HC Deb 24 April 1860 vol 158 cc37-53
MR. GREGORY

said, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire how far and in what way it may be deemed desirable to find increased space for the extension and arrangement of the various collections of the British Museum, and into the best means of rendering them available for the promotion of Science and Art. Last year he moved for the appointment of a similar Committee, which obtained the sanction both of the Government and of the House. He would, therefore, not recapitulate the statements he then made, as every argument for an inquiry which had force last year was of even more force at the present time in support of a similar proposition. It was well-known that, owing to the over-crowded state of the British Museum, many of the valuable collections which it contained were of no use whatever to the public. Professor Owen had stated that, owing to the want of space there were specimens of natural history which could not be exhibited; the keeper of the ornithological department had stated that the most valuable parts of the collection were completely hidden from the public, and that many of them were actually perishing. The magnificent collection of prints, purchased at great expense, were completely shut from the public view; the interesting collections from Carthage were hidden in the cellars in the packing cases in which they had arrived; and those from Budrum were stowed away in the unsightly conservatory in front of the Museum. Every single evil he had then alleged as existing, had, if possible, become aggravated: every addition had left the British Museum in a more hopeless state of congestion than it was before. He, therefore, thought it was absolutely necessary for the credit of the country that some remedy should be provided. For the purpose of illustrating the mischief that resulted from the present state of things, he could not give a better instance than the well-known fact that in many instances persons who would willingly contribute by gift or bequest collections of rare value and interest to the Museum, were deterred from doing so by the knowledge that justice would not be done to their munificence, and that their gift would not receive that consideration which it deserved. When he had brought forward this subject last year it was objected that his Motion, which was for the re-organization of the British Museum, was too extensive. Perhaps such was the case, and he had therefore modified the terms of his Motion this year, and it was now precisely the same as the one which had been then accepted by the late Government. The course which he proposed should be adopted by the Committee he asked for was, that an inquiry should first be made as to whether there should be a separation of the collections, and what that separation should be. If the Select Committee which he proposed to be appointed were in favour of separation, then the opinion of the Committee should be pronounced on the point whether the separation involved the removal of the collections from the present site; and, should the Committee decide that there must be a removal, then they ought to inquire what would be the most proper place to receive the portion removed. The second portion of the inquiries of the Committee would have reference to the structural arrangements and alterations of the Museum; first, in the event of the collections remaining on their present site; and, secondly, in the event of removal. He thought it absolutely necessary to have an inquiry into this subject, because he found that there was the greatest difference of opinion between the persons connected with the British Museum and the trustees. He would state his reason for making this assertion. The trustees desired their architect, Mr. Smirke, to prepare a plan for the enlargement of the Museum. Mr. Smirke accordingly prepared a plan, which was presented to the late Government, without a single one of the heads of departments in the Museum being consulted upon the subject. Surely, if those gentlemen were fit for the offices they held they ought to have been consulted. They had not, however, been permitted to express an opinion upon it, and the consequence was that Mr. Hawkins, the head of the antiquarian department, presented a protest against the plan of Mr. Smirke, proving incontestably that it was founded on error, and contravening every position laid down by that gentleman. Professor Owen had also prepared a plan, which he sent to the trustees, embodying his notion of what would be the most advisable course to pursue; but the trustees, although it was at that time supposed that the Government were making every inquiry into the subject, had not even deemed it worth their while to send the report of Professor Owen to the Government. He wished, therefore, that witnesses should be examined with respect to the future structure and arrangements of the Museum. He would also like to have further information upon the subject of lectures. Since he last brought this question before the House, he had given much consideration to this part of the subject, and he confessed that it was surrounded by greater difficulties than he at first supposed could exist; but when he saw the great anxiety that existed on the part of every class to obtain information such as could be imparted through the medium of the specimens and books in the British Museum, when he considered the numbers that came from long distances to attend the geological lectures delivered at the institution in Jermyn Street, and when he considered the evidence given by Professor Owen before a Committee of that House to the effect that in not being a medium of instruction as well as of exhibition the British Museum was not performing the functions which the public had a right to demand it should discharge, he thought it would only be a proper deference to public opinion if the Committee should, at least, inquire whether the difficulties attending the establishment of lectures were insuperable, and what those difficulties were. Another point upon which he should like some further information was the law as it now stood. At present