Sitting of 24 May 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Reported.—Exchequer Bills (8,558,700); Convict Prisons.
3° West India Appeals; Alterations in Pleadings; Registration of Deeds (Ireland).

SUPPLY—ASSESSED AND WINDOW DUTIES.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
MR. BLACKSTONErose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the increase of ten per cent on the assessed taxes. He did not think the Motion, if carried, would embarrass the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or alter his financial arrangements. In bringing forward the proposition for this increase of ten per cent, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor had stated that the national expenditure was 49,432,000 l.; income, 46,700,000 l.; deficiency, 2,732,000 l. The right hon. Gentleman had proposed, by the increase of ten per cent on the assessed taxes, to raise 2,760,000 l., and by the addition of five per cent to the customs and excise, to raise 1,895,000 l.; whereas he only raised 206,000 l., scarcely ½ per cent. instead of 5 per cent. The reason he had not encumbered his Motion with the repeal of the 5 per cent additional duty on the excise and customs was, that the complete revision of taxation made by the right hon. Member for Tamworth had remitted 4,000,000 l. from the customs and excise; and since then excise duties had been remitted to the amount of 1,300,000 l. on glass, and auctions, and bricks. Now, the House had readily imposed the 10 per cent addition on the assessed taxes when the revenue was in a state of depression, and he hoped would as readily remove the addition now that the revenue was prosperous. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward his budget this year, he stated—

The National Income

£52,786,500

Expenditure

50,533,652

Surplus

£2,251,848

312
But, in reality, the right hon. Gentleman understated the surplus, for from papers since received it appeared thus:—

Income

£52,916,918

Expenditure

50,378,418

Surplus

£2,538,500

Thus the surplus really exceeded that stated by the sum of 286,652 l., which was about the amount of revenue he now asked might be remitted. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman would say that the assessed taxes fell principally on the rich, and that there were other taxes which pressed more upon the labouring classes; but in some items, as that of male servants, this was not at all true; and the assessed taxes fell really upon labour. This was shown by a comparison between the number of male and female servants in Ireland, where the duty on male servants did not exist, and England. On the census of 1831:—

Great Britain.

Ireland.

Male servants

101,848

98,742

Female

678,451

252,155

Thus, in this country, where there was a heavy tax on male servants, the proportion of females was 6½ to 1, in Ireland 2½ to 1. Moreover, it would be seen that since the 10 per cent was imposed, every item of the assessed taxes had fallen off. Thus it was with—the tax on servants:—In 1841, it was 204,321 l.; 1842,203,816 l; 1843, 194,064 l.; 1844, 191,061 l.; 1845, 191,700 l.; 1846, 192,462 l.; 1847, 193,836. Showing a falling-off of 44,000 l. per annum. So as to another item of the assessed taxes, clearly pressing upon labour, and discouraging trade—

THE TAX ON CARRIAGES.

Above Two Wheels.

Two-wheeled ditto.

1842

£464,592

£140,067

1843

442,850

123,972

1844

428,904

118,878

1845

424,077

112,410

1846

420,127

167,773

So as to a similar item, that of the tax on horses:—In 1842, was 414,582 l.; 1843, 388,181 l.; 1844, 369,642 l.; 1845, 374,657 l.; 1846, 373,966 l. Showing a loss to the revenue of 40,000 l. per annum from the increase of duty. So as to the tax on dogs:—In 1841, it was 170,950 l.; 1847, 148,413 l. The fact was, all the duties were declining. Thus gentlemen were having two-wheeled carriages under the cost of 21 l., or having their names put on them, and hence avoiding the duty, as appeared from the—

313

NUMBER OF TWO-WHEELED CARRIAGES.

For which duty was paid. Exemption claimed.

1842

£35,182

£25,743

1846

27,177

32,766

There was one item on which there had been an increase, that of the window duty; but that was because in 1840 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ports-mouth when Chancellor of the Exchequer had a fresh survey. The result had been, that the window duty—In 1840, was 1,298,322 l.; 1846,1,603,785. Thus the fresh survey in 1840 added 430,000 l, He had stated these facts to show that the increase of 10 per cent on the assessed taxes had only diminished the revenue—and as the addition had only been asked to make up a deficiency in the revenue, he thought it should be removed when there was a surplus—and that it was the first duty of the Government to take it off before repealing any other duties.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'Leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Acts 3 and 4 Vic. c. 17, as imposes an additional duty of 10 per cent on Assessed and Window Taxes,"
instead thereof.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERsaid, it had hitherto been his duty to resist every proposition of this kind, and he must admit that, in many cases, it had been a painful duty. On the present occasion, however, he had no great scruple in opposing the Motion of the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House. The hon. Gentleman had truly and correctly anticipated the answer which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was prepared to give to his speech and Motion. He had felt it his duty to resist the reduction of what were called the taxes on knowledge, and the taxes on air and light; and he could not now sacrifice the revenue derivable from the object of the hon. Gentleman's Motion by abandoning the additional 10 per cent which he sought to abolish. The imposts of which the hon. Gentleman complained, namely, the assessed taxes, were the most unobjectionable species of taxation, and the 10 per cent amounted to 290,000 l. Surely, those who kept horses, dogs, and male servants in abundance, who used armorial bearings, and who used hairpowder, were more fair subjects of taxation than the poorer and industrious classes. It did not seem to him that it signified much on what ground the
314
tax had been originally imposed. Revenue to the amount of 300,000 l. was derived from it. It was more consistent than any substitute that had been suggested for it with the well-being and prosperity of the great body of the people. He confessed that when the time for reduction came, the assessed taxes he should consider as the last species of impost that ought to be removed. There were many far more burdensome imposts than the assessed taxes. He hoped the House would concur with him in resisting the present Motion, and go at once into Committee of Supply.
MR. BANKESsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had especially avoided the 10 per cent on the window tax, a matter that did not exclusively concern the rich. It was a subject that had excited public feeling very much; and, if some concession were made on that point, the public would receive it as an earnest of the intention of the Government to act with good faith in this matter, and as affording some hope that the whole of that odious tax would be eventually removed. He quite differed from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in considering the Motion now before them as one that merely affected the rich; on the contrary, he maintained that it very deeply affected the humbler classes of the community. One of the great advantages arising from the luxuries of the rich was, that they gave employment to the poor. Now, these taxes deprived many persons of bread who otherwise might be employed as servants. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he should not take into account the circumstances under which the additional 10 per cent was imposed; but surely the House would not sanction such a position. It was only imposed for a temporary purpose, and to make good a temporary deficiency. The Government now had its command a surplus, and the earliest opportunity should be taken to do that which was nothing more than an observance of good faith. At a future time, if a Chancellor of the Exchequer were to come forward and say that he wanted to impose an additional duty merely for a temporary purpose, the House would surely remember what they had that night heard from the right hen. Gentleman. Even upon sanitary grounds he thought the necessity for relieving the country from the window tax was most pressing. The right hon. Gentleman had a surplus, and seemed resolved to keep it; but he would not succeed in showing that the people who bore

315
the heaviest burdens had derived any advantage from that surplus of which the right hon. Gentleman was so boastful. The remissions asked amounted only to 200,000 l. or 300,000 l., and if granted they would certainly give great satisfaction to the country at large.
SIR G. PECHELLsupported the Motion. The House had already smashed the windows by the vote agreed to a few weeks ago; he hoped, however, that they would sooner or later reconsider their decision, for the window tax operated most unfavourably on building, as well as on human health.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 65: Majority 65.

List of the NOES.

Adderley, C. B.

Knox, Col.

Alexander, N.

Lacy, H. C.

Arkwright, G.

Lennox, Lord A. G.

Bailey, J.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Baillie, H. J.

Lockhart, A. E.

Baldock, E. H.

Meagher, T.

Baldwin, C. B.

Manners, Lord J.

Bankes, G.

Meux, Sir H.

Bennet, P.

Mundy, W.

Boldero, H. G.

Naas, Lord

Buck, L. W.

Neeld, J.

Chatterton, Col.

O'Flaherty, A.

Christopher, R. A.

Packe, C. W.

Clifford, H. M.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Cubitt, W.

Salwey, Col.

Davies, D. A. S.

Sandars, G.

Disraeli, B.

Smyth, J. G.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Smythe, hon. G.

Dundas, G.

Somerset, Capt.

Du Pre, C. G.

Stanley, E.

Edwards, H.

Stuart, Lord D.

Evans, Sir D. L.

Stuart, H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Taylor, T. E.

Forbes, W.

Thornhill, G.

Gore, W. R. O.

Trollope, Sir J.

Hall, Sir B.

Waddington, H. S.

Halsey, T., P.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Williams, J.

Hood, Sir A.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Hornby, J.

TELLERS.

Houldsworth, T.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hudson, G.

Vyse, R. H.

SUPPLY—FOREIGN POLICY.
Order for Committee again read.
MR. B. COCHRANEsaid, he could not allow one Supply night to pass without expressing to the House the conviction which had been impressed upon him during his recent stay abroad of the universal feeling of hostility with which this country was now regarded in every part of the
316
Continent. He felt bound to take the earliest opportunity of stating that conviction, and he was not only satisfied of the prevalence of those hostile feelings by what he had seen and heard, but he had received letters since his return which bore evidence to the same effect. Having frequently addressed the House on the subject of Greece, he was in communication with persons there, and they had written to him to say the universal feeling was, that Greece was ruined by the policy of the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs. He had formerly concurred in the views expressed by the noble Lord with respect to that country. He always understood it was the noble Lord's intention to act in favour of the people against the tyranny by which they were oppressed; but the result of the noble Lord's policy had been that the King of Greece was triumphant. Let the House be aware of that fact. The game of the King had been played by the noble Lord, and the country was ruined! The King was not at all affected by the policy which had been pursued, but the kingdom of Greece was deeply injured, and the revenue would be diminished nearly one-half by the measures the noble Lord had adopted against her. Turning from Greece to the other countries of Europe, he could assure the House, as one recently coming from them, that it was perfectly painful to listen to the feelings expressed against this country. He wanted to have some explanation of the policy which injured us so materially in the opinion of all, and so diminished our influence. The noble Lord should say what his intentions were when he sent Lord Minto into Italy—when he revolutionised every kingdom there—Naples, Rome, Tuscany, Piedmont. When Lord Minto upheld the revolutionary party in every one of those countries, they were told it was for the sake of giving free institutions to the people, and that England should exercise her just influence on Italy. Good God! what had been the result? Where was the influence of England now? She had none—none whatever. Where were the liberal institutions of which they had heard? Why, the policy of the noble Lord had overthrown every chance of liberal institutions and of free government in those countries. He had rendered them unfit for it. He wished some person with a higher position in the House had taken up these questions; but the House would pardon him, as one who

