed, half a
dozen on each side.
Mr. B. OSBORNE—Fourteen in all.
Lord R. GROSVENOR—What must. they think
after all this of an architect who told them that the
cost would be about 700,0001., and then they were to be
told that they must ask no questions because the amount
would be 2,000,0001. or 3,000,000/.? Only conceive,
would any man recommend such an architect to another
to erect a mansion? And after all, when they came to
look at the accommodation they found that it was not
only not better than at present, but that these inconve-
niences were increased tenfold, and it appeared to him
that there was good ground for impeachment, and good
cause for irritation not only in but out of that House.
He believed the people would not grudge the expense if
they thought their representatives were properly accom-
modated. He really hardly knew how to vote upon the
question before the Committee.
Mr. CUBITT said until the foundations had been
laid—and it was impossible to ascertain what their ex-
tent or cost would be—no architect could give any esti-
mate of the probable expense of the building. Then the
plans and drawings did not describe the highlv.decorated
style of architecture that was adopted, and the character
and magnitude of the building itself the architects had
previously little experience of. The drawings could
convey ao idea of the amount of decoration that had
since been expended on the building. He thought the
country would be proud of having erected a structure of
such great beauty and magnitude, which in all probabi-
lity would endure for many centuries, and a; a work of
art he thought it was worth their while to make it as
good as it could possibly be made. No building in Eu-
rope of ancient or modern times could, in his opinion,
be compared with it, and in a country which spent and
was able to spend 50,000,000/. or 60,000,0001. per annum,
he did not think they would grudge spending 200,0001.
a year for the next ten or twelve years to render the
building complete.
Mr. B. OSBORNE thought the upshot'of the debate
would, at all events, establish the fact that the House
was totally incompetent to the management of its own
affairs. The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer got up and defended his share of the
business; the First Commissioner got up and defended
the Commission; the Hon. Member for Bedford eulo-
gised the ventilation; the Hon. Baronet the Member for
the Tower Hamlets eulogised Mr. Barry, and thought
them lucky because posterity would say the building
was the finest in the world; and the Hon. Gentleman
who spoke last admitted that the original estimate was
only 770,0001., but, because the country was rich, we
would not mind being cheated out of twice as much
more. It mattered little to Hon. Members who would
be starved to death in their Coinmittee-rooms what pos-
terity would s..y, or to those 270 Members who would be
cramped together on the floor of the House. He was
surprised that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer should have given the go-bye to the
question of the expense of 200,0004 incurred for tem-
porary buildings, and the 2,000/. per annum they were
paying for official residences, which Mr. Barry, eight
years ago, promised to have completed, and which
in 1842 he said would be finished in eighteen months.
The most economical thing they could do would be to
raise a sum of money, and finish the building at once.—
(Hear.) There was another question that had not been
alluded to—namely, the commission to be paid to the
architect, that was originally fixed at 25,0001., and the
bill now sent in by Mr. Barry, for commission, amounted
to 72,000/.—(Hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer
was now in active conflict with Mr. Barry on the subject,
and he would be very much surprised if the Right
Hon. Gentleman would not be obliged to succumb. He
contended that a clear case had been made out that the
original plan had been departed from. He suggested
that two other Members should be added to the Com-
mission in the room of the Hon. Member for Lancaster,
who had so many other duties to attend to, and of Sir
John Burgoyne. He would recommend that Lord
Sudeley and the Hon. Baronet the Member for Maryle-
bone be placed upon the Committee in their stead, other-
wise very little good would result from that debate. So
far from being an honour to the country, be thought the
whole thing was a disgrace and a slur upon the House of
Commons. The Government ought to be made respon-
sible for the whole affair, and he suggested that Mr.
Greene should be replaced by another Hon. Member,
and Mr. Barry subjected to some control.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
architect had probably discovered that it was not easy
to serve many masters. It was not, however true that
either the present Government or the present House of
Commons was responsible for what was undertaken by
the then Government and the then House of Commons
some fifteen years ago. What he :(the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) was responsible for, was the control of
the expenditure. The alterations now referred to had
been sanctioned by the Committee of 1844, and they
were not responsible for them, and all the complaints of
a waist of control referred to a period before that time.