none of the specimens could be removed except by sale or exchange. He should like the opinion of scientific men to be taken upon, the question whether it would not be advisable to draught specimens and books not required at the British Museum to district libraries and museums, where they would be most thankfully received and be of considerable value. He knew a strong feeling existed upon this subject, particularly at the east end of London, where there was a total absence of any such source of rational amusement. Duplicate books and specimens might thus be got rid of with advantage. Having thus foreshadowed the principal objects he sought to attain by the appointment of the Committee in question, he might add, that he did not hesitate to state his own opinion to be decidedly in favour of separation, but adverse to any removal of the collections. He believed that on the present site increased space might be found, and that it was infinitely better in every respect than the site to which it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, as appeared perfectly clear from the printed papers, to remove the collections. A paper was presented to the House the other day, from which it appeared that Mr. Smirke was requested by the trustees to draw up a comparison of the expense attending fresh buildings at Brompton, and buildings close to the site of the Museum; and it appeared that the saving on the side of South Kensington was £212,500. He supposed that this must be the economical reason why the trustees resolved, by a majority of one, that the collections should be removed. The decisions of the trustees naturally had weight; but, in this instance, he did not regard their decision as entitled to weight, for out of the nine in favour of removal, six were Cabinet Ministers whipped up for the occasion, seldom attending on other occasions; and the majority of one was secured by the lucky arrival of Lord Granville. The decision in favour of the removal to Brompton was the opinion of trustees who rarely showed their faces at the Museum; and was at the same time entirely contrary to the feeling of the working staff of trustees, and did not therefore carry the slightest weight to his mind. Last year the Natural History sub-Committee of the trustees expressed themselves, in the interests of science, adverse to the change; and the memorial, signed by a large number of scientific men, protesting against the severance of the collections, ought to have made the Government pause before they decided on this course without any inquiry. In this document, after giving six reasons against the removal, the memorialists stated that, if the removal was to any considerable distance from the present central site, it would be received with extreme disfavour by the mass of the inhabitants of the metropolis, especially when it was remembered that by far the larger number of visitors to the Museum frequented the halls containing the Natural History collection. They enlarged on the advantages which at present accrued from having collections of scientific objects ranged around a library illustrative of their contents; and a gentleman occupying a high position in the Museum recently mentioned to him an instance of the appreciation of this advantage shown by intelligent foreigners. The gentleman in question was congratulated by some French visitors on the superiority of the British Museum over foreign collections in this respect. "At the Jardin des Plantes," they said, "when we want information on any specimen, we have to run to the Bibliothèque Impériale; so at the Louvre, when inspecting the collection of antiquities; while here you have all your collections together." And when his informant declared that the Government were thinking of foregoing this advantage by the removal of the Natural History Collections his French friends could hardly believe that he was in earnest. The only reasons which could influence the Government in making the removal, must arise from motives of economy. But would it, in fact, be an economical transaction? In the first place the enormous expense, inconvenience, and risk which would attend the removal of these fragile collections to such a distance, must be considered. In the next place, it was to be remembered that, if they were established at Brompton, it would be necessary to have a library of Natural History there, and that the library, with the salaried staff which would be necessary, would cost a considerable sum. Then, again, although there might be a difference of £212,000 in favour of the Brompton site, a large sum must be paid down for the construction of the requisite Museum, whereas, on the present site, they need not purchase at once the whole extent of land required, but might take what they wanted when they thought proper, paying for it accordingly. Moreover, it was well to consider the unbounded ideas which unbounded space gave. It was but natural that the heads of departments should make large demands, but in his opinion it was not well to be encumbered with enormous collections. It was better to put a restriction upon the space to be filled, and to have a well-assorted collection of objects, rather than an immense extent of ground and an immense number of specimens, many of which might not be required. He did not think that the Government could undertake a more unpopular task than that of transferring these collections to a distant district. It was notorious that the Natural History collections were the most popular portions of the Museum, the obvious reasons being that persons in a humble position of life were able to understand the objects contained in them, and did not require the special education which an assemblage of Egyptian, Assyrian, and Roman antiquities demanded for their appreciation. Besides, there was a strong feeling abroad that a kind of filtration was going on towards Brompton, and a feeling, also, was gaining ground that some portion of the rivulet of public generosity should flow to the eastern as well as the western part of the Metropolis. On this point he had received a letter from a clergyman (the Rev. Mr. Hewlett), who referred to the