317
had had the privilege of communicating I freely with persons thoroughly informed upon such matters, for stating what he had heard and learned. He would refrain from touching on the recent misunderstanding with France, but, taking the broad facts of the case, he would ask, had not France been our sole remaining ally? "France and England against the world" was the maxim of Napoleon. The noble Lord had now lost France, and we stood isolated among the nations of Europe without a single ally and without one friendly Power. Such was the result of the policy carried out by the noble Lord. If, as he sincerely hoped, notwithstanding the apathy which prevailed here on foreign questions, the consideration of our foreign policy was brought forward as it ought to be, he would be prepared to show that every one of the complaints against the noble Lord was well founded, and that he was not wrong in stating our policy had revolutionised Italy. It was disgraceful to the House that these questions were not brought forward and properly discussed. He was anxious they should know from an eye-witness, and from one who had only that day received letters from abroad, what had been the melancholy and hopeless result of the noble Lord's policy. It was notorious the result of the noble Lord's upholding revolutionary opinions in other countries must be disturbances throughout Europe: and all the excuse the noble Lord could make was, that while all other countries had been revolutionised, England had remained firm. He (Mr. Cochrane) had hoped a more generous feeling would prevail in this country, and that the effect of England's remaining firm would have been to induce the noble Lord to extend to other countries a more generous and noble policy. If we were in such a prosperous condition—thanks to the high moral feelings of the people of this country—was it noble, generous, or just, to send agents into other countries to disseminate republican doctrines? The noble Lord said last night that we must be prepared to recognise any Government in France; and indeed his policy led him (Mr. Cochrane) to think that the Government the noble Lord would most readily recognise would be a Government which he hoped they never would see in France, and one which this country ought never directly or indirectly, to sanction—the government of such men as Barbés and Sobrier. In every country of Europe they
318
looked to the noble Lord as the supporter of republican opinions—in every country they regarded the intervention of Lord Palmerston and the mission of Lord Minto as the source of revolutions. At a future day he hoped some hon. Member, of a position which would secure his representations due weight with the House, would bring forward the whole question of our foreign policy fully, distinctly, unhesitatingly, and uncompromisingly. It was not a case of mere party, nor was it to be met by frivolous explanations. The question could be evaded no longer, for it had now become a matter of necessity that our foreign policy should receive more marked attention than the House had hitherto bestowed on it. It was not right for the House to say constantly "Oh, we don't care for foreign affairs—they are nothing to us." He had not attempted to enter fully into these questions; he would wait until the subject was formally brought forward, and then prove all his assertions. Foreign affairs would one day compel the House to attend to them, and it would then be found that the course which had been followed respecting them was involving our own most vital interests, as he believed it had already deeply compromised our national honour and our national integrity.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I will not follow the hon. Gentleman into all the topics on which he has touched on a Motion for going into a Committee of Supply. I can only say that what I have just heard from the hon. Gentleman leads me in some degree to alter an opinion very prevalent in this country, and which I have entertained, that it is desirable English gentlemen should travel abroad in order fully to understand foreign affairs. It certainly appears to me that the hon. Gentleman was quite as good a judge of our foreign affairs before he went abroad. I only wish to deny totally the assertions he has so broadly and deeply made with respect to the effect of Lord Minto's mission to Italy. The hon. Gentleman having been abroad has not had time to read the papers at home—[Mr. B. COCHRANE: I have read them all]—and I can only recommend him, if he has any leisure time to spare, to read the blue books which have been produced respecting Italy. [Mr. B. COCHRANE: I have read the whole of them.] Then I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has so misspent his time, that these documents make so little impression on his mind. The mission of Lord Minto was neither intended

319
to produce revolution in Italy, nor was it followed by that effect. It had a totally different object in view. Lord Minto was sent to Italy to give to those Governments which might wish to have it, the opinion of the Government of this country with respect to carrying out temperate and moderate reforms which might save them from revolution; and I must say my opinion is, that if the advice which Lord Minto was instructed to give, when asked for, but not unsolicited, had been in all cases followed, many disasters which the hon. Gentleman deplores would not have taken place. The country which first asked Lord Minto's advice, and followed it, was the kingdom of Sardinia; and it was a proud proof of the soundness of the advice of my noble Friend that the kingdom of Sardinia was one of the few States which now afforded an example of tranquillity, order, and constitutional liberty.
LORD C. HAMILTONwished very much that the noble Lord would tell them whether it was in consequence of Lord Minto's advice that the kingdom of Sardinia had twice broken through solemn treaties, and twice had marched her armies into the dominions of Austria? Had those aggressions, which had been attended with the most disastrous consequences to Sardinia, so that her capital would have been hostilely occupied but for the clemency and liberality of the assailed party, been in accordance with Lord Minto's advice? If so, the present condition of Sardinia certainly depended more on the forbearance of Austria, than on any efforts of the noble Lord's policy.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: So far from the aggressions of Sardinia on the Lombard territory of Austria having been the result of any advice of Her Majesty's Government, the papers prove that this Government remonstrated repeatedly, in the strongest possible manner, against those proceedings.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee of Supply—Miscellaneous Estimates.

SUPPLY—ROYAL PALACES.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum not exceeding 83,160 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, to the 31st day of March, 1851, the Expense of Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces and Public Buildings, for providing the necessary supply of Water for the same, for the Rents of Houses taken for
320
occasional and temporary accommodation of the Public Service, for the Purchase and Repair of Furniture required in the various Public Departments, and for Services connected with the Lighting, Watching, and general protection of the Public Offices."
COLONEL SALWEY COLONEL SALWEY moved that the sum be reduced by 593 l., the amount of the estimate for rebuilding the houses of the military knights of Windsor. Perhaps it was not generally known that there were charitable trusts set apart for this purpose. The Public Petitions Committee had printed a petition from Windsor, which stated that in 1843, 3,200 l. of the public taxes was appropriated to the repairs and rebuilding of the knights' houses. Now these were expenses that under certain deeds executed in the time of Henry VIII. ought to have been borne out of the trust estates; but the deans and canons of Windsor had appropriated these estates to their own use. In 1830 the sum of 7,000 l. was exacted from the country; in 1844, 3,100 l. was obtained for rebuilding the military knights' houses of the lower foundation, and repairing those of the upper foundation. He found also the sums of 200 1. and 600 l. appearing in the Miscellaneous Estimates for 1848; then there was another sum of 1,260 l., and now they had an additional sum of 593 l. Now, this was a great public robbery. The dean and chapter divided 22,500 l. a year amongst themselves. They held a property which in Henry VIII.'s time was worth 600 l. a year. It was now worth 12,000 l., and that with former grants made up 22,500 l. They allowed to these unfortunate knights labourers' wages—a shilling a day; and the dean and canons had now the effrontery to come to this House to ask the nation to rebuild these houses. This was a grievous wrong. He thought the time had come when the country should deal with such questions. He now moved that the item be reduced by the sum of 593 l.
Afterwards Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum not exceeding 82,567 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, to the 31st day of March, 1851, the Expense of Maintenance and Repair of Royal Palaces and Public Buildings, for providing the necessary supply of Water for the same, for the Rents of Houses taken for occasional and temporary accommodation of the Public Service, for the Purchase and Repair of Furniture required in the various Public Departments, and for Services connected with the Lighting, Watching, and general protection of the Public Offices."
SIR G. GREYsaid, the houses in which

321
these knights resided were in fact part of the building belonging to Windsor Castle. The hon. and gallant Gentleman founded his objection to this vote on the claim of the military knights to share in the increased value of the estates. That was a wide question, which could not be entered upon now. It was a strictly legal question; and if these knights had a legal claim it was not to the House of Commons they should go, but to a court of law. 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, and the right hon. Gentleman considered it his duty not to interfere.
COLONEL SALWEYsaid, it was perfectly well known that these poor men were not in a situation to go to law with such a body as the dean and canons of Windsor. But he would prove his point. Henry VIII. by his will granted lands and tenements of the value of 600. a year, on certain conditions. On the death of that monarch, various steps were taken by the Privy Council, and on the 4th of August, 1567, a deed was executed to declare the trusts. Now, he begged the House to remark that in the reign of Queen Mary the funds were devoted to the purpose for which they were intended, for out of the revenue thirteen houses were built, which the knights resided in at the present day.
COLONEL THOMPSONhoped the Mover: would go to a division. His conviction was, that the matter ought to be looked into; and he bespoke the attention of both military and naval men to the subject. It was a contest between poor knights and ecclesiastics; and the great fish were swallowing the little.
LORD SEYMOURhoped his hon. and gallant Friend would consider what would be the effect of his Motion, if carried. Parliament had no power to compel the Dean and Chapter of Windsor to repair the houses; and if Parliament refused the vote, the consequence would he that the houses would not he repaired at all.
SIR DE L. EVANSbelieved the institution of the Knights of Windsor was originally a good one; but, like many other ancient institutions, its design had been much neglected, and appointments made too much a matter of patronage. The present Government were attending to it in a much better spirit than had previously
322
been manifested, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had now under consideration the military claims of the officers recommended to the institution. None were appointed now, unless officers in distressed circumstances, who had served their country gallantly. The object of the hon. and gallant Member was a laudable one; but, as the noble Lord had observed, if the vote were withheld, the houses could not be repaired. He (Sir Do L. Evans) hoped the hon. and gallant Member would withdraw the Motion, and introduce it on the Ecclesiastical Bill. There was reason to believe that the ecclesiastical body at Windsor had extensive revenues themselves, and, not content with them, they were appropriating a large portion of the funds which belonged to those distressed knights.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. COBDENsaid, he saw a charge of 850 l. for repairs, and furniture, and rates, of our Ambassador's house at Paris. They had been led to suppose, from the inquiry upstairs, that the furniture was not at the expense of the public. They paid the Ambassador 10,000 l. a year, and 4,000 l. a year for expenses connected with the office; they found him a building which was, in fact, a palace, and he did not see why there should be this charge in addition.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that the furniture alluded to was for the official rooms, and that the 850 l. also included chargea for lighting, water rates, contingencies, &c.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he was informed that other expenses had been incurred in the improvements of Buckingham Palace which were paid for by the department of Woods and Forests, besides those which were sanctioned by the House. He wished to know whether that was the case?
MR. HAYTERsaid, he believed the gallant Colonel was entirely misinformed. He did not apprehend that there was any sum of money whatever expended on Buckingham Palace, except what was voted by that House. The Commissioners of Woods and Forests undoubtedly took care of the royal parks, but they had nothing at all to do with Buckingham Palace.
COLONEL SIBTHORP: Oh, oh! but if a garden is attached to a house, it is part of the house. Everything that was connected

323
with Buckingham Palace ought to be considered as belonging to it.
Vote agreed to.
22,000 l. additions to the Ordnance Office, Pall-mall.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—BUCKINGHAM PALACE.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 14,672 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, in the year 1850, the Expense of making an Ornamental Enclosure, and forming a Public Garden, in front of Buckingham Palace."
VISCOUNT JOCELYNwished to know what spot had been selected to which to remove the marble arch.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, it was intended to remove it to the centre mall in St. James's Park, nearly opposite Stafford-house. The public would have the same access to the garden which it was proposed to make as they now had to the park.
MR. B. OSBORNEwished to know whether the sum put down for the removal of the arch and putting it up again included the whole charge? The Committee ought to understand that first and last this arch had cost the country 120,000 l. He would propose that it should be sold rather than removed at the expense of the public. He wished also to know what was the meaning of 3,500 l. for "groundwork of garden," as it was called, and whether this was the whole sum that would be required for that purpose? If the hon. Member for the West Riding would make a Motion for disallowing the sum of 10,000 l. on account of the arch, he would cordially support it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped he should be able to satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to what was intended, and that the proposal was one which the House ought to agree to. Every one would agree that it would never do to leave the arch where it was. The question had been mooted as to the site to which it should be removed, and various suggestions had been made. The last proposal was one which would contribute very much to the pleasure and amusement of the great body of the people. It was, that the arch should be moved down the park, nearly opposite to the entrance into the stableyard, to stand across the centre mall in the park, so as to form an approach to the palace. It would stand across the portion of the mall through which the Queen drove when going towards Whitehall. Then it was proposed to remove the
324
great hoarding in front of the palace, and to replace it with an iron palisade, like that which formerly enclosed the open part of Buckingham Palace. It was also proposed to take off from the upper end of St. James's Park, and from the lower portion of the Green Park, two square plots of ground, and to lay them out as formal gardens. He could testify, from his own experience, living near the spot, to the great satisfaction afforded to a largo body of the people by admission to the park on summer evenings, and especially on Sundays, There was not a more pleasing and satisfactory sight than to see the crowds of people who spent a large portion of the evening there in summer. A few years ago, it had been supposed that if the people of this country were permitted to roam at large among trees and flowers, they would do them injury; but this was far from being the case. It was remarkable that the people of towns seemed to take the greatest possible pleasure in the sight of grounds laid out and planted with flowers. These two portions of ground, which would add very much to the architectural appearance of the palace, would also contribute to the amusement of the inhabitants of the metropolis. The proposal was that these two spaces should be inclosed, and laid out as formal flower gardens, and of course open to the public—the great object being to increase their means of innocent amusement. It was intended that these gardens should be laid out, and should have seats along the walks. It was also proposed that there should be a site in which either statues, or casts, or architectural ornaments, might with advantage be placed. That was open to future consideration; all that was proposed at present was to lay out the ground and form flower gardens. The present vote would not cover the whole expense which would be necessarily incurred in the formation of these gardens. It included the expense of moving the arch, of inclosing the front of the palace, and of laying out the ground where the gardens were to be formed. Some further expense would be necessary—no very large sum, he believed, if all that was done was to lay out the ground as flower gardens. If architectural ornaments were introduced, that would, of course, involve a further expense; but that was no necessary part of what was now proposed, and might be either done or not in any future year as Parliament might be disposed. All that would be entailed by this vote

