rose to call attention to the proposed removal of Canning's statue from its present position, and to the general arrangements of Parliament Square. He did not wish to protract the Saturday's Sitting for more than a few minutes on a point which certainly deserved the attention of the House, inasmuch as it concerned the arrangement of the ground before and around the building in which they were assembled. If an understanding were not now arrived at, they might come back next Session, and find the harm already done. He wished in particular to call attention to the rumour that the statue of the late Mr. Canning was to be again removed. He spoke on this subject with much reserve, as it was one of peculiar delicacy on account of the family feelings which were involved in it. The question which they had to consider was, as the lawyers said, de bene esse, and he would only deal with its artistic phase as one element in the final settlement. He was glad to find from what had the other night fallen from, his noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works that his bias was in favour of keeping the statue on the site which it at present occupied. What the noble Lord had said was in perfect accordance with an able and convincing letter from Mr. Barry, the architect of the Houses of Parliament, which appeared the other day in The Times: The argument dwelt on in that letter, as well as by the First Commissioner of Works, had special reference to the peculiar appropriateness of having something like a background to the statue. He thought the statue placed in a most admirable position. In its former place it was backed by a grove, and thus the rear of it, which was not, artistically, very remarkable, and which had been so graphically described by his noble Friend, was hidden from view. That grove had been since swept away, so that were the statue to be brought back to its former site it would no longer enjoy that advantage, besides which there was great danger that it would crush down the railway arch on which it would have to stand. The same disadvantage would attend its removal to the centre of what was now called Parliament Square, which the noble Lord darkly hinted might probably be its final resting place, besides the destruction of the admirable works which were now being carried out there. If the House would recall the condition of the neighbourhood at the time of the original erection of the statue, it would realize that at that time it would have been impossible to have thrown it back 100 feet. To the rear there was a large mass of squalid houses, and the Westminster improvements were in a very inchoate condition. Since then, however, those wretched buildings had been removed, and that magnificent thoroughfare, Victoria Street, opened as an approach to the Abbey from the northwest. Victoria Street itself debouched upon what was perhaps the most pic- turesquely architectural square to be found in any city in Europe. There stood around it the Abbey, Mr. Scott's new houses, the Westminster Palace Hotel, Mr. Barry's chambers, the hospital, and Mr. Scott's noble column to the memory of the Westminster men who fell in the Crimea, which was a very beautiful picture in itself. Each portion of this picture pieced in with the Houses of Parliament, and in the aggregate constituted a really beautiful picture. The taking down of the block of buildings between Parliament Street and King Street was a mere matter of time and estimate; but when it was done it would add still more to the grandeur and magnificence of the scene. It would, too, bring the statue into bolder relief, as seen by those proceeding down Victoria Street and Great George Street. There was, also, on the same ground with it, a fountain of an ornate and costly character, the munificent gift of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Surrey, whom they were so glad to see among them again the other day. In placing it where it was Mr. Barry had taken advantage of his opportunity of offering a specimen of an art, of which London, unfortunately, contained too few specimens, that of architectural gardening. The architect ought always to be the designer of the subsidiary adornments, which enhance while they accompany his constructions. The foreigner understood this principle as the Englishman did not, and hence the notable beauty of foreign cities. In the present instance, Mr. Barry was carrying out a very felicitous and dignified conception in what was hereafter to be known as Parliament Square, with the two symmetrical plots, the fountains and the central alley, flanked by its avenue of statues and comfortable seats. The fountains and the flower-beds had, he believed, not been accepted by the First Commissioner, but he hoped they would be. The only objection he had heard to the fountains, that they would be small, must have come from the American whose idea on seeing Vesuvius was, that in Niagara, his country had a water power sufficient to put it out, while all that the flower beds wanted was a beadle to keep off the little boys, and a gardener to look after them. To remove the statue back to its former site would destroy the fine perspective effect between the Crimean Column Square and Parliament Square. It would be a positive cruelty to art to interfere with that square and central alley, which, as he had said, was a first specimen of town gardening of which London hitherto possessed so little. Whether the fountains should be added was a matter of detail. Let Canning's statue be kept where it was. There would still be area enough for the statues of Peel and Palmerston, each of whom deserved, and ought to obtain, his own conspicuous place He hoped the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) would give them some public assurance that the integrity of the garden at Parliament Square would be preserved, and that Canning's statue would not be removed from its present position.