East India Museum, the only one east of Temple-bar, and said that in ten months upwards of 200,000 persons had visited this Museum, which was only open two days a week, giving an average of 2,500 a day; and that during this time no article had been damaged, and only one was missing. Mr. Hewlett complained that not a fragment of this Museum was to be loft within the reach of these persons, and claimed for his parishioners a participation in the advantages which these collections afforded in other parts of the Metropolis. He (Mr. Gregory) hoped that the Government would acquiesce in the necessity of inquiry; that they would feel that the stop proposed was contrary to the opinions of the working staff of trustees, to the opinions of the whole scientific world, as well as to public opinion; and he hoped by the appointment of the Committee, that effectual, though tardy justice, would be done to this magnificent national collection. He begged to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire how far, and in what way, it may be desirable to find increased space for the extension and arrangement of the various collections of the British Museum, and into the best means of rendering them available for the promotion of science and art.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, that, having served on the Public Institutions Committee, it seemed to him that there was sufficient evidence to show the necessity of the inquiry now asked for. There would be many and grave objections to the removal of the collections from the Museum, which ought, at least, to be fully considered. But the greatest anxiety had been expressed that the duplicates now lying there, which could not be lent under the present regulations, should be made available for the use of district museums in the east and in other parts of the Metropolis. The Committee had also unanimously reported in favour of the experiment of lighting up in the evening a part of the Museum—especially the lower portion. This would be very feasible, and not very expensive, and it would place within the reach of the working classes the same means of innocent recreation which they now enjoyed at Kensington. And as lectures had been found to be very popular even at the Museum in Jermyn Street, where payment was required, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider that it would be useful to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Galway upon that point.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he did not rise to object to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, which was agreed to last Session, but which was prevented from lead- ing to an actual inquiry by the premature dissolution of Parliament. He, however, differed from the hon. Gentleman in the conclusions, to which it appeared from his remarks that he desired to lead the decision of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman had attempted to draw a distinction between a separation of the collections of the Museum and the removal of a portion of them. He (Sir G. Lewis) could not understand what was meant by a separation of a collection, unless a portion was to be removed. If the existing Museum was to be enlarged—if a large purchase of land was made in the immediate vicinity of the Museum, and a new building erected contiguous to the old one, it was a mere play upon words to call that a separation. Of course, a fresh distribution of the collections might be made in that enlarged space, but it would not be what was generally understood as a separation of the collections, which implied a removal to another place. After having attended many meetings and committees of the trustees, and given the matter full consideration, he entertained a strong conviction that it would be greatly to the advantage of the management of the Museum that a removal of a portion of the collection should take place. It was also his conviction that a large addition to the site of the Museum could not take place except at such an expenditure as the House was not likely to sanction. This, therefore, very much resolved itself into a question of expenditure. If the British Museum were maintained by endowments of its own, if it had revenues such as some of the hospitals had, arising out of land and other sources, it would be reasonable that the opinions of the family trustees and of some of the elected trustees should be almost exclusively looked at, but it was not so in a case where the public purse supplied the funds. He must differ from the hon. Member when he asserted that the Members of the Government, who were trustees, never attended the meetings of the trustees. He (Sir G. Lewis) had attended many meetings, and so had other Members of the Government, and he maintained that, as the British Museum was supported by grants of public money, the Members of the Government were entitled to a very full hearing upon a question relating to future expenditure for an enlargement or improvement of the Museum. It was simply an appeal to vulgar prejudice to say that the Members of the Government did not discharge their duty in seeking to inform themselves on questions of this sort, and in attending the meetings of the trustees to give their votes on questions of this kind involving a great prospective expenditure of the public money. He could not, therefore, by any moans submit to the censure of the hon. Gentleman against the Members of the Government who attended on the occasion referred to. He was not present at that meeting himself, but if he had been he would undoubtedly have given his vote with the majority. He wished to express his opinion, founded on inquiry, that it was not expedient for the interest of the management of the British Museum that an attempt should be made to purchase land in the immediate neighbourhood, but rather that a portion of the collection should be removed. He would say nothing as to the site to which that removal should take place. The hon. Gentleman, it appeared, thought that Kensington was too far to the west of London. If a more eligible site could be found in the eastern or northern portions of the metropolis, the