325
would be the expenditure included in the estimate for forming the flower garden.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, two questions were before them—one, as to the formation of ornamental flower gardens, and the other as to the position of the arch; and he must say, that notwithstanding the explanation just given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was difficult to ascertain the hearing of these different questions—what ground, for example, was to be given in one direction, and what ground was to be withdrawn in another. He thought, therefore, it would be satisfactory to have a plan of the arrangements made out, in order that the House might be able sufficiently to understand them. He should have some doubts as to the propriety of placing the arch in the centre of the mall; but as to the flower gardens, they would, no doubt, be a source of great enjoyment, and he did not at present see that there could be any objection to their construction.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his right hen. Friend was in error when he supposed that if ground was given in the one case, it would be withdrawn in the other. No ground would be withdrawn at all except that which was to be surrounded by the iron palisade in front of the palace. All the rest would be open to the public.
MR. B. OSBORNEthought, seeing the sum now proposed was only a part of the expenditure to be incurred, that the vote should be deferred till an estimate of the whole outlay was laid before the House. He would therefore move that this vote be postponed.
The CHAIRMANsaid, it was not competent to the hon. and gallant Member to move the postponement of the vote. He could only negative it.
MR. B. OSBORNE, in that case, would move that the vote be negatived.
MR. DRUMMONDasked whether it had been ascertained that the Queen's state coach could go through the arch? He very much doubted it. Then he thought 10,000 l. a very largo sum for removing the arch a space of some 300 yards. There was, no doubt, to be an enclosure of some kind, but then they had no estimate of the expense to be incurred in each case. There was, besides, a large item for "groundwork of garden." What was meant by the groundwork of a garden?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER 326
said, his hon. Friend was mistaken when he spoke of the removal of the arch costing 10,000 l. The item included the removal and erection of the arch, and making the enclosure in front of the palace. As to the Queen's state coach, it had passed through the arch where it stood now, and what it had done before it could do again.
MR. V. SMITHwas as anxious as any one to see the arch in a proper place, but he thought estimates more explicit should be laid before them, so that they might be able to know what the enclosure was to cost, and what the removal of the arch. There was a sum of 650 l. put down as commission for designs, superintendence, &c.; a sum which he thought exceedingly high. Then what was a clerk of the works for? His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was going to remove the marble arch, and place it in the mall for the amusement of the public; but he did not see how that could be, unless something were placed upon the arch which would be calculated to excite amusement.
COLONEL SIBTHORPasked whether the country was in a fit state to enter into all the extensive alterations proposed? He thought it was not; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer having got a surplus, seemed to be so flush of money that he did not know how to expend it.
LORD SEYMOURdid not suppose that any one could wish to leave the marble arch where it now was. He might state that the removal of the arch would cost about 4,000 l.; the cost of the iron railing-would be 6,000 l.; and the commission for designs, superintendence, &c., would be 650?., being the 5 per cent commission of the architect on the expenditure, including the cost of designs. The whole sum amounted to 14,672 l. He had endeavoured to ascertain what would be the entire estimate, and he found that it would come to about 26,000 l. before the work was finished, so that another vote in a future year, scarcely so large as the present, would be sufficient.
MR. S. HERBERTthought, that though there might be a technical objection to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Middlesex;, that the vote should be postponed, yet the Government of itself might postpone the vote for further consideration. Of course, no one wished to see the marble arch remain in its present position; but he would much sooner see it remain there

327
than removed to an inappropriate place. The arch was one of the most beautiful works of art in town, and it would be a pity to see it placed in a situation not suited to its proportions. He believed that when the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk was at the head of the Woods and Forests, he intended that the arch should be placed in a different situation from that now proposed. He (Mr. S. Herbert) thought the noble Lord's intention was, that the mall of the park should be continued through Spring-gardens to Charing-cross; that a new access to Charing-cross should be made from the park, at the extremity of which the arch should be placed; and that the approach thence should extend onward to Buckingham Palace. He did not know what difficulty might arise to this plan from the expense of removing the houses, but he certainly thought it was a better proposal than that made by the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As to his plan, they had received but a very vague description of it, and he (Mr. S. Herbert) hoped, therefore, that the vote would be postponed till complete plans and estimates were laid on the table, so that there could he no danger of exposing themselves to the charge constantly brought against them of concluding all such matters precipitately.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought everybody admitted that the arch ought to be removed. In fact, it must go; it could not remain any longer whore it was; therefore, they must decide where it was to go to. Several proposals had been made on the subject; and, among others, that of the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk had been brought forward; but his was a scheme which necessarily involved a great expenditure. They would require to remove the house of Sir John Guest, a portion of the chapel in Spring-gardens, and take off a considerable corner of Messrs. Drummond's banking-house, together with other buildings, so that the outlay would come to be very great if the plan of the noble Lord were adopted. It was certainly very desirable that any scheme of this kind should be well considered. They were, he confessed, too much in the habit of doing these things in haste, and considering them afterwards; and he thought, therefore, that great care should be taken to place the arch in the host possible position. He wished to say, also, that in the proposal he had made, the arch and the ornamental grounds must go
328
together, for merely to put the arch in the place proposed without any additional ground being taken and laid out around it, would be to detract greatly from its appearance. The arch and the ornamental grounds on either side of it, must therefore go together, and be considered together. As it was of importance that this matter should be well considered, however, he would not now press the vote, but would consent to withdraw it for the present, in order that the House might have full time to form a deliberate opinion upon the subject.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLY—TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION FOR THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
On its being proposed that 3,129 l. be granted to defray the expenses of providing temporary accommodation for the Houses of Parliament, committee-rooms, offices, and temporary official residences for the Speaker of the House of Commons, and other officers of the House, &c., for the year ending the 31st of March, 1851,
MR. B. OSBORNEsaid, that he wished to make some observations generally on the building of the two Houses of Parliament; and he would either do so on this vote or on the next, which required a grant to defray the expense of the works at the "New Palace," as it was called, but which he should always call the two Houses of Parliament. If hon. Members were anxious to preserve their character as men of business, it was time they should insist upon knowing who was responsible for the expenditure of the different sums of money which had been advanced from time to time on account of the works at the Now Houses of Parliament. The Old Houses of Parliament were burnt down in October 1834. Since that period a great many Committees had sat on the subject of building the New Houses; and he wished to draw the attention of the House for a short time to what had hitherto been the result of their labours. He was, however, sorry to see so beggarly an account of financial reformers on the benches around him when a subject on which they might save a large sum of money was under consideration. He was glad, however, to observe the hon. Member for the West Riding in his place; but his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester was absent, as if he took no interest in the question. The first Committee which sat was appointed

329
in 1836; then followed what was a thing of rare occurrence—a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, which sat in 1837. That Joint Committee sanctioned the estimate which was given in by Mr. Barry for building the New Houses, That estimate fixed the expense at 707,104 l. But what was the amount incurred, and the probable amount to be incurred? No less than 2,045,923 l. Mr. Barry had since sent in an altered estimate, which had been laid before the Commissioners appointed to superintend the new buildings; but in what terms did these Commissioners express themselves in regard to that new estimate? They said, in their report—
"We have to request that you will not consider the estimate as altered by Mr. Barry, as having received our sanction; but it has been drawn up by him, as far as possible, in accordance with the directions of the House of Commons."
Here, then, were they—the House of Commons—voting for and sanctioning an estimate which their own Commissioners had declared they could not give their sanction to. There was one item put down in that estimate under the head of "Works of a decorative character, furniture, &c.," to the amount of 497,400 l.; but it was at the same time stated, that "it was impossible to estimate the amount under that head." It must be obvious to every one who knew the way in which the erection of the building was being carried on, that this so-called estimate of Mr. Barry was, in fact, no estimate at all. For the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, to come down to the House, as in all probability he would do, and tell them that this was an estimate, was mere moonshine. Mr. Barry could not give an estimate. He did not know from one day to another what alterations were going to be made. It was fitting, therefore, that the House should know in what situation the country stood in regard to an estimate for the completion of these now buildings. There was a very remarkable circumstance in connexion with the item set down at 497,400 l. for decorations, paintings, furniture, and so forth. Lord Duncannon put in an estimate on the 18th of April, 1837; and let the House mark the contrast between that estimate and the one submitted to the Commissioners by Mr. Barry Indeed, he considered Lord Duncannon to have been the only Commissioner of Woods and Forests that ever controlled Mr. Barry, or who ever understood him.
330
["Hear!"] In saying these few words, he did not moan to make any personal attack on Mr. Barry. He knew nothing of that gentleman, and he thanked his stars that he did not. He spoke of Mr. Barry only in his public capacity. Now, in 1837, that gentleman stated that the whole building would be completed in six years. They were now in the sixteenth year since that building commenced, and they were not near its completion. And was there any Gentleman in the House who could tell him when the building would be completed? In April 1837, Lord Dun-cannon reported that the expense of the building would not exceed 724,984 l., being about 24,000 l. more than the estimate originally put in by Mr. Barry. But the estimate put in by Lord Duncannon included 14 per cent for contingent expenses, and a sum of 60,000 l. for the purchase of ground in Abingdon-street, besides 30,000 l. for fittings and fixtures. Let the House compare this estimate with the one submitted in 1849 by Mr. Barry, and which the Commissioners would not sanction. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not step in, it was time the House of Commons should do so, and insist upon knowing who was responsible for the expenditure of all this money. Was the hon. Member for Lancaster responsible? No. Was the noble Lord at the head of the Government responsible? No. Were the Commissioners of Woods and Forests responsible? No; they denied being so. It was attempted to hold the hon. Member for Lancaster responsible; but it was unfair that the House should appoint that hon. Member and others to act as a Committee, with most limited powers, and after the walls of the House were built, the decorations planned, and the furniture ordered. It appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman had been so appointed in order that he might be made a sort of scapegoat. [Hear!"] He would repeat the assertion, and why? Because it was quite obvious that that hon. Gentleman had no control over the payment of this money. It was the Government of the country whom he held to be responsible, for they alone had the control over this large expenditure. The House of Commons was not to be referred to the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests; the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible for those excessive sums which had been expended over and above the first estimate. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would not say that