The Hon. Member for Montrose was one of those who
strongly impressed upon the House the importance of
appointing that Committee, having found fault with the
expenditure. In compliance with the unanimous wish
of the House that Comittee was appointed. He believed
there had teen no complaint of want of control since the
appointment of that Committee. The new House of
Commons was formed exactly after a design recom-
mended by the Committee of 1849. He, therefore, dis-
claimed any responsibility on the part of the Govern-
ment in respect to the construction of that building.
Sir DE LACY EVANS wished to point the attention
of the Committee to the expenditure involved by the
recommendation of the Committee of Fine Arts. There
was to be one vote of 1,000 guineas for three pictures to
ornament the refreshment room of the house of Peers.
This was but one instance of the extraordinary and
lavish expenditure of the body that presided over these
transactions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed
to act upon the principle recommended, namely, that all
the expenditure for ornamental matters should be post-
poned until the useful parts of the building were com-
pleted. But there was one little exception to that reso-
lution which was made in reference to an item of 4,0001.
a year, which the Right Honourable Gentleman pro-
posed to allow intermediately for the purposes of the
fine arts; and the condition attached to this vote was
that an account be laid every year before this House as
to the distribution of the money during the past year.
He (Sir De LicY Evans) thought that if the Right Ho-
nourable Gentleman reversed that proposition it would
be much more advantageous for the country, namely, to
require an account to be laid before the House, setting
forth the items that were proposed to be expended in
the next year. There was, it appears, an item in
the estimates of 3001. for a cartoon and fresco of " St.
Cecilia;" one of 4001. for a cartoon and fresco of " Lear
and Cordelia;" and one of 1,800/. for models of statues
for the House of Lords. If the models cost so much,
he would be glad to know what the statues themselves
would cost. Even if this were a proper place for such
pictures, he did not think that these expenses should at
the present time be allowed. He would, therefore, op-
pose the vote. If they went on from year to year al-
lowing 4,000/. each year to be thus expended, it would,
in his opinion, take fifty years to complete the erne.
mental part of the building. The highly-prized pic-
ture of Landseer it was intended to place in a position
i
where the public would not be allowed the opportunity
therethat f
of seeing it. There was a very imperfect light in
the Peers' refreshment-rooms ; and he had been told
notor anythe o
lastth e
two
months. Noble Lord Lords hadiie taken
did
naot dinnerdeny
but this might be a
the Houseencou-
ragingth
of the opinion but
h expressede would beg leave tornd
the fine
arts, fitting opportunity for
by Lord
Sudeley, a
nobleman of acknowledged taste, upon this subject, in a
Committee of the House of Lords in 1844. In answer to
some observations made by Mr. Barry, respecting the in-
troduction of frescoes into the new building, Lord
Sudeley said, "If the buildings of the Houses of Par-
liament are meant for the productions of the fine arts,
Mr. Barry may be correct; but I consider that the
Houses of Parliament are built for no such purposes.
The fine arts ought certainly to be called in to embellish
these Houses; but the convenience of the public ought
not to be sacrificed for this display." He called upon
really been
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say what number of
orders bad been given to artists. If these orders had
given, and that the artists had devoted their
time and talents to the execution of them, he was cer-
tainly not disposed to refuse them compensation. Under
the head of engagements entered into and not yet paid,
there was an item of 2,2501. which he should wish to
have fully explained. He would move that 1,000 guineas
be deductod from the vote.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
that they had already done that to which the Hon. and
Gallant Member referred; for he admitted that this was
a fitting opportunity for encouraging the fine arts. Let
him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) remind the Com-
mittee that the whole of these matters bad been carefully
considered and discussed, and had generally been settled.
By the sanction of both Houses of Parliament Ibis cm.

mission was appointed for the purpose of making those
regulations connected with the fine arts. With all de-
ference to ourselves, he thought that we were a very
bad committee of taste.—(Hear, hear.) From what had
already taken place, ho believed that we would be the
very worst body that could be appointed to direct the
public taste in this respect.—(Laughter.) The names
of those composing the Commission were very well
known to everybody, and he thought that the arrange-
ment made two years ago was the very best that could
be made. He disclaimed the exercise of any influence in
matters of taste.—(Hear, hear.) He felt that the inter-
ference of the Treasury as to the selection of particular
works of art would not be likely to lead to a satisfactory
result. All that the Government did was to fix the
limit of the expenditure yearly for those purposes. Ho
was not aware that there was any engagement entered
into beyond what was stated in the estimate.