hon. Gentleman had only to indicate it and it would be fairly considered. But wherever that site might be, he felt satisfied that it would be acquired at much less cost than would attend the purchase of land in the immediate neighbourhood of the Museum. He thought too, that the hon. Gentleman had somewhat exaggerated the danger attendant on the removal of some of the collections. It had been suggested that an additional story should be placed on the existing building which would render an enlargement of the site unnecessary, but on an examination of the plans great difficulties were discovered. All the collections in the top floors would have to be removed to other parts of the Museum, and that would necessitate the closing of the whole of the collections for several years. On the whole, therefore, although the trustees were favourably disposed towards the plan, it was considered that it would be impracticable. The hon. Gentleman adverted to the question of duplicates. He had proposed that duplicates should be removed from the British Museum to district museums to be established in different parts of the country. That also was a question which resolved itself into one of additional expenditure. If that House chose to found a number of district museums, and send the spare specimens in the British Museum to them, it was of course open for them to do so; but it would necessarily involve a considerable expenditure of public money. He thought the House would be mistaken if they supposed they would derive any great advantage from the duplicates of the British Museum. He did not believe from what he had heard that there were any number of duplicates in the natural history collection. With regard to the books, it was his belief that the custom had been to sell what were, strictly speaking, duplicates, of which there was not a great number, except when the King's collection was added to the Museum. No doubt what ordinary persons would call duplicates were not so called at the British Museum. If a person had ten copies of Shakspeare or Milton in his library he would call them duplicates; but the British Museum did not consider copies of our classical authors of different dates as duplicates. It was well known that an old copy of Shakspeare was the most valuable of the whole, and nobody would think of soiling that. If, therefore, district museums wore founded they would have to be provided both in the natural history collections and in books by fresh purchases. With regard to the question of lectures, that also was a question which resolved itself into one of expense, and he was not aware of any institution like the British Museum, either in this country or abroad, at which lectures were regularly delivered—so as to render it a place of education as well as a place of exhibition. If the House wished to engraft on the Museum an institution for lecturing it would be necessary to build lecture-rooms and employ persons competent to deliver lectures, in addition to those already employed. No doubt, gratuitous lectures, assisted by a fine collection, would be attractive and beneficial, but it was a question of expenditure. It would be system of endowed education, and he was not at all blind to the advantages it would confer, but he said again, it was a question of expense. As far as his own personal tastes were concerned, he thought such expenditure should be incurred, but he was bound at the same time to have regard to the state of the public revenue and expenditure, and he would remind them that they already voted £1,000,000 annually for science and art, in addition to the expenditure on the British Museum, an amount that would have to be largely increased. With these remarks he should offer no objection to the Motion.

MR. TURNER

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had properly observed that this was in a great measure a question of expense. It was just on that ground that he (Mr. Turner) took a different view of the matter from the right hon. Gentleman. On the 21st of January last, at a meeting of the trustees of the Museum, a resolution was passed by a majority of one that it was expedient that the natural history collection should be removed, inasmuch as that removal would cost considerably less than by enlarging the Museum by erecting buildings in immediate contiguity with it. He found it had been calculated that the cost of 5½ acres of ground surrounding the Museum, and of the necessary additional buildings, would be £807,000; and that if ground to a similar extent were purchased at Kensington, the expense, with the requisite erections, would amount to £594,000. Now, he submitted that the House and the country were not by any means prepared to incur either the one expense or the other. Though they might commence with the idea of expending nearly £600,000 at Kensington, he believed the cost of removing the collection of objects and of making all the necessary arrangements consequent on, such a change would exceed that sum enormously. He had a tolerably practical knowledge of the working of the Museum from the great interest he took in the institution, and he had ascertained that the cost of the removal alone of the natural history collection could not be estimated below £20,000. The transfer of the fittings containing the specimens, and which were in a measure part of the building itself, could only be effected by enormous additional expense. He believed £30,000 more for that item alone would be a moderate estimate. Then there would be the interval, lasting perhaps for a couple of years, in which the necessary changes were being made, and in which the Museum would be closed to the public. There was the danger, besides, of removing such a vast number of delicate objects, a great many of which were perfectly unique, and injury sustained in those cases would be irreparable. He had been looking to the question of expense, as well as the Home Secretary, and he believed that all that was necessary could be accomplished by purchasing one row of houses on the south-east of Montague Place, the expense of which would not be very great; and on the site so obtained a building