331
this building was an ornament to the country, and therefore the expense ought not to be objected to. It was not his intention to criticise the style of the building; but it was the duty of that House to see that the estimate was kept within proper bounds. An estimate had been laid on the table, which did not include any charges for decorative works, but which was confined to the useful portions of the building, to the Houses of Parliament, and to the official residences. By the completion of those residences alone a saving of 2,000 l. a year to the country would be effected, as they were now paying rent or making allowances to the Speaker to that amount. After the useful parts should be completed, then, if hon. Gentlemen chose to "have a taste," and to involve the Chancellor of the Exchequer in debt, let them go to the decorative department. In one of the resolutions which he had placed on the Notice-paper, he stated that the expenditure had boon lavish and very extravagant. On this subject he would refer to the examination of Mr. Barry before the Committee which sat in 1844. He was asked, whether the Woods and Forests had ever called upon him for any plan? His answer was "Never." He was then asked whether he could tell the Committee what the ultimate cost of the whole building would be? His reply was, that he was unable to guess what the ultimate cost would be. Was ever such an instance known? It was thus that the whole affair proceeded; the architect being totally unable to give any estimate of what the whole cost of building the New Houses would he. Unless, therefore, the House insisted upon having an estimate, no control could be possibly exercised over the expenditure on account of these buildings. The way in which the Government viewed the matter was shown by a reply given by the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, who, in 1848, on being asked who was responsible for the money expended on the New Houses of Parliament, said that he hoped the estimate would not be exceeded; but as to the Government being responsible for any outlay, that was totally out of the question. It was high time, therefore, that the House should know whore the responsibility rested. [Lord J. RUSSELL: That was not my reply.] The noble Lord would find this reply attributed to him in Hansard—it was certainly very unlike what the noble Lord would say; but still there had been so
332
much confusion and mystery about the Now House of Commons, that he really should not be surprised at any Minister giving any answer concerning it. Well, to revert again to the Committees. In 1844 a resolution was passed by the Lords' Committee, which stated, that it appeared upon the evidence of Mr. Barry, that during the progress of the building of the two Houses of Parliament certain departures had taken place from the plan originally adopted, which altorations had been made by Mr. Barry without any authority from either of the boards that had been appointed to superintend these buildings, to which circumstances the Committee thought it right to call the particular attention of the House. Well, the particular attention of the House was called to it; but from that day to this, no notice had been taken of it, and they had been going on voting sums of money most lavishly, and the Houses were still unfinished. But that was not all. In 1841, a Committee sat on the subject of ventilating and warming the House of Commons. An estimate was put in at 86,0000 l.; the total amount already expended (not including Mr. Barry's experiments with his nine boilers) was 124,408 l. He believed it was not competent for him to move the resolutions of which he had given notice in Committee; if not, he was inclined to propose that the vote be stopped until an estimate of the cost for finishing the useful portion of the work be supplied. He hoped, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give the House an assurance that those portions of the works should be finished before any further expense were incurred for statues and other matters connected with the fine arts. He wished also to know whether the present erection in the new House of Commons was intended for a gallery, or for a shelf for Hansard's Debates; and what was the estimated expense of pulling down the back window and putting up a new gallery. If the right hon. Gentleman would give him the assurance he required, he would not object to the vote now proposed.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the House had better agree to this vote in the first instance, and receive the explanation which he had to offer when the next vote was proposed.
MR. B. OSBORNEconsidered that it should be given at once.
CAPTAIN BOLDEROthought the House should insist upon knowing what the whole

333
expenditure of the new Houses would be, including the temporary accommodation. The previous estimate was wrong, because it ought to have included every expense connected with the new House of Commons.
Vote agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 104,660 l. be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, to the 31st day of March, 1851, the Expense of the Works at the New Houses of Parliament."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could assure his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Middlesex that, so far from being desirous of avoiding explanations on this subject, he was exceedingly glad that an opportunity had been afforded him to make the explanation which he intended to make; because, unfortunately, considerable misunderstanding existed in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen on the subject—at least of those who had not paid that attention to it which had been paid by the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex. He hoped, however, that the explanation which he was about to give, would at least tend to remove that misunderstanding, and that the necessity for so constant a repetition of this subject in the House might be removed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated how long ago it was since the fire took place which destroyed the old Houses of Parliament, and that Mr. Barry had expressed his hope that in about six years the new Houses of Parliament might be rebuilt. The answer which Mr. Barry had to make on that point was, that justice had not been done to him by the House, inasmuch as they had not furnished him with the money necessary to enable him to proceed with the speed which he desired in the erection of the Houses. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was very far from saying that the control of the House in that erection was at all times of a satisfactory character; but he did think that, since the time when the Commission was appointed by the House about two years ago, an adequate control had been exercised as to the erecting of the new building. But the House must remember this, that, after all, it was the House of Commons that was mainly responsible for the great expenditure which had been incurred. It was a Committee of the two Houses of Parliament which decided upon certain plans which were to be adopted. They
334
selected the architect, they approved of the design, and the whole framework of the building was decided, not by the Government, but by the Parliament of the day. Now, a notion had prevailed in that House, unfortunately to a considerable extent, that a very large excess of expenditure had been incurred almost on the sole responsibility of the architect himself. But that was not the case. He had seen Mr. Barry that morning, and he stated that, as far as that portion of the building which was included in his original estimate of 707,104 l was concerned, that estimate had not been exceeded; but that expense beyond that estimate had been incurred in consequence of alterations and additions which had been suggested by various Committees and Members of Parliament, which alterations and deviations were not of course included in the original estimate. In the estimate of 2,000,000 l. there were included large sums which might or might not be incurred, as the House determined to adopt or not to sanction them. He did not think that any practical advantage would be gained by going back beyond the year 1844, when a Committee of that House sat upon this subject. That Committee, in their report, stated that no blame was to be imputed to Mr. Barry, and they suggested certain alterations in the plan, which were considered to be for the convenience and advantage of the House of Commons. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was altogether mistaken in asserting that there was no plan on which the building was being proceeded with. There was such a plan, and it had been submitted to and approved by the Committee of 1844. The building up to the present time had been proceeded with in entire conformity with that plan; and when he saw Mr. Barry that morning he put this question to him—"Has there been since 1844 any alteration of importance, or which has entailed the outlay of any considerable sum of money, and which was not sanctioned by the Committee of 1844?" His (Mr. Barry's) answer was perfectly distinct, that no deviation to any extent had taken place, no expenditure of any considerable amount had been made, which was not in perfect conformity with the designs approved by a Committee of the House in 1844. The estimate of the expenditure at that time was, he believed, l,016,000 l., the original estimate being 707,104 l. But it should be recollected that the estimate of 707,104 l. was for the building only. It

335
did not include the purchase of the site, which, according to a return moved for in 1847, by the hon. Member for Montrose, amounted to 82,000 l.; nor did it include the new river terrace. There was also a very considerable item of expenditure, which was not included in the original estimate, on account of the foundation, because when the workmen began to dig into the ground it was found to be a quicksand. The cost of these two items was about 109,000 l. It was unnecessary for him to go over all the items; but the total excess over and above what was included in the original estimate amounted to 800,000 l.; and then a sum of 497,000 l. for fittings and decorations—the probable expense for which purpose was not included in Mr. Barry's estimate for the building. The hon. and gallant Gentleman wished for two estimates: the amount which was required to finish the House of Commons, with the lobbies, approaches, and library; and the amount required for the completion of the official Houses. Now, both these estimates were already on the table of the House. The estimate for the first was 102,180 l., and for the second 30,000 l. The heads of expenditure not included in the original estimate of Mr. Barry, were the purchase of the site, the embankment of the river, the extra cost of the foundation, the approaches, the alterations made in consequence of the recommendations of that House, and the suggestions of some of its Members, the warming, ventilating, lighting, fixtures, decoration, furniture, and accidental charges; none of these were included in the original estimate of 707,104 l. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, there was no check over the expenditure. It was very true that the discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was limited by the plan adopted by the House of Commons; and if he were asked his private opinion he would say that, in his opinion, a less ornamented and less expensive style of building would have been better; but the House of Commons having decided on the plan, they had now nothing to do but to carry it out as well as possible. But the Treasury, since the last two years, had sanctioned no expenditure other than what was in strict conformity with the original plan of Mr. Barry, and with the recommendation of the Committee of 1844, with the exception of the new gallery in the House of Lords for the reporters. [Mr. OSBORNE: That was because they could not hear in the old one.] With this exception,
336
no other expenditure of any amount had been incurred that was not in conformity with the plan sanctioned by the Committee of 1844. The amount expended in consequence of the suggestions of the Committee of 1844 amounted to 41,000 l., of which 34,000 l. was for ventilation. There was, however, some expense beyond that contemplated by the Committee, which he had sanctioned to the amount of 7,000 l., and the House would say whether he had exorcised an ill-judged discretion. The first item of this kind was 1,500 l. for an alteration of the main sewer, so as to cut off the sewerage of the House from the general sewerage in this part of the metropolis. He also sanctioned 1,200 l. for a smoking room—and 3,000 l. for certain alterations in the journal office, library room, and corridors, in order to afford greater accommodation to Members and to the clerks employed in those rooms. That was the amount of expenditure which he had taken upon himself to sanction, beyond what had been suggested by the Committee of 1844. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that they should first finish the useful parts of the House; and he had acted upon this opinion, because with the exception of certain contracts which had been entered into, and which could not be put an end to, the entire expenditure proposed for this year, or at least nine-tenths of it, was for the necessary accommodation of Members. A sum of 150,000 l. was to be applied this year almost entirely to the finishing of the House, library, corridors, so as to have the House completely ready for Members by next Session of Parliament. A very small portion of that sum would be appropriated to the ornamental parts of the building, so that they might be carried on slowly, in order to avoid the great additional expenditure which would have to be incurred hereafter if they were suspended altogether. The hon. Gentleman said, that he hoped all the contracts of the Commission of the Fine Arts would he suspended. It had been the intention of Parliament that the building should be made conducive to the encouragement of the fine arts in this country. He thought that the House of Commons could not very satisfactorily discuss these questions of taste, and that they were better left to the Commissioners appointed for this purpose. He had, therefore, made an arrangement two years ago, which had been announced to the House of Commons; and, as he understood,

337
approved by them, that the expenditure on this head was not to go beyond 4,0000 l. a year, and that an account of its outlay was to be laid before Parliament every Session. The account of last year's expenditure had already been given. He did not think it would be right to discontinue that expenditure, and he trusted that the House would not sanction that recommendation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. As he had before stated, the information he required was already on the table of the House.
SIR B. HALLsaid, there certainly was an impression on the public mind that the Houses of Parliament were to have been completed for not much more than 700,000 l., and it was very unfair for a person in Mr. Barry's position to give in such an estimate as should delude the public by appearing to be so small, and then to come down and say the foundation was bad, and that it was necessary to expend more money to make it good. If any hon. Member had been building a house, and had engaged an architect, who had told him he could build it for 20,000 l., and he had found afterwards that it cost him 60,000 l., he would have applied rather a strong epithet towards the architect. They were placed in precisely the same position; and he thought the conduct of Mr. Barry was open to very severe censure. Now, the right hon. Gentleman said there had been no money expended without an adequate control being exercised over it. But he found that on the 21st of March, 1844, in a Committee of the House of Lords, where Mr. Barry was examined, that gentleman stated that he had made deviations from the original plans, and had incurred expenditure upon their account without consulting anybody. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: But that was before 1844.] He was tracing the history of the case. Mr. Barry had no right to make any alterations without the sanction of the governing body at the time. He blamed Mr. Barry for this—that they would not have the building which was originally proposed, for the estimate of 707,000 l., but that it would cost 2,000,000 l. or 2,500,000 l. That was a matter of a very grave nature, and he was obliged to his hon. and gallant Friend for having brought it forward. Two years ago his hon. and gallant Friend had called attention to the subject, and he (Sir B. Hall) believed that from that time there had been more supervision over Mr. Barry. He thought they ought to have now a most
338
distinct understanding from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the exact sum required for finishing the whole—the time when the Houses would be completed, which would enable them to give up the temporary residences now occupied by the Speaker and officers of the House. Any one who had boon in the New House of Commons lately must have seen the constant changes and consequent expenditure which had been going on. He went into the House about a month ago, and he then asked a man who appeared to be a superintendent there, what was the object of various things he saw there; and the answer he received was that the man could not tell, for there were so many alterations it was impossible for him to say what Mr. Barry intended to do. He remembered that on a particular Friday he went to the House of Commons and saw a large gallery at the end of the chamber. He wont again on the following Tuesday, but the gallery was gone, and he was glad to remark the change. There had been differences between Dr. Reid and Mr. Barry, which had led to great expense; but he must say that never was he in any room which was better ventilated than the present House of Commons, and he thought great praise was due to Dr. Reid for it. He had been in the House when there was only a small number of Members present, and afterwards later in the evening, when there were between 500 and 600; but it would be found on the information of the messenger who attended to the thermometers that they seldom varied during the whole of that time more than from 2 to 3 degrees. Mr. Barry wished to get the whole matter into his hands, and to exclude Dr. Reid. They bad had quarrels between themselves, and the House had been the sufferers. He would only add that he hoped Dr. Reid might continue to have the ventilation of the House.
MR. T. GREENEsaid, he did not wish to relieve Mr. Barry from any of the responsibility attaching to him. At the same time he conceived they were bound to undertake their own share of the responsibility. As regarded the accommodation of the New House of Commons, finding that it was not sufficient, Mr. Barry had erected a gallery for Members behind the Speaker's chair, which being disapproved of, he had removed it again, though it was constructed to accommodate 120 Members. The next extension of accommodation was tried on the floor of the House, on either