Mr. STANFORD wished to know whether the Hon.
and Gallant Member for Westminster made his objec-
tions from economical views ? With regard to the fine
arts he was sure that hardly any Honourable Member
could be found who would not admit that, before the
Commission had been appointed in connexion with the
building of the Houses of Parliament, the school of his-
toric art had been always wanting. In a valuable little
work, called " The .Fine Arts Almanack," it was stated
that the great historic school of art had not arisen until
the burning of both Houses of Parliament had exposed
the nakedness of the land relative to historic painting.
When we viewed the great exhibition of cartoons and
oil paintings which had followed that calamity, there
was no Englishman but felt the opprobrium that had
hung upon this country in the want of this school of
art. The splendid works of genius that were then pro-
duced gave a triumphant contradiction to the charge of
being deficient in great painters, and relieved this coun-
try from the charge that had heretofore stood
agaiast us. It was known to every dilettante
that it was impossible to give full encouragement to
the arts unless they furnished large and spacious walls
for exhibiting frescoes and historical pictures. The
only opportunity they had of encouraging such arts was
when they were erecting large buildings like these new
Houses of Parliament, and when they could command
the talents of the ablest men in the profession. It was
becoming a great nation like this to take a high stand in
the historical school of art. Even looking at the ques-
tion in an economical point of view, he was ready to
meet the objections of the Hon. and Gallant Member for
Westminster. The Hon. and Gallant Member must
admit, that it was beneficial to the manufacturing in-
terest to form a high school of design, and every one
knows at what a disadvantage our manufacturers would
be placed in competition with the productions of foreign
countries if we had not this school of design. On all
grounds he thought that this sum of 4,0001. yearly for
the encouragement of the school of arts and the pro-
motion of the school of design was the most eco-
nomical and beneficial vote that this House could
come to.---(Loud cries' of " Hear, hear.") He hoped
that this vote would have the effect which we all
so much desired—that men of talent, taste, and judg-
ment would be chosen to give effect to and to execute
these designs. No one could read the name of Landseer
without feeling persuaded that we had chosen one of the
greatest artists in this. or any other country.—(Hear.)
He felt that the Committee would be fully justified in
agreeing to this vote.
Sir B. HALL had understood his Hon. and Gallant
Friend the Member for Westminster to say that he con-
sidered it a strange and novel mode of proceeding to
purchase the pictures of Landseer for the purpose of
putting them up in a place where no one could see them
except the cooks and waiters of the House of Lordi' re-
freshment-room's, and a few of the Peers themselves.
If we were to vote money for the encouragement of the
fine arts, which he would be perfectly willing to do, let
it be with the understanding that the pictures were to be
placed before the public view—but he would oppose the
vote otherwise. There was another point for our con-
sideration. We have to vote 1,8001. for models for
statues for the House of Lords. He had been to see
those models. There were 18 of them. It appeared
that the Committee appointed to select the small statues
were prepared to recommend such on account of the nar-
row size of the niches in the gothic form, which would
necessarily restrict the choice of attitudes; that the cha-
racter of the statues shall be severe and monumental, and
free from all design and action. Now there were 18 of
those barons and prelates that had witnessed the signing
of Magna Cbarta to be placed there. Being anxious
to see what the progress of the fine arts was in this
country, he went to the studio of Mr. Thomas, a
countryman of his own, in Lower Belgrave-place, who
had produced some very fine works of art. He there
saw statues of severe and monumental character, with-
out action. They were the statues of the late Bishop
of Dublin and the Earl of Pembroke. He asked the
artist wby it was he made the shoulders of his statue so
narrow—that he had never seen a man in his life with
such narrow shoulders? The reply of the sculptor was,
"Mr. Barry will not allow us any more room."—
(Laughter.) That was what they called encouraging the
tine arts.—(Laughter.) The House of Lords was the
most gaudy, the most meretricious of public buildings.—
(Hear.) He asked them, was it not preposterous to call
upon artists to make statues to decorate such ts place,
and yet not give to them sufficient space?—(Hear.) He
thought it was quite absurd to say they were encouraging
the fine arts, when artists were called is and yet no op-
portunity afforded to them of displaying their skill.—
(Hear.) Why select Mr. Landseer, who was at the
head of their artists, and required no encouragement
from them? Why not throw open the decoration of the
House to public competition? He would gladly give
40,0001. to encourage the fine arts, but he objected to
spend their money in this way.