said, he wished to make a single observation in consequence of the allusion which had been made to the feelings of the family in connection with the removal of Mr. Canning's statue. Those feelings, no doubt, should be held almost sacred; but it so happened that he had the honour of being associated with the late Lord Canning, Lord Aberdeen, and Sir James Graham in considering a site for the statue of Sir Robert Peel, and a proposal was discussed which, if carried out, would render it necessary to remove Mr. Canning's statue. Lord Canning thought there was a disinclination to remove it, out of respect to the feelings of the family; and, when the Committee was over, Lord Canning stated to his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) and himself that he wished it to be clearly understood that he had no objection whatever to the removal of the statue; and he hoped the Committee would act as they thought proper in regard to both statues without considering any matter of private feeling. It did not occur to him to make any observation on this subject when reference was first made to the feelings of Mr. Canning's family; but his noble Friend the First Commissioner (Lord John Manners) thought it desirable the circumstance he had related should be known; and his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford entirely bore out his recollection.

said, he hoped the statement of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would be satisfactory to his noble Friend opposite, and those who, from personal feelings, were disinclined to sanction the removal of the statue from its original site. He thought the statue had gained greatly by removal. Its effect was infinitely better when placed at the end of the vista, than when close upon the Houses of Parliament and the street where it formerly stood. The only thing objectionable to his eye was that the statue had been placed square to the road, but not to the vista. The open space might be advantageously adorned with flowers and statues, as suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Beresford Hope). Looking at Trafalgar Square, he doubted whether the proposed fountains would be an advantage; but, of course, everything would depend upon the design. He did not think there would be room for more than three statues in Parliament Square; but, on the model in the Library there were five or six.

said, he thought it would be an improvement to remove St. Margaret's Church, which spoiled the view of the Abbey. He believed that the difficulty which stood in the way of such a measure was that of finding another site for that church. It appeared to him that an eligible site could easily be procured upon the vacant ground in the neighbourhood.

said, he had understood that if St. Margaret's Church were to be taken down, its site was not to be built upon, but to be made use of for the purpose of improving the roadway. In his opinion, the effect of the statue of Canning had been greatly improved by its being removed to its new site, because, in coming down Parliament Street, a front, instead of a side, view of it was obtained. In its former position, he had never thought it to be a fine statue; but he had been greatly surprised to see how well it looked in its present situation. He hoped that the piece of ground opposite to the statue would be well laid out, as it was a very fine site, and the opportunity should not be thrown away of effecting a great improvement in this part of the metropolis.

said, it was hardly fair at a Twelve o'clock Sitting on Saturday—which was intended only for the despatch of necessary business—to attempt to obtain a Parliamentary, or rather a quasi-Parliamentary, opinion upon a matter of this kind.

said, that the subject was upon the Paper for discussion.

said, he was aware of that fact, but thought it was absurd to suppose that hon. Members would come down to that House on Saturday to discuss such a matter. He was not surprised at the state- ment of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Colonel Wilson Patten), because it was in keeping with the whole life of the late Lord Canning, who never allowed any personal considerations of his own to be an impediment to what he considered a public improvement. It was difficult for any person to form an opinion with reference to the projected plan for laying out the ground opposite the statue until the proposed improvements had been completed. It appeared to him that the ground had been cut up into two small portions for the purpose of forming an alley in order to let the statue be seen. Most people could not see the statue at all in coming to the House, and it was generally dark—or rather it ought to be dark—when they were leaving it, and, consequently, they would never see the statue at all. Some people believed that the statue had been put out of the way, and that there was an end of it. He confessed, not being what was called a man of taste, that where 100 persons coming down from Parliament Street to the House could see it formerly, not one could see it now.

