Star.
London, England, 1814-07-14 00:00:00

had been already expended, without estimating what.'
remained to be expended. He believed that in the
Laid Cliambvilain's department, there would be 4
pretzy considerable increase beyond the return already
made. He could not speak with accuracy On the
subject at present.
Mr. TIERNEY declared himself surprised at this;
answer, as on the two last Committees that had sito
upon the Civil List, it seemed to be perfectly under-1
stood that no new works should be begun without a
previou. estimate of the expence being laid before
the House. It appeared now that great works had
been begun, and were carrying on, of which the
House were completely without information as to
their probable expence. We saw those new works in
the Parks rising every day, but how high they were
to got up, or how low they were to fall, or what was
to be the probable expence of them, the House was
mpletely ignorant.
Mr. BENNETT wished to put a question to the
R;ght Hon. Gentlenian as to a great structure that
was now building in the Great Park of Windsor. It
Was a most singular piece of architecture, but very
capacious, and contained a vast number of rooms, and
great accommodations. He wished to know who this
Palace was built for, and who was to be the owner
or occupier of it. He also wished to know by whose
taste it had been constructed, as be should wish to
prevent, as far as possible, that person from having
any concern in other buildings which were at the na-
tional expence. The walls of this edifice were of
stone, and the roof of thatch, and it altogether ap-
peared to him, asexpressed by a poet,

The eras'd enemies of &tempted brains !'
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
replied, that this building was intended for the resi-
dence of the Prince ltegentand notwithstanding there
mere already many Royal Palaces. be did not sup.
pose that any one of them could be fitted up for the
accommodation of the Prince at so small an expense
as this, which was called “ the Cottage" in Windsor
rark." As to the expense, the greater part of k had
been already accounted for in the expenditure of the
Civil List of the last year.
Mr. TIERNEY saw in the accounts a sum of
£2OOO, for works in Winclior Great Park. He wish-
ed to know whether this was 'all that remained to be
provided for on this account, as £2OOO was a sum
which would go but a hale way in thatch fur this
magnificent palace. •
The CHANCELLOR Of the• EXCHEQUER
said, that the returns had been made last year, but he
was not sure whether all the bills had been furnished.

Lord CASTLEREAGH said, that this building
was fur the accommodation of the Prince Regent,
who, as a subject, had no house in the country to retire
to 1X ithin a cosivenient distance of town.

Mr. BENNETT then moved for the plan and esti.
matei of this building in Windsor Park.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
bad no objection.to a return of the expense already in-
curred, or an estimate of the probable future expense.
He saw no reason, however, for the plan being laid
before the House; and tfitreforeasoved as an amend-
ment. that that part of thematic* should be omitted.
Mr. TIERNEY thought it impossible for the
House to know what they were doing, unless they
had the estimate as well as the Om
CHANPELLIK of lin EXCHEQUER
considered it of no irhirortente to submit to the con-
sideration of the House. whether this plan spewed
good taste or bad taste. He thought it right, how.
ever, Parliament should be informed of the expense.
Mr. TIERNEY did not wish to criticize the na-
tore of the plait, but conceived it absolutely impos-
sible to form 4 judgment about the estimate of the
expense, without having the plan of the building.
The Amendment of the Cuairceu-oft of the Ex-
cum= was carried, by a majority. of 43 to 9.
On entering the Gallery, after the division, we
found Mr. Ti MINIM inquiring from.wham the Board
of Works had received their instructions prior to be.
ginning the works in the Parks ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said that it was in the Lord Chamberlain's Depart-
ment,
Mr. TIERNEY observed, that in the Lord Cham-
berlain's returns, it was expressly mentioned 44 exclu-
sive of the new works now carrying on in the Parks."
He believed that it was now evident that those works
%timid come to a great de4l more than the rglsooo
which had been at first mentioned.
Sir W. CONGREVE said that be had no reason
,
to alter the opinion he before gave, that after deduct-
iag the value of the materials, £15,000 would he
sufficient to cover the expense of the preparations for
the fire...works.
Mr. TIERNEY then asked by whose directions,
or by what authority, he had undertaken works to
the extent of JE15,00 ?
Sir W. CONGREVE said, that he thought him.
..elf justified by precedent. In the year 1749, the
iioard of Works lad, by the authority of a King's
war rant, gone to considerable expense for the prepa-
ration of fire-wm ks. _

Mr. TIERNEY then asked, was there a King's
warrant for this expenditure of NI 3,000 ?
Sir W. CONGREVE. said, that he was not pre-
pared to say that s warrant had been yet granted to
that amount. There had been a warrant for part of it.
Mr. TIERNEY begged to be understood, that be
did not me4n to impute the slightest mismanagement
•,r inattention to Sir William Congreve, in the amt.
tion qf that part of the duty which he had under-
ken. AR he %ranted was a regular estimate of the
ti)eltst• and rte t merely what might have been men-
oiled in a loos:: conversation iron) Mr. Nash to Sir
'illi nun Congr:ve.
The CHANCELLOR at the EXCHEQUER
that there was a warnt for the sum of five
:butimnJ rands.
Mr. TIERNEY then moved an estimate of the
clumsy of the preparations tor the fete in Hyde Park.
L. Itmes's Park, and the Green Park.—Agreed to.
Mr. I3ANKES wished to know whether the bridge
'or tne Canal in the Park. with all its ornamental
perstructure, was, included in the estimate of
15,400

Sir W. CONGREVE said, that it was it firsa
ia-
AsJrJ, but as the bridge was intended now to be a
erntanent one, he did nut think it could be fairly
lastud among the preparations fur tire.wu►kc.
Mr. BENNEtt asked, whether the large orna•
►ents upon the bridge were to be removed, or whe•
er ter were to be pet raiment ?
S:t W. CONGKEVE said that this would be a