339
side of which six rows of benches had been put up; but it being found that they encroached too much on the width, and that the floor would be consequently too narrowed by them, one bench on either side had to be removed—and finally, a certain portion of the space allotted to strangers had to be encroached on. However, all these alterations had been sanctioned by the House; and he did not, therefore, see why the House should seek to avoid its own share of the responsibility, and throw it all over on Mr. Barry.
SIR W. CLAYthought the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex 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? 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 which 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 certainly a 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 defence of Mr. Barry, because that would involve the necessity of going through minute details to which the House would never listen; but the account furnished at the beginning of 1849 appeared to him to contain his complete defence. One cause of the increase of expense was the enormous cost of the foundations, and another the arrangements 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 remembered 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 coordinate power with Mr. Barry in making the arrangements. With respect 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
340
1844. It had become very much the fashion to undervalue the design; but, speaking the opinions 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 Legislature 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, hear," 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 architecture as the world had ever seen.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, that the people's attention was directed to this point—we had been for some time past spending throe millions of money to make a House of Commons, which, after all, we had not got. It might be very true, as had been stated, that the House of Commons originally made choice of the style of architecture adopted in the building; but it seemed very extraordinary that none of the intelligent gentlemen composing the commission to whom the architect's plan was referred, seeing a blank space to represent the interior of the House of Commons, should ever have thought of ascertaining that it would hold the persons for whose accommodation it was destined. There was no difficulty in determining the point. The commissioners had only to take the fattest Member they could find, and multiply him by 658. [Sir W. CLAY: The House would then have been too largo.] Then the commissioners might have taken a spare Member, and if he had been in the House he would have had no objection to serve as the model himself. Here was a gentleman who was called the best architect the country possessed, aided by several intelligent Lords and Gentlemen, and, after all, they had not built a house fit for its object. It was a great absurdity. He had no doubt that Mr. Barry had considerable difficulties to contend with, and it was not fair to lay all the blame on him; but it was useless to disguise the fact—make what alterations you please, you must at last knock down

341
one end of the present House of Commons. ["Hear."] That must be done and the building extended, or there would be no room for Members in their own house. He had had some experience with respect to ventilation, for he had had the misfortune or pleasure to build more houses than one; and he found that there was no question of practical science so difficult to deal with as that of ventilation. Many men expended large sums on apparatus for warming their houses, and when winter came they found that their rooms were as cold as ice cellars. One thing at least ought to be decided on with respect to the Now Houses of Parliament—all display of ornament should be put a stop to until essentials were completed. Nothing could be more absurd than to go on spending money on pictures which would not fetch 51. if they were to be hawked all through Europe. An opinion prevailed in this country that we were great lovers of the fine arts. We had plenty of money, and it was thought we had only to spend it to create as many Raphaels and Michael Angeles as we pleased. Depend on it, money would never make art. As regarded the brilliant external ornaments of the New Houses, they would all be utterly thrown away but for the probability of their forming the most magnificent aviary for swallows and sparrows the world ever saw.
COLONEL SIBTHORPbelieved it would be admitted that their ancestors transacted better and more important business in the Old Houses of Parliament than was transacted in the present, or was likely to be transacted in the New Houses. He was aware there existed a feeling out of doors that many portions of the New Houses were in a crumbling condition already, owing to the quality of stone used in their construction. He hoped that, if untrue, that report would be contradicted. They had already paid a large sum of money, more than four times the original estimate: and he hoped the House would be informed as to how much more would be required to complete them, as also when they could obtain possession of them.
MR. COBDENthought that great good would come of the discussion raised on the question, inasmuch as the responsibility—which had long been a debated question—had now been fixed on the House. He feared much that the total expenditure would one day be revived and brought as an indictment against that House and the
342
constitution of it. But what was done was done, and there was no use complaining. It appeared they started on an estimate of 700,000 l., and that they had now reached some two millions. He had heard it stated that a certain nobleman—a very competent judge in such matters—had estimated the eventual cost of the works as likely to be nearer four than two millions; and he (Mr. Cobden) would confess he had a strong supposition they were travelling to that extent. Therefore, he was anxious the House should take the respousibility on itself, He could not see why the House, when voting money, should place the control of that money in hands outside the House, or, why there should not be a committee of the House to manage it. He thought there should be a permanent committee, at least during the Session, sitting, who would be charged with all responsibility. As regarded the estimates for work done, he would observe that the estimate then before them was given without any reference to the sums previously expended. Why not adopt the same plan in regard to the estimates for the building of these houses, that was adopted in reference to the other miscellaneous estimates? He would venture to suggest in future, when the estimates were being given, that the original estimate and the subsequent expenditure should be set forth, leaving a margin wherein to state the probable future expenditure. There would be an advantage in such a plan, because then it would be prominently brought before the minds of hon. Gentlemen every year; and the attention of the House, as well as of the country, would be called to the outlay. He begged to suggest, as a means of providing against future extravagance, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give them to understand that the same plan would be adopted in reference to this as to other estimates.
CAPTAIN BOLDEROcould never understand why Mr. Barry had been loft without any control. Even at the eleventh hour those buildings might be placed under the superintendence of the Ordnance Department, or of the Woods and Forests. An expenditure much in excess of the estimates was usual where there were underground works; but there was no instance in which the original expense of such a building as the new Houses of Parliament had exceeded the estimate three times.
COLONEL SALWEYattributed the largo

343
expenditure on the New Houses to the circumstance that they had been designated by the magniloquent name of "palace." When Her Majesty, with the unostentatious taste for which she was distinguished, was content with the humbler designation of a house, surely her faithful Commons might content themselves with an edifice of humbler pretensions. He begged to ask the hon. Member for Lancaster how many Members could be accommodated in the New House?
MR. T. GREENEreplied, that in the New House, with the recent modifications, the number of sittings for Members was 446; in the present House with the galleries the number was 456; in the Old House there were only 387 sittings for Members.
Sir B. HALLwished to know what number the body of the House and galleries would contain?
MR. T. GREENEreplied that the number on the floor was 277, the number in the present House being 296. The number in the gallery of the New House was 133, and with an addition of 66 would amount to 199.
SIR B. HALLwished to know what number of Members could be accommodated in the New Houses, first in the body of the House, next in the side galleries, then in the gallery opposite the Speaker's chair: also the accommodation for the public as compared with that in the present House, and the accommodation for Peers.
MR. T. GREENEhad not separate returns. Supposing the gallery behind the Speaker's chair allotted to strangers, that would hold 120. The present Speaker's gallery held 44, and the strangers' gallery, 70.
MR. ALDERMAN HUMPHERYadvised his hon. Friend to have a body of the metropolitan police seated in the New House; the capacity of the New Coal Exchange had been so tested.
MR. T. GREENEobserved, that a battalion of Guards had been marched into the present House when it had to be tested. He hoped the worthy Alderman would attend in his place if an experiment were made to test the capacity of the New House.
MR. ALDERMAN HUMPHERYhad complained of the New House from the commencement, but his remonstrances had been scouted. Each lobby would not contain more than 150 persons, and if 250 went,
344
on a division, into the lobbies they would be suffocated, as in the black hole of Calcutta. The New House was a perfectly ridiculous composition, which reflected no credit on anybody who had anything to do with it.
COLONEL SIBTHORPinquired whether the stone used in the new buildings was already in a state in which it ought not to be?
MR. GREENEwas not aware that there was any reason whatever to complain of the stone. There might be a stone here and there defective; but, as a whole, the stone was in a very satisfactory state. The Geological Society had adopted the same stone for their own building.
SIR H. VERNEYsaid, that the impression left on his mind by serving on the first Committee on this subject, after the destruction of the former House, was that it was important for the transaction of business that the House should not be too large. If it accommodated conveniently from 150 to 250 Members, and could admit a crowded House with some sacrifice of convenience, that would be better than a very large building in which the small average number of Members attending the House would be comparatively lost; but he rose only for one purpose, to urge the Committee to admit no more delay in completing the House. The more delay that took place, the more experiments would be tried; the more expense incurred, the more especially of that expense to which he had a peculiar aversion, that for temporary accommodation. He addressed himself to this subject with great freedom, because he, together with the hon. Member for Montrose, had exerted himself perseveringly in this Committee to obtain a different site for the Houses of Parliament, as well as another style of architecture. He could not sit down without expressing his concurrence in the observations of the hon. Member for Marylebone, with reference to the good ventilation of the present House. Those who had sat in the old one would recollect how very bad its atmosphere frequently was.
MR. BANKEShad heard the House of Commons blamed for many wasteful experiments. The root of the evil lay in the resolution to build an immense edifice merely because the chamber occupied by the Commons had been burnt down. The Lords had the complaisance to give up their chamber to the use of the Commons, and to rest contented with inferior accommodation.