said, that, in justice to the hon. Member for Stoke, he must explain that this question had been put on the Paper for discussion yesterday, and had been postponed until to-day, at the especial request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to facilitate the despatch of public business. He hoped that this subject would not, at the present period of the Session, lead to a difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament, as, from what he had heard the other day, in "another place," he was afraid that the opinion generally entertained there was just the reverse of that which appeared to be entertained in this House. There were two questions involved in this matter—one of taste and another of sentiment. He trusted he might be excused if he gave no positive or definite opinion as to what should be the future permanent position of the statue. He had already expressed his own opinion that, as far as taste went, the present position was decidedly superior to the old one. An objection had been made that the statue, being made of bronze, required sunlight to show it off to the best advantage, and that it was completely shaded where it now stood. All he could say in reply to that statement was, that that morning, when he came down to the House, he saw the statue standing in a full blaze of sunshine. He hoped that, as the improvements went on in Parliament Square and the neighbourhood, they would assume a more favourable appearance. Whether St. Margaret's Church would be removed or not he was not in a condition to say; but, undoubtedly, if the block of buildings between Parliament Street and King Street were removed, as he confidently trusted they would be, there would be a magnificent view of Westminster Abbey from Whitehall, and then it was highly probable the question of the removal of the church might be entertained; and as the Embankment Commissioners in 1863 had recommended that a portion of the site to be obtained by the Act, which had just become law, to the west of the Victoria Tower should be built upon, he thought that would be a convenient position for it; but that was a matter which could not assume any definite proportions for some years to come. He would undertake that nothing should be done to prejudice the question of the ultimate destination of the statue until next Session, remembering, at the same time, that the predominant feeling of the House of Commons was in favour of retaining it on its present site.

said, he entirely agreed with the noble Lord that, as a matter of taste, nothing could be better than the effect of the statue on its present site; still he was glad to hear that the arrangements that had been made with respect to it were only to be regarded as provisional, so that at some future time the matter might be fully considered and the feelings of those who had survived that great man consulted on the subject. He wished to ask the Secretary for the Treasury, whether the Government were prepared to accede to an application which had been made for the sum of £320, to enable such steps to be taken as would render it possible to properly exhibit the pictures in the Royal Irish Academy to the public? With respect to the auxiliary museum to be established by the authorities of the Kensington Museum at Bethnal Green, he observed that if those authorities were allowed to transfer the overflowings and sweepings of Kensington to other parts of the country, there would be no check upon their extravagance, while there would be such a clamour at the Treasury for grants for local museums in different towns that it would be impossible to resist it. Every county town in England and Ireland would put in a claim for a grant, and certainty he should absolutely insist upon one for Galway.

referred to the fact that, though the Fortification Bill had stood as the first Order on the Paper of business for yesterday evening, Supply was proceeded with instead in the meeting of the House for the Evening Sitting. He had come down to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Cashel (Mr. O'Beirne) in reference to the Fortification Bill, but, owing to the change in the Business Paper, that measure did not come on for consideration until after twelve o'clock. By that arrangement he was prevented making some observations upon the important subject of fortifications, but he would revive the subject next Session. He was opposed to the enormous outlay of £10,000,000 upon fortifications, except as regarded those which were necessary for the defence of our arsenals. With respect to auxiliary museums, he observed that such institutions existed in almost every town in France, being supported partly by the State and partly by the local authorities. The effect of these institutions in improving the public taste accounted for the superiority of the French over the English in matters of art.