could be erected, on the ground floor of which all the heavier articles of antiquity could be placed, while the minor articles in that department might be accommodated in a story above. He believed the idea that immense additional space was required for the natural history collection was an exaggerated one. The larger and bulkier subjects in that department were already represented. That department presented great attractions to the working classes; and, being there, those classes before leaving the Museum were gratified by the sight of other objects, by which their tastes were expanded and elevated. But, separate the collections, and the good resulting in that sense from retaining the Museum in its present neighbourhood would be to a certain extent defeated. Talking of natural history, the governing body was almost fossilizing the superior officers of the Museum by starving them. He was ashamed to think on his visits to the Museum that men of such promise and attainments as the assistants were so miserably remunerated. He was gratified that the Government had conceded the Committee, believing, as he did, that its tendency would be beneficial, and that the result would be to retain the Museum on its present site, without any very great cost to the country.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he held it to be the duty of a great Country to offer facilities for mental culture to the public at large. The cost might be considerable; but so it ought to be, seeing that the object was to elevate and refine the minds of the community in general. Museums ought always to be planted in the centres of great populations, where they could be most easily accessible to the largest numbers. The British Museum was so situated, and he submitted that if the natural history branch was to be located in one part of the metropolis, the library in another, and the antiquities in a third, the usefulness of the institution to the public would be sensibly impaired. Again, he thought that Museums should be open at night, in order to be available to the labouring classes, who could not go to them by day, and he hoped the Committee would recommend that course. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he never heard of lectures given at museums, but they were constantly given at Kensington, and, he understood, were well attended. It was of great importance to have museums in the midst of dense populations. The East India House Museum was in the midst of a large population, and had been attended during the last two years by 200,000 persons. That museum was perfectly unique, being, in fact, a type of all India in its manufacturing, social, ethnological, and physical features, and comprising specimens of all its raw produce; but he regretted to say that it was being broken up, waggon-loads of the natural history departments having been removed to the British Museum, he feared to be buried in its cellars from want of space. He believed that to break up the natural history department of the British Museum would be very injurious, and he hoped that project would not be carried out.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, I agree with those who have said that this is entirely a question of expense. It turns on that alone, and its being a question of expense sufficiently accounts for that difference of opinion which my hon. Friend who introduced the subject criticised as having taken place at the meeting of the trustees to which he referred. Though an official trustee I am not able very frequently to attend the meetings of the trustees; but, understanding that a matter of importance was likely to come on, I thought it my duty to attend on the occasion referred to, not only on behalf of the Government but of the public. And when my hon. Friend draws a contrast between the opinions of the working members of the trust and those who are members of the Government, I wish him to bear in mind this distinction, that the working trustees have no interests to consider except those of the Museum, and what will best accomplish the purposes for which the Museum is established, while the Members of the Government are responsible to this House and the country for any measures that may involve a large expenditure; and we should have been forgetful of our duty if, knowing that a question was likely to be discussed involving great additional expense to the public, we had not attended for the purpose of hearing what arguments might be brought forward, and stating our opinion why such expenses could not properly be incurred. I agree with the hon. Member, that if the question simply were, will you maintain in the present 'Museum everything that is there congregated, and add to it on the spot all the additions that from time to time are collected, and if that can be done without any expense to the public, it would be preferable-to continue the collection and all the additions that may be made on the spot where they now are. No one would propose unnecessarily to subdivide and remove the collection or any part of it to another place. But we were informed that the building as now constituted does not adequately hold the collections on the spot, and therefore will not be sufficient to hold these that from time to time may be added. In point of fact there are various portions of valuable collections sent to the Museum that are stowed away where they are not accessible to those who wish to see them. Then the question arises, if you are to remove some portions of the collection, what portions ought, and what portions ought not to be removed. At the meeting I attended, we came to the conclusion that the books and the antiquities formed that portion of the collection that ought not to be removed. It then followed, as a matter of course, that the portion to be removed must be the natural history collection. The next question was, how can additional space be best obtained. Could it be obtained in immediate contiguity to the present building no doubt that would be better than securing it in some more distant locality. On that occasion we had calculations before us to prove that the difference of expense