345
The House, however, must bear its share of the blame; but the Government of the day ought to bear a much larger, because it was they who laid the estimates before Parliament; and here he begged to say that it was not always very easy for Members to know when Government intended to bring forward particular parts of the estimates, and that if it had not been for the astuteness of the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, he doubted whether the House would have had an opportunity of discussing the present question. For himself, he had taken every opportunity he could get of protesting against the wasteful expenditure which had so long gone on with regard to the new Houses; and if the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex would move a resolution clearly expressing dissatisfaction on that point, he would vote with him. With respect to the arrangements of the New House, he begged to say that there was one which would be productive of great inconvenience—he meant the distance between the library and the interior of the House, which, he feared, would often lead, as in the old House, to Members being shut out from a division which they had perhaps been all night waiting for. He begged to observe, also, that when the Houses were finished, the expense of keeping them up, of ventilating, warming and lighting them and their labyrinths of passages, would be enormous. That was, perhaps, past all remedy, but it was still in their power to control to some extent the expenditure with regard to elaborate decorations.
LORD R. GROSVENORsaid, that the House having heard from the hon. Member for Lancaster a statement of the capacity of the New House of Commons, it might be interesting for them to know what were the resolutions of the Committee of 1835 with reference to this question. That Committee stated that in their opinion the body of the House should contain sitting room not for 277 Members, but for from 420 to 460 Members—that adequate accommodation for the remainder should be provided in the side galleries—that, in addition to a gallery behind the Speaker's chair, there should be one at the lower end of the House large enough to accommodate not 120 but 200 strangers—and that retiring rooms should also be provided for strangers to occupy when the galleries were cleared. Where these imaginary retiring rooms were he did not know. The Committee also recommended that accommodation
346
should be provided for Members of the other House, and for distinguished individuals, to the extent of at least 100 sittings; whereas the space actually set apart for that purpose, and which reminded him more of the pens of Smithfield than anything else, would accommodate little more than half a dozen individuals. He did not wish to say anything against Mr. Barry; but he would simply ask what would a private individual do if he were told that instead of the original estimate of 700,000 l, being sufficient to complete his house, it would probably amount to between 2,000,000 l. and 3,000,000 l.? Would any man in such a case recommend the architect to his friends—especially if he found that after incurring that expense every inconvenience which had been experienced in the old House had been tenfold increased?
MR. CUBITTsaid, there appeared to be three subjects on which dissatisfaction was felt—namely, expenditure, time, and space. On the first point it had been said that the foundation was known before the estimate was presented. That observation was applicable only to the foundation of the river wall. As regarded the great mass of building, no one could tell what cost the foundation would involve. It was easy enough to estimate the expense of an ordinary style of building; but this was a description of building with respect to which architects could not have had much experience. The drawings laid before the contractors could convey no idea of the expense subsequently incurred. There was no drawing which would give a correct notion of the expense of the florid and ornate style followed by the architect; and from what he (Mr. Cubitt) had seen, he must say that if he had attempted to make an estimate from the drawings, it would not have covered the expense of the building when finished. As one who had some regard for his country, and who felt some pride in having a seat in that House, he thought the country had done well when erecting a structure which would probably last for centuries, in making it as good a work of art as could possibly be made. In his opinion, there was no building in Europe, whether ancient or modern, which could compete with that which was deservedly termed the New Palace of Westminster; and a country which could spend between fifty and sixty millions annually, should not, for such a purpose, grudge an expenditure of two or three hundred

347
thousand pounds a year for ten or twelve years.
MR. B. OSBORNEthought that whatever might be the effect of this debate in the House, it would he certain to produce one effect out of it, and that was, to show that in the management of their own affairs they were totally incompetent. What was the history of this debate? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had defended the share which the Government had had in the building; the Commissioner appointed by that House had defended the Commissioners; the hon. Member for Bedford had eulogised the ventilation; the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets had eulogised Mr. Barry, and had told them that they might think themselves lucky in having employed him, because posterity would unadoubtedly regard this as the finest building in the world; and last of all came the hon. Member for Andover, and said, that this great country ought not to complain if they were cheated out of double the amount of the original estimate. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets, he begged to say that it would afford little consolation to hon. Gentlemen who were being starved to death in the committee rooms, or to those who would hereafter be cramped to death in a House which could only accommodate 270 Members on the ground-floor—it would, he said, be little satisfaction to them to be told that posterity would regard it as the finest building in the world. He was surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his defence, had given the go-by to what be had said about the extravagant expense which was incurred for temporary buildings to supply the place of the official residences which Mr. Barry, in 1842, promised should be completed in eighteen months. It appeared, too, from a return issued in 1849, that whereas the sum originally agreed to be paid by way of commission to the architect was 25,000 l., a claim was now made for 72,000 l.; and though the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in conflict with him upon the point at this moment, he should not wonder if he had to succumb. He called upon the Government, whom alone he regarded as responsible for the expenditure, to remodel the Commission which superintended the building; and he suggested that two additional Members should be added to Lord Sudeley and the hon. Member for Marylebone. ["No, no!"] He mentioned the hon. Baronet, because he knew he had the
348
power of saying no, and could shut his ears to the blandishments of Mr. Barry. He called upon the Government to adopt steps to take the matter out of the hands of the hon. Member for Lancaster and the other Members of the Commission. As regarded the general arrangements of the New House, a room providing on the floor for only 270 Members, and for only about 15 Peers, instead of being an honour to the country was a disgrace to the House of Commons, and a satire on its character; and with reference to the future, it was necessary that immediate steps should be taken to bring Mr. Barry under some sort of control.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was not easy to please so many masters. He denied that either the present Government or the present House of Commons was responsible for the expenditure, which was sanctioned fifteen years ago. He considered himself as being responsible only for the expenditure which had taken place since he became Chancellor of the Exchequer. He repeated what he had said before, that the greater portion of the expense which had been complained of had been sanctioned previous to the appointment of the Palace Commissioners—an appointment which was strongly advocated by the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, and unanimously approved of by the House. No allegation had been made of want of control over the expenditure since that appointment; and it was rather hard, therefore, that because there was a want of control before, although there had been none since, they should visit these Commissioners with censure which they did not deserve. With regard to what the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex had said about the temporary buildings, he did not think that the expense was at all extravagant.
SIR DE L. EVANSwished to call the attention of the House to the expenditure which had been incurred in consequence of the recommendations of the Commissioners on the Fine Arts. When he looked over the names of the twenty Commissioners, he felt something like awe in venturing to find any fault with their decisions; and if he thought that the majority, or anything like the majority, of the Commissioners were aware of what had taken place, he should hardly dare to say a word. Probably, however, in this case, as in others, one or two active persons, or the Secretary, did the work of the Commission, and

349
the report went forth to the world with the sanction of authority. There was in the estimate now under consideration a sum of 1,000 guineas for three pictures to ornament the refreshment rooms of the Peers. He took this merely as an illustration of the lavish spirit which had presided over the whole of these transactions. He was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to admit the principle that all expenditure for ornamental purposes should be suspended till the useful parts of the building had been completed; but there was one little exception of 4,000 l. a year, which, he thought, might be allowed for decorative purposes in the department of the fine arts. Assuming this to be the proper limit, he objected to the mode in which the encouragement proposed to be given to the fine arts was to be carried out; and, instead of having an account of the manner in which the distribution of encouragement had been made during the past year, he would rather have the items of the money proposed to be spent in this way for the next year. In the present estimate, the House of Commons were informed that 4,950 l. had been laid out during the past year in a manner which was now beyond their control. Thus 200 l. was put down for one quarter's salary to Mr. Dyce for painting the Queen's robing-room, and 300 l. for a cartoon and fresco of St. Cecilia, in the upper waiting-hall. Next, there was an item of 400 l. for a cartoon and fresco of Lear and Cordelia, also in the upper waiting-hall; and no less than 1,800 l. was set down for models for statues for the House of Lords. If this was the sum charged for the models, he wanted to know what the statues themselves would cost? He should positively oppose the vote for 1,050 l. for Mr. Landseer's three pictures for the Peers' refreshment-rooms, though this was a mere trifle in the recommendations of the Commissioners. If the House went on from year to year with 4,000 l. as the limit for decorations, it would require fifty years to complete the ornamental part of the structure if the recommendations of the Commission were to be carried out. With regard to the three pictures for the Peers' refreshment rooms, they could not be seen by the public at all; because they were placed in the dining-room of the House of Lords, and oven the Peers themselves used the apartment but seldom. The light in the room was very imperfect, and noble Lords had not partaken
350
of dinner there, as he was told, for the last two months. He understood that 670 statues had been recommended for erection, all of the heroic size, made of bronze, and covered with unburnished gilding. He did not deny that the present was a fit opportunity for promoting the fine arts, but he thought that some limit ought to be placed upon the expenditure incurred. He found that Lord Sudeley, a noble Lord who was as accurate a judge on matters of taste as any person, said, in 1844, in answer to some observations by Mr. Barry—
"If the buildings of the Houses of Parliament are meant for the fine arts, Mr. Barry may be correct in his observation; but I consider that the Houses of Parliament are built for no such purpose, and that though the fine arts ought to be called in for the purpose of embellishing them, no necessary architectural arrangements should be altered upon their account."
Ho would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inquire what orders had been given to the artists employed, for he should be very sorry to do anything harsh towards them, as they were not responsible for what had been done. He observed that there were "engagements entered into, but not yet paid," in this estimate, and a sum of 2,250 l. was put down for these engagements next year.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend had admitted that the present was a fit opportunity for encouraging the fine arts; and he would remind the House that this matter had been already considered and settled. With the sanction of both Houses of Parliament this Commission was appointed, and he must say, with all deference to the House of Commons, that they would make a very bad committee of taste. What had passed to-night convinced him that they were the worst possible body to select or to superintend the execution of works of taste. He thought that the arrangement made two years ago was the best arrangement that could be made under the circumstances, and he disclaimed the expression of any opinion on what had been done. The House, however, would forgive him for saying that a selection made by them would not be likely to load to a satisfactory result. On the question of the sum to be allotted for the purposes of decoration, the Treasury was supreme, and not the Commissioners; but the distribution of a sum of 4,000 l. was loft to their discretion, and he thought that their discretion was bettor than any which

351
the House of Commons could exercise. Of course the House might at any time refuse a vote; but, upon the whole, he thought the matter had better be left where it was.
MR. STANFORDwished to know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster made his objections from economical views? With regard to the fine arts, he was sure that hardly any hon. 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 historic art had been always wanting. In a valuable little work, called the Fine Arts Almanak, 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 Englishmen 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 produced gave a triumphant contradiction to the charge of being deficient in great painters, and relieved this country from the charge that had heretofore stood against 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 for 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 question 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 interest to form a high school of design, and every one knew 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 these grounds he thought that this sum of 4,000 l. yearly for the encouragement of the school of arts and the promotion of the school of design was the most economical and beneficial vote that this House could come to. He hoped that
352
this vote would have the effect which we all so much desired—that men of talent, taste, and judgment, would be chosen to give effect to and to execute these designs. No one could read the name of Edwin Land-seer without feeling persuaded that we had chosen one of the greatest artists in this or any other country. He felt that the Committee would be fully justified in agreeing to this vote.
Sir B. HALLsaid, that what his hen. and gallant Friend the Member for Westminster generally objected to was not the appropriation of 4,000 l. per annum to the particular purpose, but the arrangement that the application of the sum was not to be subject to the previous sanction of the House of Commons; and what he especially objected to was, that 1,050 l. should be given for pictures which were to be put up in a place where nobody but the cooks and waiters of the House of Lords, or perhaps a stray Peer or two, would see them. He quite concurred in his hon. and gallant Friend's objections. His hon. and gallant Friend had mentioned the proposed item of 1,800 l. for models of statues for the House of Lords. He did not know whether other Members had seen any of these models: he had. The Commission, in their eighth report, gave an account of their having deputed a Committee to inspect these models, and set forth how the Committee, adapting their views to the narrow niches to which the statues were fated, restrictive of anything like attitudes, sanctioned for the statues a severe form, free from violence of action. The Committee was aware that the first statues to be erected were eighteen in number, representing the prelates and barons who signed Magna Charta. Anxious to observe the effect of this particular encouragement of the fine arts upon sculpture, he called upon a countrymen of his, Mr. Thomas, of Belgrave-place, well known for many admirable productions, and there saw the models in the required severity, of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Pembroke of the time. He asked Mr. Thomas how it was that the statues had such extremely narrow shoulders, for they were narrower from shoulder to shoulder than any man he (Sir B. Hall) ever saw in his life. Mr. Thomas replied, "Mr. Barry will not allow us room for them." [Laughter.] If any hon. Member doubted his assertion, let them go to Mr. Thomas's studio, and see how the barons of old have been curtailed of their