said, he was surprised that so experienced a Member as the hon. and gallant Gentleman who last spoke was not aware of the Standing Order that, as long as the Committee of Supply was open, Supply should stand as the first Order on Friday. There was a special Morning Sitting yesterday for Supply, and, as all the Votes were not passed in the Morning Sitting, Supply still continued open, and was consequently fixed as the first Order for the Evening Sitting. No irregularity had therefore been committed. In reply to the question regarding the Irish Academy, he stated that an application had been made on behalf of that institution for a small sum of money, and the Treasury consented to give a grant amounting, he believed, to £200.

said, in reference to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sykes), that when the Sitting of the House was divided into two, he conceived that the Notices given for one of the Sittings did not apply to the other, and he concurred in the observation of the hon. Member for Galway that if the Kensington Museum were to be allowed to send collections to some towns, demands would soon come from other places for collections to be sent to them. The course taken by the Government had the effect of stifling discussion on the question of fortifications, which ought to have been taken first at the Evening Sitting. He also observed that he could not acept an inexperienced official like the Secretary to the Treasury, who only by a lucky fluke in the wheel of fortune had found himself thrust into an important political position, as an authority upon the regulations of the House. He should therefore like to have some explanation from the Speaker.

I thought the explanation which has been given entirely satisfactory; it is a matter of such extreme simplicity that anybody who looked at the Paper could not make a mistake. Supply was fixed for the Horning Sitting. It was uncertain whether Supply would be closed at the Morning Sitting; therefore it was impossible to put down Supply in two places for the same day; and Supply was only fixed for the Horning Sitting. I hold in my hand the Paper printed for the evening, and the hon. Member, if he looks at it, will find that Supply is at the head of it.

Then that must have been printed in the interval between the two sittings.

How is it possible that you can print anything for the Evening Sitting until the Morning Sitting is concluded? If Supply had been concluded at the Morning Sitting, some other arrangement would have been made for the Evening Sitting. Supply was not concluded, and if the hon. Member will do me the favour to look at the Paper he will find that Supply stands, as I have staled, at the head of the list for the evening.

I beg respectfully to submit, as I have always understood, that as private Members could not give a Notice between the Morning and Evening Sitting, it was not competent for the Government to do so.

It was no notice of any individual Member; it was an Order of the House, Supply not being concluded, that it should stand at the head of the list for the Evening Sitting.

said, he must enter his annual protest against the extravagant expenditure of the taxes of the country under this Bill. If the hon. Member for Cashel (Mr. O'Beirne) did not repeat his Motion next Session, for a Committee to re-consider this question, he should do so.

observed that what he had proposed was not to oppose the fortifications, but that an actual experiment should be made to test their strength and sufficiency, and till that was done they should not be proceeded with. He had withdrawn his Amendment to that effect, on the Secretary of State for War undertaking that the experiment should be made.

observed, that in the interval the works would not be stopped; but it might, he thought, be assumed that if the experiment was against the efficiency of the fortifications they would not be proceeded with.

said, he wished it put on record to this effect—that a complete section be made, full size, of Devonport Breakwater, giving one embrasure, granite base, concrete roof, with two supporting pillars, girders, brickwork, granite, &c., as per drawing, signed by Colonel Jervois, January 19, 1867, and issued to contractors—that this section should be submitted to the following tests:—Six shots of Palliser's projectiles from the 9-inch rifled gun; six shots of Palliser's projectiles from the 600-pounder rifled gun; both guns to be placed at 600 yards. He thought no other test would be satisfactory, and he hoped the Secretary of State for War would see that it was carried out.

pointed to the injustice of compelling all the knights to attend the service of the Church of England, the knights being appointed from old officers who may be of any religious persuasion, and moved the following clause:—

"After the passing of this Act it shall not be obligatory on any Naval Knight of Windsor not being a member of the Established Church of England and Ireland, to attend Divine service in St. George's Chapel, Windsor, daily or at all."

