LORD J. RUSSELL said, he should not object to the Motion being withdrawn except that they would have another Motion made on the Amendment that the House go into a Committee of Supply. He must, therefore, request that the Motion be negatived.

Amendmeut negatived.

SUPPLY-THE NEW HOUSES OF
PARLIAMENT.

House in Committee of Supply. The first grant proposed was 30,000l. for defraying the necessary expenses of the New Houses of Parliament from the 31st of March, 1848, to the 31st of March, 1849.

SIR. H. WILLOUGHBY said, the Legislature had already voted no less a sum than 945,000l., not including the grant of the present year. The whole sum, as regarded money paid or agreed to be paid, up to the 31st of March, 1848. on these houses, amounted to 1,021,010. The whole sum which had actually been granted by the Legislature was 945,000l., leaving a balance agreed to be paid of 76,010. The question he wished to put to the Committee was whether the sum which they were now called upon to vote was sufficient to defray the expenses, including this balance. From what had been done, and from what was to be done, and judging from the amount expended, he was of opinion that those new Houses of Parliament would cost the country at least 2,000,0001.

VISCOUNT MORPETH said, it was true that 945,000l. had been already voted. Besides this 50,000l. more had been issued this year on the understanding that votes would be taken in account. Very nearly the sum of 1,000,000l. had been already expended on the undertaking. It was also true that 1,021,010l. had been paid or agreed to be paid. If the Committee agreed to the sum now asked for, it would make in the whole 120,000l. during the present year, of which sum there would be spent 50,000l. between the present time and the 31st of March, 1849. 20,000l. had been contracted for, 50,000l. had been spent, and 50,0007. more, as he had already said, remained to be laid out on the building.

MR. OSBORNE thought the course pursued by the Government was unwise, inju

MR. H. DRUMMOND begged to call attention to the Victoria Tower. It would not be safe to carry up that tower more than thirty feet a year. But, in reference to the New Houses, the Select Committee had required two impossible things to be done. In the first case they required that all the apartments should be fire-proof, and that they must be insulated. In the next place, they were to be ventilated; but this they could not be if they were insulated. It was, however, important that they should refuse to advance a farthing until a board had been appointed who should be responsible for the expenditure.

Vote agreed to.

On the question that the sum of 4,0501. be granted for certain works and buildings in the Isle of Man,

MR. HUME objected, and the Committee divided :-Ayes 71; Noes 14: Majority 57.

List of the NOES.

Vote agreed to.

Salwey, Col. Thicknesse, R. A. Thompson, Col. Thompson, G. Thornely, T.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.
Bowring, Dr.

On the question that a sum of 23,1677. be granted for repairing Public Buildings, &c., in Ireland.

DR. BOWRING wished to call the attention of the House to this vote, to which he strongly objected, as he considered that if there was any department which required special control, it was the department of public works in Ireland,

MR. GOULBURN could assure the hon. Gentleman that as strict a control was exercised over the expenditure of the Lord Lieutenant as over that of any public department of this country. He noticed an item in this vote of 9001. for a Roman Catholic chapel, proposed to be built for the Royal Hibernian Military School; and he feared that if this design were carried out, it would lead to much dissension.

The Committee divided on the question that the sum be 22,2671. :-Ayes 12; Noes 103: Majority 91.

Howard, Sir R.

Hume, J. Jervis, Sir J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Lascelles, hon. W. S. Lewis, G. C. Locke, J. Matheson, Col. Maule, rt. hon. F. Melgund, Visct. Milner, W. M. E. Mitchell, T. A. Monsell, W. Morpeth, Viset. Norreys, Sir D. J. O'Brien, Sir L. O'Brien, T. O'Connell, M. J. Ogle, S. C. H. Osborne, R. Owen, Sir J. Paget, Lord C.

Palmerston, Visct.

Parker, J.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Pinney, W.

Kershaw, J.

Power, Dr.

Pusey, P.

M'Gregor, J.

Law, hon. C. E.

Miles, W. Morgan, O. Muntz, G. F. Pearson, C.

Christy, S.

Dick, Q.

Disraeli, B.

Salwey, Col.

Reynolds, J. Ricardo, O.

Russell, F. C. H.

Rutherfurd, A.

Scully, F.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Shelburne, Earl of
Sheridan, R. B.
Simeon, J.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Smith, J. A.