353
fair proportions. This, then, was the way in which they were encouraging the fine arts. It was preposterous that the architect, who had designed the gaudy and meretricious looking chamber for the meetings of the Lords, should not give the artists who were called upon to decorate that room sufficient space for their subjects. The hon. and gallant Member for Westminster had alluded to the pictures which were to be placed in the refreshment room of the House of Lords. The Commissioners stated in one of their reports, that they were of opinion that the conditions of light in that room, and other circumstances, were such as to render it questionable what subjects and styles of painting would be adapted to the department; and they subsequently recommended that Mr. Edwin Landseer's paintings should be placed in that room, one of the worst in the building, and one to which the public would not have access. It was well known that Mr. Edwin Landseer was at the very head of his branch of the profession; and the Commissioners ought, therefore, to have selected some room for his paintings where they could be seen to advantage. Looking at the question in an economical point of view, he (Sir B. Hall) would say, that if 40,000 l. or 50,000 l., instead of 4,000 l., would advance the progress of art in this country, he would gladly vote for grants to that amount; but he objected to voting money for the purchase of works of art which were to be excluded from public inspection.
VISCOUNT MAHONdid not feel himself entitled to make any statement on behalf of the Fine Arts Commission, to which reference had been made; but, as a member of that Commission, he wished to offer to the Committee a few remarks on this subject. The hon. and gallant Member for Westminster had stated his opinion that of the many distinguished men whoso names appeared on the Commission very few took an active part in the proceedings of the board, and that probably all the work was done by the Secretary, or by one or two active persons who co-operated with him. He (Lord Mahon) could assure the hon. and gallant Member that he was altogether in error on that point. The hon. and gallant Member need not, however, take this assurance merely on his (Viscount Mahon's) authority. The meetings of the Commissioners were regularly mentioned in the public papers, and the names of the members who attended were given; and if
354
the hon. and gallant Member took the trouble to examine the list of meetings, he would find that they were generally fully attended. But, further, the reports of the Commissioners were sent round to each Commissioner for consideration and approval, and any Commissioner who did not approve of the reports would withhold his signature. The hon. Member might, therefore, be able to judge from the signatures attached to each report whether the recommendations contained in those documents were or were not consonant with the opinions of the majority of the body. The hon. and gallant Member had further said that the Commissioners had recommended the erection of several hundred statues; but on that point also he was in error.
SIR DE L. EVANSexplained that he had said that the erection of these statues was recommended in reports laid before the House by the Commissioners; but, while some of those reports were the reports of the Commissioners themselves, others did not come directly from them, although under their authority.
VISCOUNT MAHONsaid, the matter stood thus: The Commissioners designed to erect a certain but a smaller number of statues. In the first instance, they appointed a Committee to consider the names of those persons who might justly claim such an honour, and the Committee sent in a very extensive list of persons who had been distinguished in the history of this country, or for their attainments in science and literature. That, however, was merely a table for selection, and the number of statues actually sanctioned by the Commission, independently of the statues for the niches in the House of Lords, if he remembered rightly, did not exceed eighteen. The hon. Gentleman had, therefore, mistaken the general list for subsequent selection for the list for actual execution. With regard to the pictures which it was proposed to place in the Peers' refreshment room, the Commissioners had felt that in an undertaking for the promotion of British art, they would but inadequately consult the interests of that art if they did not accord a place to the distinguished genius of Mr. Edwin Landseer. That gentleman was so eminent in his own branch of art, that the Commissioners felt it incumbent upon them to find some place where his productions might be placed, and he was commissioned to paint three pictures. The hon. and gallant Member for

355
Westminster had, on a former occasion, raised a laugh in the House by observing that the subjects of those pictures were connected with the chase; but if the House concurred in the opinion that some tribute was due to the genius of Mr. Edwin Land-seer, they could hardly expect that genius to be exerted on any subjects but those on which it had been so conspicuously displayed. The hon. and gallant Member for Westminster and the hon. Member for Marylebone took exception, however, to the apartment in which it was proposed that these pictures should be placed—the Peers' refreshment room. He (Viscount Mahon) would state explicitly that he believed the Commissioners would have been very desirous to find some other site for them, and on two occasions a considerable body of the Commissioners visited various rooms in the new Houses with the view of ascertaining whether any more appropriate site could be found; but considering the subjects of those pictures, which would not be suitable to every kind of decoration, and considering, also, the manner in which the spaces in other apartments were intended to be supplied, the Commissioners, after anxious consideration, came to the conclusion that no place would be more suitable, or less unsuitable, for Mr. Edwin Land-seer's paintings than the apartment which had been selected. It never was their intention, however, that the public should he excluded from the advantage of inspecting these pictures. The time for the inspection by the public of the Houses of Parliament, and of the apartments connected with them, would be in the morning, when the Members were not engaged in the transaction of business; and the Commissioners certainly intended that the Peers' refreshment room, with any pictures it contained, should be as accessible to the public as any other portion of the building. With respect to the niches for statues in the House of Lords, he did not think any blame could justly attach to the architect on account of their size, for it was obvious that if it had been desirable to afford a greater play of limb or development of figure to the statues, they need only have been made somewhat smaller. The Committee would remember, however, that the statues for these niches were those of the Barons who signed Magna Charta, and it would be necessary for the artists to adhere to the costume and style of art of that period which, as they knew, was marked by a certain rigidity and want of
356
play of limb. The Commissioners had not come to their conclusions without careful deliberation; they had presented yearly reports, they had been in constant communication with the Government; and under these circumstances he hoped that the House might not he inclined to take any course implying blame to them, or cancelling the decision at which they had arrived.
MR. B. OSBORNEsaid, the noble Lord told them that the Commissioners had selected the least unsuitable situation they could find for Mr. Edwin Landseer's pictures. They were, however, to be put into a dark room, resembling the cabin of a ship, where they could not be seen for two hours any day in the year. He (Mr. Osborne) denied altogether that the New Houses of Parliament were built for the purpose of encouraging the fine arts. It was very well for Gentlemen to tell them that they were to encourage the fine arts by giving large sums of money to artists at the top of their profession; but he challenged any one to show that the fine arts had been encouraged by such means. He objected, however, to the pictures of Mr. Edwin Landseer, who was at the top of his profession not only in this country but in the world, being placed in the cabin to which it was proposed to consign them. It was very well for some nineteen noble Lords and dilettanti Gentlemen to meet in the morning, and spend the public money in encouraging the fine arts; but he objected to this Fine Arts Commission altogether, and if any one would second him he would move its abolition, and would divide the House on the question. The Members of that House had a duty to perform beyond that of a commission of public taste. They were supervisors of the public purse; and he objected to the expenditure of large sums of money upon Barons with narrow shoulders who were to be crammed into the inconvenient positions they had heard described. Certainly such narrow-shouldered Barons would never have wrung Magna Charta from the Crown.
COLONEL RAWDONthought that House was of all places the least suitable for a discussion on the fine arts. He might state, however, that he had been a Member of the Committee of that House which originated the commission that had been referred to, and one of their principal subjects of consideration was how far the erection of the New Houses might be made the means of promoting the fine arts in

357
this country. The determination of that Committee caused a great sensation among young artists, who looked forward to opportunities which had never before been afforded them of exercising and displaying their talents. He was astonished that the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster should talk of the lavish expenditure on these objects, and should say that it had not tended to the advancement of art. If that hon. Gentleman looked at the frescoes which had been painted in the House of Lords by young men who were previously almost unknown, in a material which was perfectly new in this country—if he abserved the extraordinary execution of Mr. Dyce's fresco, and also the admirable manner in which Mr. Maclise had accomplished his painting, would he then maintain that nothing had been done for the promotion of art? The hon. Member for Marylebone had found fault with the statues; but if hon. Gentlemen went into Westminster Abbey, or any other Gothic building, they would find that the statues were, as had been said, in a position of rigidity, and that any violence of action would be totally at variance with the style of the buildings they were intended to adorn.
LORD C. HAMILTONsaid, that when the commission was first established, it was not understood that the New Houses of Parliament were to be galleries for pictures and statues. The whole proceedings connected with the erection of the New Houses had been marked by the most disgraceful bungling, and an utter absence of everything like management. At first it was a question whether 200,000 l., 300,000 l 500,000 l., or 700,000 l., should be expended in all. The latter estimate was ultimately selected, and how closely it had been followed, the House and the country were now aware. If the object were to build a House of Parliament which should serve as a picture gallery and a sculpture gallery, let an architect be appointed who could adapt the building for those purposes, and not one who prepared niches for figures so small that they were obliged to be denuded of their arms and shoulders before they could be got in them. Then, they were told of the importance of encouraging historical painting in the decoration of these buildings. He did not understand ranch of the fine arts, it was true, and that might account for his being totally at a loss to see how placing these pictures, illustrative of the chase, in the refreshment rooms, where they would be concealed from the
358
public, could be any encouragement to historical painting. With regard to the honour which would be done to the genius of Mr. Edwin Landseer, by giving him the order to paint these pictures, it was well known that that eminent painter was constantly solicited in vain to paint by noblemen and others, who were anxious to become possessed of his pictures at any price; and to ask him to pain pictures for the purpose of decorating the walls of a dark room, which would be closed the greater part of the year, and where they could be seen for scarcely two hours a day when open, was absurd. Instead of encouraging, this looked very like burying high art. Unless they opened the Houses of Parliament, including galleries, lobbies, and refreshment rooms, wherever there were pictures, all the year round to the public free, and without the necessity of applying for tickets, it was useless to talk of it as a national encouragement to the fine arts. He should vote for the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, not with the view of casting any slur on the commission, or of disputing the high art of Mr. Edwin Landseer, but because of the unfitness of the room in which the pictures were to be placed.
COLONEL DUNNEprotested against sums being lavished upon objects of national vanity, while the hospitals of Dublin were to be robbed of the trifling sum they had hitherto received. He appealed to the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh, and every Irish Member, whether they could vote for such an appropriation of public money. Much as they were in Ireland called blunderers, he did not think they would there have erected a hall for a particular purpose, and then find out, when it was built, that it would not bold the 650 Members who were to assemble in it.
COLONEL RAWDONsaid, it was most unjust to him to let it go forth to Ireland that he wished to rob the hospitals of Dublin to lavish the money on the refreshment room of the House of Lords. There was no hon. Member more anxious for the prosperity of those establishments.
COLONEL DUNNEassured his hon. and gallant Friend that he never supposed that he wished to rob the hospitals: be had the sincerest regard for his hon. Friend.
SIR DE L. EVANSdid not, by the proposition which he had made, intend to cast any reflection on the Commission of the Fine Arts, or on the distinguished artist who had been named. He objected to the

359
subject of the pictures, while so many other more suitable pictures illustrative of events in the history of this country, in Europe, or the East, could be placed there.
Afterwards Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 103,660 l. be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray, to the 31st day of March, 1851, the Expense of the Works at the Now Houses of Parliament."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 75: Majority 19.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Hotham, Lord

Alcock, T.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Keating, R.

Arkwright, G.

Kershaw, J.

Bailey, J.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Baldock, E. H.

Langsten, J. H.

Baldwin, C. B.

Law, hon. C. E.

Bankes, G.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Bass, M. T.

Lushington, C.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Mackie, J.

Best, J.

Macnaghton, Sir E.

Blackstone, W. S.

Manners, Lord J.

Blandford, Marq. of

Milner, W. M. E.

Boldero, H. G.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Mowatt, F.

Boyd, J.

Newry & Morne, Visct.

Broadley, H.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Carew, W. H. P.

Ord, W.

Castloreagh, Visct.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Cayley, E. S.

Repton, G. W. J.

Chaplin, W. J.

Romilly, Col.

Childers, J. W.

Salwey, Col.

Clifford, H. M.

Sandars, G.

Cobden, R.

Scully, F.

Colvile, C. R.

Shafto, R. D.