Lord MAHON did not feel entitled to make any
statement on the part of the Royal Commissioners, some
of whom were members of her Majesty's Government,
and he had not been aware that this subject was to be
discussed there that night, but still he wished to add
some observations to those already made by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. The Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber for Westminster had said that what was dune by this
Commission was the work of the secretary and of one or
two other persons. The Hon. and Gallant Member was
in error. The meetings of the Fine Arts Commissioners
were all stated in the public papers, and it would be
found that they were in general largely attended. The
reports of what was done were sent for approval, and
the signatures withheld if what was reported did not
meet with approval. The Hon. and Gallant Member
next stated that the Commissioners had ' recommended
the erection of several hundred statues.
Sir DE LACY EVANS explained.
Lord MAHON had understood the Hon. and Gallant
Member to make it as a matter of charge against the
Pine Arts Commissioners that a great number of statues
had been recommended by them. The Commis-
missioners had desired the erection of a certain,
but smaller, number of statues, and they appointed a
Committee to consider the names of all who wore
distinguished in history, in science, and in literature,
who might be entitled to such an honour. That was a
mere table from which a selection was to be made, but
the number actually recommended to be erected did not
exceed fifteen or eighteen. The Honourable and Gallant
Member had mistaken the list from which a selection
WAY to be made for that which actually had been se-
lected.—(Hear, hear.) He then came to the three pic-
tures to be placed in the refreshment-room of the House
of Lords. The Commissioners felt that they would in-
adequately consult for the present state of the arts if
they did not endeavour to avail themselves of the emi-
nent talents of Mr. Landseer.—(Hear, hear.) It was
under thet impression that they desired to have three
pictures from Mr. Landseer. The Honourable and
Gallant Member had raised a laugh on a former oc-
casion by stating that the subjects were to be those of
the chase. But, then, why call upon Mr. Landseer to
exercise his genius except on subjects on which it might
be conspicuously displayed? Then are objection had
been raised as to the place where these pictures
were to be placed—namely, in the ,Peers' refresh-
ment-rooms. Now, he had to state explicitly that
the Commissioners had desired to have these pictures
in another place, and a considerable body IS them had
visited various sites in the building for the purpose
of discovering a more appropriate place, but they
could not think of any place more suitable, or, he ought
to say, less unsuitable than the refreshment-room of the
Peers; but then it never was intended that the public
should not have the advantage of inspecting these pic-
tures. The public could be admitted in the morning, at
a time when the Peers were not occupied; and the Com-
missioners not only desired but intended that the Peers'
refreshment-room ahould be accessible to the public.—
(Hear.) With re.spect to the nichis 'in the House of
Lords, he did not think that blame was attributable to
the architect. They must have the style of that period,
and they all knew that was'marked by a certain rigidity
of limit ; and if they were to depart from that, they
would no longer represent the time it was intended to
depict.—(Hear.)
Mr. OSBORNE objected to the pictures being placed
in a dark room, where they could not be seen plainly
for two hours in the day. Ho denied that it was in-
.tended.by that House, in building a Parliament-house,
to encourage the fine arts, and if they did, that was not
a way to encourage them. He objected to what they
had done with respect to Mr. Landseer, who was not
merely at the top of the profession,hut of the world.
He was for abolishing the committee of fine arts,
those nineteen dilletante gentlemen who passed their
mornings in spending the public money; and if any gen-
tleman would second the motion, he would move their
abolition. What were they doing?—cramming into
narrow niches men with narrower shoulders.—
(Laughter.) If the originals had had such narrow
shoulders they never would have wrung Magna
Charts from the Monarch.—(Laughter.) He would
vote against the item as a censure upon the Committee
of fine arts.
Colonel RAWDON maintained that the Commis-
sioners of fine arts had done much to encourage art in
this country, and he referred to the frescoes of Mr. Dyes
and Mr. Maclise, and others, as exciting the admiration
of artists in other countries. He recommended the Hon.
Members who found fault with the Gothic sculptures in-
tended to be erected in the House of Lcrds to study
Flaxman and other authors.