Somerville,rt. hn. SirW.

Spearman, H. J.
Stanton, W. H.
Sturt, H. G.
Thicknesse, R. A.
Thompson, Col.
Thornely, T.

Townshend, Capt.

Vane, Lord H.
Ward, H. G.
Watkins, Col.

Willoughby, Sir H.
Wilson, J.
Wilson, M.
Wodehouse, E.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Wood, W. P.
Wrightson, W. B.

TELLERS.

Tufnell, H.

Hill, Lord M.

Original question agreed to.

On the question that 42,7001. be granted for salaries and expenses in the department of the Treasury,

MR. OSBORNE did not know that there was much use in Junior Lords of the Treasury. The Committee recommended that they should be reduced to three. But he rose to make an inquiry respecting the Assistant Secretary; it was understood that 2,500l. had been given to Sir C. Trevelyan for his exertions during the Irish famine, in addition to his salary. Out of what fund was this grant taken? No public money ought to be given to a public officer without the sanction of the House being asked.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER could assure the hon. Member that the Lords of the Treasury were of the very greatest use in conducting the business of the Treasury. However, the noble Lord the Member for Calne (the Earl of Shelburne) having resigned, it had been determined, in compliance with the recommendation of the Committee, not to fill up the vacancy. With regard to Sir C. Trevelyan, the case was an exceptional one; but his services on the extraordinary emergency alluded to were so very great that it had been thought right to make a Trea

sury minute awarding him 2,500l. The item would be found in the account of "civil contingencies" laid before the House.

MR. DISRAELI, while readily acknowledging the great services rendered by this Gentleman, could not forget that the Order of the Bath had been conferred upon him-a reward bestowed as for services which could not be paid for by a pecuniary grant. The vote of 2,500l. was surely conceived in rather bad taste; and a preux chevalier, like Sir C. Trevelyan, bearing his blushing honours, might well be supposed to recoil from receiving an extra year's salary.

MR. SPOONER considered that the Government had no right to reward any public servant, however great and meritorious his services might be, without coming to the House of Commons and stating his services, and letting the reward come from the House and not from the Minister himself. It was a dangerous principle.

MR. BRIGHT asked from what fund the money was paid? Was it from the fund voted for the relief of Irish distress? If it was, it might be a necessary salary for distributing that relief. He also wished to have an explanation with regard to the sum of 8,650l., which was distributed among the officers and crews employed in the service of Ireland during the period of distress.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER had stated before that the former sum was paid out of the civil contingencies, and that the other was contained in the estimates then before the House.

MR. GLADSTONE condemned the conduct of the Government in this matter. It was their duty to have submitted a vote to the House; not to have taken on themselves to reward a public servant. If there was one rule connected with the public service which more than another ought to be scrupulously observed, it was this, that the salary of a public officer, more especially if he were of high rank, ought to cover all the services which he might be called upon to render. Any departure from that rule must be dangerous. The particular payment to Sir C. Trevelyan was not even mentioned in the estimates before the Committee. All that the estimates stated was, that 4,0451. were required on account of services performed in connexion with the distress in Scotland and Ireland. Who could suppose that a single charge to the amount of 2,500l.

was included in what appeared to be an aggregate of small items? If it had not been for the hon. Member for Middlesex, the House would have known nothing of the matter.

LORD J. RUSSELL said, that the subject had been referred to in the report of the Committee which sat on the civil contingencies; and therefore the House was not indebted exclusively to the hon. Member for Middlesex for the notice of it. The Government thought that the services of Sir C. Trevelyan were deserving of reward; and the question was, whether they should bestow the reward during the recess, or wait until Parliament met, and then propose it. They decided on the former course.

MR. GOULBURN begged to say, that he had laboured with Sir C. Trevelyan for many years, and was deeply impressed with the value of his services; and he had no doubt that, whether he had applied his talents to the ordinary business of the Treasury or to the extraordinary business of the famine of Ireland, he had done so in a manner to entitle him to the cordial approbation both of Government and of Parliament; and if he (Mr. Goulburn) said anything as to the mode in which the remuneration had been granted to him, it was not for the purpose of disparaging Sir C. Trevelyan's services or doing him dishonour, but from a feeling that the honour due to him had not been properly paid. According to all precedent the House of Commons ought to have fixed the amount of Sir C. Trevelyan's remuneration; and the House had just reason to complain that they had not been asked to do so. With respect to the other question, of the abolition of one Lord of the Treasury, he begged to say, that he entertained an opinion entirely at variance with that expressed by the Committee.