expressed his great gratification at finding that Her Majesty Lad extended to Roman Catholic gentlemen in the army and navy the privileges attached to the Knights of Windsor. It appeared by the statutes which emanated from the Crown relating to those appointments that the knights were exposed to the inconvenience of being obliged to attend the Church service daily, or suffer certain fines in consequence. Whilst supporting the principle contained in the clause moved by the hon. Baronet, he nevertheless thought that it would be much better to leave this concession to be made by Her Majesty herself than to seek to effect the remedy by the introduction of the clause in the Bill. There were, however, many other grievances of which those officers had to complain. Considering that their average was seventy-five years, and that some of those officers had reached eighty-four or eighty-five years, it was hard to expect them, whatever religion they might profess, to attend the services of the Church daily, such services lasting about two hours. There were, however, certain special days on which he supposed there would be no objection on the part of those officers to attend the Church. [Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN: Hear, hear!] He thought from the interest which Her Majesty had always taken in the comforts and convenience of those gentlemen, that she would feel disposed, if their case were properly submitted to her by the Government, to give her sanction to the exemption sought for for them. But another hardship to which those officers were subjected was the heavy fees they were compelled to pay upon their appointment as Knights of Windsor, and for other matters incidental to their office. An officer was obliged to pay a fine of £5 5s. 4d. upon his appointment on the lower foundation. There were thirteen knights on the Royal foundation receiving £100 a year, but those on the lower grade received only £35 17s. 7d. Now, he (Colonel North) thought it too bad that officers receiving such small allowances should be obliged to pay £5 5s. in the first instance, and the same sum on removal from the Lower to the Royal Ward. He did not, however, think that the House of Commons was the proper place to obtain a remedy for those grievances, but hoped that the Government would submit the case of those officers to Her Majesty, who, he had no doubt, would be graciously pleased to relieve them from the obligations imposed on them in respect to the attendance at the Church service and this unnecessary taxation. He must repeat the expression of his delight at the fact of these appointments being opened to Roman Catholics, for who had ever known a Roman Catholic soldier to halt at the deadly breach or to shrink from any of the dangers of the battle-field.

thought that, independently of Dissenters and Roman Catholics, who, as Knights of Windsor, were required to attend Divine service in St. George's Chapel, some of the knights, who were Church of England men, had not the slightest wish to go to church every day, and there could not be any necessity for calling on them to do so.

suggested, that the matter should be submitted to Her Majesty by the Government, and he had no doubt that the grievances complained of would be immediately remedied by our gracious Sovereign. It was formerly the practice to exact fines for non-attendance at chapel, but a stricter rule was now enforced, and attendance was absolutely required. There were many aged gentlemen who, even from their limited means, would rather pay the fines than be obliged to attend church daily.

Mr. Dodson, I earnestly hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not insist upon inserting the Amendment of which he has just given notice. I deprecate its insertion because the clause which he proposes is much more important than the Bill to which he desires to add it. The Bill is merely for the purpose of enabling the Admiralty to fill a few vacancies now existing in the Naval Knights of Windsor. The present regulations oblige us to select only from lieutenants who are bachelors and who are of blameless lives. Now, the fact is that though there are plenty of lieutenants of blameless life, there are very few who are of sufficient standing, and who are also bachelors. The object of this measure is to enable us also to include those lieutenants who have received the rank of retired commander in the list of those from whom we may select; and, also, that widowers may receive the same consolation as bachelors. I concur with what has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxfordshire in thinking that if any change is necessary, the relief should be sought in a modification of the Statutes of the Order, and not in the Act of Parliament. The duties which these gentlemen are called on to fulfil could never be objected to by them on occasions of State ceremonial to whatever communion they might belong. The duties are common both to them and the Military Knights of Windsor, and thinking, as I do, that it is a fair subject for consideration, whether any relief may be given to these officers, I trust my hon. Friend will not press the adoption of this clause.

withdrew the clause, stating that unless the obnoxious regulation, against which it was directed, was abolished, he would again call the attention of the House to the subject next Session.