Lord C. HAMILTON remembered that the Hon. and
Gallant Member was himself an artist, and had proved
by his own productions that he had peculiar notions on
the subject of the fine arts.—(Hear.) In the vote he in-
tended to give he wished not to be understood as pass-
ing any censure on the Commissioners of fine arts.
Instead of encouraging art, they were going t bury
those paintings in a place where they never could be
properly seen. In recording his vote in favour of the
amendment, he did so, not through any want of appre-
ciation of high art, but because of the inappropriateness
of the locality end of the decorations proposed for it.
Colonel DUNNE protested against their lavishing
sums of the public money in decorating the Peers'
refreshment-rooms, when they were taking away from
the hospitals of Dublin small sums which would greatly
benefit the poor of that city if not withdrawn.
After a few words from Sir DE LACY EVANS,

The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the original vote 75
For Sir De Lacy Evans's amendment ... 94
Majority in favour of the amendment ... —l9
The amendment was accordingly carried.
The next vote was 1,300/. for the expense of certain
public buildings in the Isle of Man.
Mr. V. SMITH was understood to object to the item
of 3001. for building a gaoler's house, and for alterations
in Castle Rushen; but upon an explanation by Mr.
Haver, the vote was agreed to.
The sum of 92,8741. on account of the works at the
new packet harb sus and harbour of refuge at Holyhead,
and to defray the expense of the present harbour estab-
lishment at Holyhead, &c., was then voted after a short
discussion.
The vote of 151,500/. for the harbours of refuge was
postponed.
The next vote proposed was 18,093/. 4s. 3d. for the ex-
pense of maintaining and repairing public buildings in
Ireland, inland navigation, and other services.
Colonel DUNNE wished to know, as the office of Lord-
Lieutenant was to be abolished, what was to be done with
Dublin Caste? A palace, they were told, was to be re-
served for the occupation of her Majesty, when she went
over to Ireland—it that ever happened; but what use
was to he made of the Castle? Wai the Court Secretary
to reside there? There was another item for the Royal
Hospital. Kilmaiuham which was instituted in the reign
of Charles 11., fat veteran Irish soldiers; and he should
like some information about this also. It had been re-
ported that the establishment was to he broken up, and
the Irish pensioners removed to Chelsea; and his wanted
to know what the Government intended to do?
The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER said
that the Lord-Lieutenant, it even the Bill tur the abo-
lition of the office should pass, would not be in a condi-
tion to leave the Castle this year, and the vote was re-
quired fsr necessary repairs.
After a few words fr-m Colonel SIBTHORP,
Mr. M. O'CONNELL took it for granted that the Go-
vernment were now ashamed of the Bill they had
brought in; for if they were going to take away the
Lord-Lieutenant, what did they want with such isems as
4521. for furniture of the state apartments, and that for
tae, house of the private secretary to the Chief Secretary ?
Mr. OSBORNE observed that a sum of 581. was in-
cluded 'in this vote for the repair of Irishtown Church in
Dublin. This was a Protestant church, and he thought
the Establishment ought to be called upon to repair the
building and not the public. He wished for some ex-
planations upon this item.
Mr. HAYTER said the church was a small building
in one of the worst localities in Dublin—(No, no)—and
it was much frequented by the military, who were sta-
tioned in the vicinity.
Mr. OSBORNE said that was a very bad reason for
the vote. The sum was trifling, but it involved a prin-
ciple, and therefore he should move that this 581. be dis-
allowed.—(Hear, and " Oh.")
Mr. GROGAN pressed for an answer to the question
whether Dublin Castle was to be maintained as an oc-
casional residence for her Majesty, like Pecenix Park
Lodge?
Sir G. GREY could give no certain information upon
that subject; but it was quite clear that the state apart-
ments must be kept up, because the only reception rooms
were in the Castle.
Mr. TAYLOR adverted to the reports respecting the
Royal Hospital at Kilmainham, and asked the Secretary
at War what was intended to be done with that estab-
lishment?
Mr. F. MAULE, in reply, said an impression ap-
peared to have gone abroad that it was intended to
abolish Kilmainham Hospital; but he could assure the
Honourable Gentleman no decision had been come to
upon that subject. It was true the Committee upon
the army estimates had directed their attention
to the consideration, whether the purposes of
the establishment might not be answered by that at
Chelsea; but they had done nothing more than take
evidence. They had not even formed au opinion upon
the subject, and of course until their report was received
the Government would take no steps in the matter.