LORD J. RUSSELL said, that however Sir C. Trevelyan might have employed his intelligence, the Ministers of the Crown. were responsible for his acts. The Public Works Act was adopted after several meetings of the Cabinet with Lord Besborough; and whatever errors might have been committed, the Government were to blame for them. Sir C. Trevelyan stated in his evidence that he worked three hours before breakfast; that he then went to the Treasury, where he worked all day; and that the pressure upon him was such, that he wondered that he had been able to get through it alive. If the Government had

done wrong in including the vote in the civil contingencies, he hoped that their error would not be visited upon one of the most intelligent and laborious officers that he had ever known.

MR. B. OSBORNE said, he must really recall the attention of the House to the question before it, with which he would not consent to mix up the policy of the Government in Ireland. The question was, whether a certain sum of money should have been given to this officer, from any fund whatever, without the consent of Parliament? He thought that the whole transaction was illegal.

Vote agreed to.

ceived the support of a united Government in the other House. He supported the propriety of the amendments, which, he said, had been adopted with the best intentions. He objected to the amendments of the Commons, as they might lead to jobbing in the local boards. He deeply regretted what had passed as to this Bill; but at the same time he would not, on his part, even if he had the hope of inducing their Lordships to agree with him in rejecting any of these amendments, give the House of Commons an excuse for rejecting this Bill. The Bill was not what it ought to be; it was not what he trusted it would be, but it was still a great public good, and

House adjourned at Two o'clock.

Reported.-Constabulary Force (Ireland); Parliamentary Electors; Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Proclamations on Fines (Court of Common Pleas); Churches. 3a and passed:-Unlawful Oaths Acts (Ireland) (Continuance and Amendment); Militia Ballots Suspension. PETITIONS PRESENTED. From King's Sutton, and several other Places, against the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sundays. From Halfmorton, North Uist, and several

other Places, for Facilitating the Attainment of Sites for

Churches (Scotland).—From the Parishes of St. Marylebone, and St. Luke, for the Prevention of Sunday

Trading. From Parish Schoolmasters within the Presbytery of Cupar, for the Improvement of Parish Schools of Scotland.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL. LORD CAMPBELL moved the consideration of the Commons' Amendments to the Lords' Amendments to the Public Health Bill, and after stating the amendments made by the Commons to their Lordships' amendments, the noble Lord said that it was for their Lordships to choose whether they would waive their amendments, or throw out this Bill. There was no alternative it was hopeless to insist on their Lordships' amendments. He trusted that their Lordships would show an example of moderation and forbearance; and, for the sake of the safety of the Bill, that they would agree to what the Commons had proposed, and would be satisfied with the amendments which they had accepted, waiving those which they had rejected.

The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH said, that after what had taken place in this House, their Lordships had a right to expect that their amendments would have re

excuse of depriving the public of it.

The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE agreed that it was necessary to waive their Lordships' amendments, at the same time. regretting that the Commons had not acceded to them. He and his noble and

learned Friend had entertained a strong hope that the House of Commons would have waived, as regarded this Bill, that portion of their privileges which, although sacred in many constitutional respects, were impediments in matters of this kind.

LORD REDESDALE said, of all the clauses in the Bill he considered that relating to the consumption of smoke to have undergone the greatest care; and he very much regretted its rejection by the Commons. The clause had been introduced by the Committee upstairs, with the full sanction of Her Majesty's Government; he therefore thought the Government were to blame for having allowed it to be struck out by the Commons. The reason assigned for its rejection was the reverse of the fact, namely, that it was the subject of separate legislation. Every attempt to make it so had failed; while, on the contrary, as a subject in connexion with other measures it had always succeeded. In Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and Derby, the enactment had been applied; why, therefore, it should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill he could not understand. It was essentially a poor man's question, for the weavers of this town were obliged to work from morning till night with every window of their small rooms closed, because the smoke which came from the neighbouring factories injured their work. The parties who were against the abolition of this nuisance were the great chimney owners. They were a small class, but a very important one. If, however, the Govern