Crawford, W. S.

Sibthorp, Col.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Disraeli, B.

Smollett, A.

Dodd, G.

Stanley, E.

Drummond, H.

Stanley, hon. E. H.

Duncan, G.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Dunne, Col.

Stuart, Lord D.

Du Pre, C. G.

Tenison, E. K.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Evans, J.

Thompson, Col.

Fagan, W.

Tollemache, J.

Farrer, J.

Trollope, Sir J.

Goddard, A. L.

Turner, G. J.

Granger, T. C.

Waddington, H. S.

Greene, J.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Grogan, E.

Westhead, J. P. B.

Hall, Sir B.

Williams, J.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Wood, W. P.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Wyld, J.

Hastie, A.

Heyworth, L.

TELLERS.

Hildyard, R. C.

Evans, Sir D. L.

Hood, Sir A.

Osborne, R. B.

List of the NOES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Armstrong, R. B.

Anson, hon. Col.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Bellew, R. M.

360

Berkeley, Adm.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Bowles, Adm.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Brockman, E. D.

Lewis, G. C.

Brotherton, J.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Busfield, W.

M'Neil, D.

Butler, P. S.

Mahon, Visct.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Matheson, J.

Clay, J.

Matheson, Col.

Clay, Sir W.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Mitchell, T. A.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Mundy, W.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Parker, J.

Dundas, Adm.

Pelham, hon. D. A.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Rawdon, Col.

Ebrington, Visct.

Rich, H.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Romilly, Sir J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Russell, F. C. H.

Forster, M.

Scholefield, W.

Freestun, Col.

Seymour, Lord

Grace, O. D. J.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Greene, T.

Simeon, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Smith, J. A.

Grey, R. W.

Smith, M. T.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Grosvenor, Earl

Stanford, J. F.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Tancred, H. W.

Harris, R.

Thornely, T.

Hatchell, J.

Townshend, Capt.

Hawes, B.

Williamson, Sir H.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Wilson, J.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Wilson, M.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Hope, H. T.

Wyvill, M.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

TELLERS.

Jervis, Sir J.

Hill, Lord M.

Jones, Capt.

Howard, Lord E.

The two next votes, namely, (5.) 300 l., Works. Isle of Man; (6.) 92,874 l, Holyhead Harbour, were agreed to.

SUPPLY—PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 18,093 l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland; also the Expense of Inland Navigation and other Services under the direction of the said Commissioners, to the 31st day of March, 1851."
MR. COBDENcalled attention to the fact, that there was comprised under this vote one item of 12,000 l. for the repair of the road from Holyhead to Shrewsbury. He could not understand on what pretext it could be justified that the cost of repairing the road in question should be charged upon the imperial resources of the country.
MR. HAYTERexplained that the duty of keeping the road in repair devolved by Act of Parliament on the Commissioners; and, as they had no funds out of which to defray the expense of such an undertaking, they had no alternative but to apply to that House for an estimate.
MR. COBDENthought that the sooner

361
the Act was altered or repealed, the better it would be for the country. The road from Holyhead to Shrewsbury was not a national institution, and there was no sufficient reason, that he could sec, why the expense of keeping it in repair should be charged on the Imperial Exchequer.
SIR J. TROLLOPEconcurred in this opinion. He could see no reason why the road in question should be treated differently from the Great Northern road, or any other highway in the country. The expense of repairing it ought to be defrayed from local charges.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained. It was true that the road from Holyhead to Shrewsbury had ceased to be the main line of communication between Dublin and London, and he admitted it was objectionable that the expense of keeping it in repair should be defrayed out of the public funds. He would, therefore, direct his early attention to the matter, with a view to see whether it might not be possible to introduce some improved arrangement for the future; but in the mean time it was desirable that the present vote should be agreed to, in order that certain liabilities might be discharged which had been incurred under the Act.
COLONEL DUNNEwished to know what was to be done with Dublin Castle. He found that under the present vote was comprised an item of 4,000 l. for the repairs of that building, and he certainly should like to know what it was intended to do with that venerable edifice. It was understood that the Phœnix-park was to be kept up for the service of the Queen, in the event of Her Majesty visiting Her Irish dominions; but what was to be done with Dublin Castle? Was it intended that the fourth Irish Secretary should reside there? He also wished to be enlightened as to the intentions of the Government with respect to the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham. He hoped there was no truth in the report that that institution, established in the reign of Charles II., for the relief of Irish pensioners, was to he broken up, and that the inmates were to be transferred to Chelsea.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, in reference to the first interrogatory of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that no matter what might become of the Bill at present on the table of the House for the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy, it was at all events certain that the Castle would be occupied during the
362
present year, and that the House would have to defray the current expenses for the repairs of that building.
COLONEL SIBTHORPwanted to know if Dublin Castle could not be conveniently sold to the highest bidder?
MR. M.O'CONNELLlooked on the item as an omen that Government were getting ashamed of their Bill; but if they meant to do away with the Lord Lieutenancy, why pay 452 l. for Castle furniture in one year? Who was to make use of that furture?
MR. B. OSBORNEsaid, he observed an item of 58 l. for the repair of Irishtown church. The Protestant Church in Ireland had quite enough money to repair their own churches, and he should like some explanation of the item.
MR. HAYTERsaid, the building to which the hon. Member referred was a small church in one of the worst localities in Dublin. It was attended by the military in the neighbourhood, and the repairs had always been included in the estimates.
MR. B. OSBORNEthought that was a very good reason why they should be included no longer. As it was a matter of principle, he would suggest that the sum of 58 l. be disallowed.
MR. GROGANbegged to ask if the Castle of Dublin was to be maintained as an occasional residence for Her Majesty? Imagination ran fast in Dublin, and, as persons seemed to think the Castle would be a second Hampton Court, it might be well to set the question at rest.
SIR G. GREYreplied, that he had no certain information on the point, but it was clear that it would be necessary the State apartments should be kept up, as, in case Her Majesty visited Ireland, the only reception rooms were in the Castle.
CAPTAIN TAYLORhoped Government would give some intimation of what was to be done with Kilmainham.
MR. F. MAULE, in reply, said, an impression had gone abroad that it was intended to withdraw the establishment at Kilmainham; but the fact was that no decision had been come to. The Committee had directed their attention to the subject, and had inquired if all the purposes of the establishment might not be answered by Chelsea Hospital; but, as yet, they had only taken evidence, had formed no opinion, and had made no communication to Government. After they had reported, it would be for Government to adopt their recommendation, if it was thought fit.
MR. M. O'CONNELLcould only hope any proposition to withdraw the hospital would be met in the same way as a similar proposal seventeen years ago.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that the vote for public works in Ireland was 18,093 l. Now, in that total sum there appeared an item of 1,240 l. 10 s. for maintenance and repairs of the College of Maynooth, and he begged to move that that vote he negatived.
MR. HAYTERsaid, that the Act of the 8th and 9th of Victoria, cap. 8, directed that the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland should cause the buildings of the College of Maynooth to he kept in repair; but that Act did not provide any means whereby the expenses of those repairs were to be defrayed; a vote for that purpose, therefore, became necessary every year.
LORD J. MANNERSinquired if they were to have a vote of 1,200 l. every year for the College of Maynooth?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Such sum as might be necessary every year; this year it was 1,240 l 10 s.
MR. HAYTER: It was 1,114 l. last year.
MR. REPTONsaid, that no repairs were now going on in the old buildings at Maynooth.
MR. DRUMMONDobjected to trying the whole Maynooth question by a side vote; neither would he consent to the purchase of new buildings under the pretence of repairing the old.
MR. HAYTERagain referred to the Act of Parliament in consequence of which the vote was proposed, and repeated that it was for the repair of old buildings.
LORD J. MANNERSshould not object to the vote if it were for bonâ fide repairs, but, as no repairs were now going on, some suspicion attached to the matter.
MR. HAYTERcould not allow it to be supposed that the Commissioners of Public Works would he guilty of such a gross breach of duty as to obtain money for one purpose and apply it to another.
Afterwards Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 16,852 l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland; also the Expense of Inland Navigation and other Services under the direction of the said Commissioners, to the 31st day of March, 1851."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 124: Majority 77.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Hood, Sir A.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Jones, Capt.

Arkwright, G.

Kershaw, J.

Baldock, E. H.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Blackstone, W. S.

Manners, Lord J.

Blandford, Marq. of

Mundy, W.

Brockman, E. D.

Newport, Visct.

Brooke, Lord

Newry and Morne, Visct.

Carew, W. H. P.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Clifford, H. M.

Salwey, Col.

Colvile, C. R.

Seymer, H. K.

Disraeli, B.

Smyth, J. G.

Dodd, G.

Smollett, A.

Drummond, H.

Stanford, J. F.

Duncan, G.

Stanley, E.

Farrer, J.

Stanley, hon. E. H.

Forbes, W.

Taylor, T. E.

Fox, S. W. L.

Trollope, Sir J.

Goddard, A. L.

Verner, Sir W.

Grogan, E.

Waddington, H. S.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Williams, J.

Harris, R.

TELLERS.

Hastie, A.

Sibthorp, Col.

Heyworth, L.

Repton, G. W. J.

Original Question put, and agreed to.
(8.) 10,788 l., Kingston Harbour. Vote agreed to.
Resolutions to he reported on Monday next.
Committee to sit again on Monday next.

REGISTRATION OF DEEDS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL The SOLICITOR GENERAL moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That this Bill be now read a Third Time."
MR. P. WOODasked when the House might expect the long-promised report of the Commission appointed three or four years ago to consider the question of a registry for England?
SIR G. GREYhad been in hopes that the report would have been presented long-ago; but the Commissioners having been engaged in preparing it, he expected that it would at an early period be put in possession of the House.
MR. DRUMMONDwould take that opportunity of stating the course which he intended to pursue with regard to the Real Property Transfer Bill, which stood for the second reading that night. He had brought forward a similar Bill last year, but was recommended to withdraw it till the report of the Commission was laid on

365
the table. He believed the real cause why that report bad not been received was that, with all their learning, the Commissioners had not got common sense enough to know that it was possible to describe a piece of ground by other means than by a map, or by taking the latitude. It was quite clear that it was next to impossible for an independent Member to carry through a Bill of this sort; and if he asked the House to discharge the order for the second reading of his Bill, it was because he thought it better to trust to a really true reforming law officer of the Crown, an animal as extraordinary as a Whig Chancellor of the Exchequer with a shilling in his pocket. He thanked the hon. and learned Gentleman the (Solicitor General) for this measure, and hoped that they would have a good Registration Bill for England next year.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, the opinion in Ireland as to the value of the hon. and learned Gentleman's law reforms was very different from that expressed by the hon. Member who had spoken. A Member of that House, whom he did not see in his place, told him that the substitution which was proposed for the present simple mode of registration in Ireland, was one of the most complicated and difficult description, which he doubted if the hon. and learned Solicitor General understood himself. He referred to the operation of the Incumbered Estates Act, and said that there was no such thing as property now recognised in Ireland—that there had not been such a court in Ireland for the last 700 years. He would not, however, oppose the Bill.
The SOLICITOR GENERALdeprecated the system of dragging in the working of the Incumbered Estates Bill on the discussion of a question like the present; but as it had been done, he wished to refer to a statement made a few nights ago by the hon. Member for Roscommon, to the effect that the Commissioners had sold land as belonging to one estate, which actually formed part of another. The circumstances were these: The ancestors of the gentleman whose estate was sold had leased the adjoining estate, and had confused the boundaries between them. The Commissioners, therefore, in selling the estate, had sold it subject to the proper boundaries being afterwards ascertained; so that, in point of fact, they had not sold any part of the adjoining estate.
Bill read 3a, and passed.
The House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.