Colonel SIBTHORP then moved that the vote be
reduced to 16,892/. 14s. 3J. by the deduction of 1,2401.
105. for the maintenance and repairs of the Royal Col-
lege of St. Patrick's, at Maynooth.—(Cries of " Divide.")
Lord J. MANNERS and Mr. DISRAELI asked for the
reasons why this sum was included in the estimate?
Mr. HAYTER replied that the Act of Parliament 8
and 9 Vic., c. 8, authorised the Government to repair
the College of Maynooth, but it omitted to make provi-
sion for the purpose; and no provision being made, it
was necessary a vote should be taken for the repairs.
Colonel SIBTHORP—Then I wish to stop it.—(A
laugh.)
Lord J. MANNERS inquired whether 1,2001. were to
be called for every year for repairs; and wished to know
the amount of the last vote?
Mr. HAYTER—The sum voted last year was 1,114/.
In reply to a question,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated
that the money voted last year had been spent upon
repairs of the old buildings, which were in a bad con-
dition.
Mr. REPTON said he could testify, from personal
knowledge, that no repairs had been made to the old
buildings. They were in the same state now as they
were two years and a half ago.
Mr. 11. DRU VIMOND could not consent to try the
question of Maynooth upon this vote ; neisher could he
consent, under the pretence of repairs, to go on building
a new college of Maynooth.
Mr. HAYTER assured the Honourable Gentleman
that she sum now asked for was entirely applicable to
repairs. Whether the state of the buildings required
the amount, he could not say, except that it was certi-
fied as being required by the Commissioners of Public
Works.
Lord J. MANNERS could not see that any groun d
had been shown to lead the House to believe that the
sum asked for was to be Lena fide expended in main-
, taining in a proper state of repair the old building of
Maynooth.
Mr. HAYTER observed that the Commissioners of
Public Works would be guilty of a gross breach of duty
if they applied money voted by the House for one pur-
pose to another.—(Hear.)
The Committee then divided. The numbers were—
For Colonel Sibthorp's amendment ... 47
Against it ... ... 124
Majority ••• ••• —77
Tho amendment was consequently rejected.
Mr. OSBORNE then renewed his objections to the
item of 58/. for Irish town Church, and intimated that he
should take the sense of the House upon it.
Mr. S. HERBERT, who had been appealed to, said
he should object to the refusal of this item. Irishtown
church was now mainly used for the military until ar-
rangements could be made for building them a chapel;
and in that case Irishtown church was to be made the
church of a large parish. But until that event occurred,
it was a military chapel.—(Hear.)
Lord J. MANNERS asked the Hon. and Gallant
Member for his reasons for opposing this particular
item ?

Mr. OSBORNE replied that the Roman Catholic
church did not receive a single penny from the State,
and the Protestant establishment had 400,000/. a year,
therefore it ought to pay this miserable 584
Lord J. MANNERS observed that the vote the House
had just arrived at was a conclusive answer to the Hon.
Gentleman, for the House hal just voted a sum of money
substlntially to the Irish Church.
Afcer some further conversation the amendment was
withdrawn, and the vote agreed to.
A sum of 10,7881. was voted for the works and re•
pairs of Kingston Harbour.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and ob-
tained leave to sit again.
The. House resumed.
Mr. BERNAL brought up the report of the votes of
supply on the navy estimates, which were severally
agreed to.
The Exchequer•bills (8,558,7001.) Bill went through
Committee.
THE POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOT,
LAND) BILL.

On the question that thi; Bill be read a third time,
Mr. SMOLLETT said he thought it stood in great
mod of amendursnt, and intended to propose amend-
ments, if he had an opportunity.
Mr. DUNCAN wished the Bill to be postponed to
the 7th of June.
Mr. F. MAULE would consent to the postponement,
if it was the general wish of Hon. Members.
The Bill was then postponed to Fridny next.
The Elections' (Ireland) Bill was postponed to Monday.
The West India Appeals Bill was read a third time
and passed.
The Alterations in Pleadings Bill was read a third time
and passed. _