between getting that space which was assumed to be necessary in immediate contiguity to the present building, and obtaining a site in the suburbs would be upwards of £200,000. Now, no person at all responsible for the expenditure of the public money could hesitate in giving an opinion adverse to an arrangement that would involve an unnecessary expenditure of £200,000. I have no objections to the appointment of the Committee now asked for. I think, on the contrary, that it will be a useful Committee; and if it will show that adequate space can be obtained for the extension of the collection at the Museum, and for accommodating those collections that are not now seen, at a less expense, in the neighbourhood of the Museum than elsewhere, the question will receive due consideration from the House when their Report is made. I cannot think, however, considering that the ground in immediate contiguity to the Museum is covered with large houses, and must be very valuable property, that any given space in that quarter can be as cheaply purchased as the same space elsewhere where the ground is not covered with houses, and, consequently, not so valuable. As to the calculation made by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Turner) that a building at Brompton suitable to the purpose required would cost £590,000, that goes upon the assumption of a building of a very expensive character being erected on the spot. Such a building need not be taken as an absolute necessity, and I do not see that it will be required. A building may be erected there for the reception of the smaller and lighter articles which need not be so expensive. No doubt, it is for the House to consider whether an expense of the magnitude pointed out by the hon. Member ought to be incurred. So also, if Parliament is willing that the crowded state of the Museum shall continue, and that a great portion of the valuable articles shall remain where no one can see them, that is open for them to determine. With regard to the application of these collections at the Museum to purposes of general instruction, I am much inclined to agree with my hon. Friend who made the Motion, that if it could be shown that arrangements could be made, without expense to the public, by which those collections might be made the foundation for instructive lectures, that would be a most desirable object. How far that is possible I cannot say. The observation of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should not be lost sight of, that those persons who are now charged with the care of those things, and have to show them to the public, can hardly be expected to become instructors by giving lectures. Moreover, you cannot get lectures with any advantage unless you have rooms in which the people can be accommodated. That, however, is a proper subject for inquiry by the Committee. I hope the Committee will go into this inquiry with a proper sense of the duty incumbent on them not to recommend any unnecessary expenditure of money, and I am at the same time convinced that if they recommend any such unnecessary expenditure it is not very likely that the House will adopt their suggestions.

MR. JACKSON

said, that whilst advocating the maintenance of the Museum as a great national establishment, he strongly objected to any of the expense now contemplated being thrown upon the country generally. He concurred in the opinion that the officers of the Museum were badly paid for their services. He thought it was a disgrace to the country that they should be so badly remunerated, and he hoped that they would be better paid for the future. He did not, however, think he was called on to vote away the money of his constituents in buildings to adorn the City of London. By a small rate, under Mr. Ewart's Act, they maintained an institution of a cognate kind, and the metropolis by a small rate was quite able to pay the expense of any enlargement of the British Museum.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he could only say, in answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Turner) in respect to the payment of the officers of the Museum, that he was unwilling that it should go forth uncontradicted that those persons were paid in a manner that constituted a grievance and a hardship. He differed altogether from that doctrine; and was prepared to dispute, point by point, and inch by inch, the proposition laid down by the hon. Gentleman. He contended that, considering the duties they performed, that the persons alluded to were as well paid as any other class of public servants similarly employed. If that doctrine of the hon. Member for Manchester were to prevail, and a great and sweeping increase in the salaries of these officers were made, lie warned the House that the increase must be extended to a multitude of other departments, whose claims were quite as good. He did not hesitate to say that the offices in the Museum were exceedingly agreeable in kind, and the duties to be performed exceedingly moderate in amount. Those points were always taken into consideration in determining the question of supply and demand of this description of labour. In reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Newcastle-undor-Lyne (Mr. Jackson), if that hon. Gentleman could ensure that none of those charges would be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should be most willing to leave the question of the salaries of the officers alluded to, to be settled between themselves and the ratepayers. And he thought he knew pretty well how bodies of ratepayers would settle that question. But the upshot would be, that half the hon. Gentleman's scheme would be adopted, and the other half would fall to the ground. The increase of the salaries would take effect; but the proposal to pay the salaries by local expenditure would fall to the ground.

Motion agreed to.

Select Committee appointed, To inquire how far, and in what way, it may be desirable to find increased space for the exten- sion and arrangement of the various collections of the British Museum, and the best means of rendering them available for the promotion of Science and Art.