SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. (Hansard, 16 July 1861)

LORD HENRY LENNOX
said, it would be in the recollection of the few Members present on the occasion when a similar Vote was brought forward towards the close of last Session, that he had called attention to the repeated assurances given by various Committees, as well as by a Royal Commission, that the time had arrived when the Royal Academy ought to vacate the national building in Trafalgar Square. The noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown did him the honour of replying to the observations which he then made, and sketched out the different removals which the public requirements had compelled the Royal Academy to make already; he admitted that the time had arrived when the national collection had grown to such an extent that it could not longer continue to occupy the building jointly; but the difficulty was to provide the Royal Academy with suitable lodgings at the least possible expense to the country. At the same time he proceeded to ask the House to vote a sum of £17,000, with the simple object of making the Royal Academy more comfortable in its temporary quarters. What had been done could 1011 not be undone, but he felt that he was warranted in the objections which he took at the time to the proposed expenditure, and the objects for which that outlay was to be made. From the steps which had been erected—they did not deserve the name of a staircase—a room was entered which he would not criticise, because he believed his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Works was not prepared to defend it; but those who favoured Mr. Pennethorne's plan contended that for the money spent two rooms had been added—one, the new room, as it was called—in the National Gallery, and the other the sculpture room in the Royal Academy. The new room, as far as it went, was a very good room, expect that it was too narrow for its length, and that the entrance was also narrow and obscure; but, in addition to the fact of its being built across the entrance-hall, which was absolutely necessary as an accessory to the original plan of a portico, there was no possibility of egress from it into the Royal Academy. The only channel, a tiny passage which existed during the alterations, had been shut up, and it would require a large expenditure of public money to open a proper communication. A plan had been submitted by Captain Fowke, embracing a suite of rooms which, when the time arrived for turning out the Royal Academy, would not have required one shilling outlay. The noble Lord the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer were at first favourable to that design, though they abandoned it afterwards on pecuniary grounds; but he was assured by those competent to form an opinion on the subject that the additional expenses which would be required to establish a communication between the existing National Gallery and the other part of the building would more that exceed the original estimate proposed by Captain Fowke. In order to obtain a proper conception of the room in which the sculpture was exhibited, hon. Members must imagine themselves in the street facing the building. They had first to mount a flight of steps, by which they arrived at the basement or floor, and that had been no sooner reached than they were invited to descend again—imitating very closely the action of the squirrel in his cage. It was but recently that sculpture had been placed in groups, the original intention being that it should occupy particular niches; considerable differences 1012 of opinion consequently existed with regard to the most advantageous mode of displaying works of that description, but he ventured to affirm that in no other country in Europe was there a sculpture gallery where the first view obtained of the sculpture was from above, the figures standing between the spectator and the light, with their backs towards him. He should not have felt it necessary to direct attention to the subject were it not that a rumour had reached him, which the proceedings in "another place" tended very much to corroborate, that before, or probably after, the close of the Session, an additional outlay would be sanctioned by the Government in connection with the building, with the object of fulfilling the provisions of the Turner will, which, if not complied with in a period of ten years expiring next November, were to become null and void. Several of the clauses in the will in favour of the relatives of Mr. Turner had been set aside, and he would ask whether the only clause to be rigidly insisted on was that binding the State to incur a heavy outlay in placing his pictures "in a room or rooms in the National Gallery?" He ventured to think it would be found almost impossible to carry out all the testamentary intentions of that gentleman. Our collection of the works of old masters included about 300 pictures. Mr. Turner left to the nation 324 works, of which 104 were very large pictures. There were a great number of drawings, of which some were so prurient that they could not be exhibited, and others were so unfinished that their exhibition would rather detract from than add to the fame of Mr. Turner. He should himself be glad to see a selection made from these works according to the plan which was adopted in similar cases in France. He saw that last night the Lord President moved in "another place," for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider what could be done with the Turner and Vernon collections and similar bequests; but so many commissions and Committees had reported upon the National Gallery, without any attention being paid to their reports, that he could not think that that Committee had been appointed with a view to the direct guidance of Her Majesty's Government upon the subject. An Act of Parliament which was passed in the year 1854 or 1855 authorized the Government to dispose of works of art left to the nation, and, in fact, to set aside the terms of bequest; and, 1013 therefore, he did not see why a Committee of the House of Lords was required to settle the question. The reason why the trustees of the National Gallery could not deal with it was, that although learned, able, liberal and enlightened man, they were perfectly irresponsible, and therefore, did not possess the confidence of the public. That was a matter which must be considered ere long, and in his opinion the National Gallery must be placed, like other public property, under the management of some one who would be responsible to Parliament, and have a seat either in one House or the other. He should be told that all that was very well, but should be asked, "What are you to do with the Turners?" They must either remove form the National Gallery pictures of second-rate character and doubtful authenticity, and replace them by Turner's, or they must devote to the reception of the Turner collection who rooms of the National Gallery, to the exclusion of the Royal Academy. Last year, when he made some remarks with reference to the National Gallery, he received a number of anonymous letters, complaining that he had charged the Royal Academicians with every offence under the sun. One letter, which was written in a very facetious style, alluded to some of his ancestors, and was signed—he hoped it was a forgery—"R.A." No one could appreciate more than he did the immense services which the Royal Academy had rendered to art in this country, and he should be the last person to speak slightingly of a body which included such men as Landseer, Eastlake, Faed, and other great artists. All he desired was that the Royal Academy should be removed to Burlington House, which was purchased for the nation about the year 1854, at an expense of £5,000 a year, and which was now occupied by the London University and the Royal Society, who last winter refused to allow the Fine Arts Club to use their rooms once or twice a year. That removal could be effected without much cost to the nation, because last year the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Works, who, like himself, not expecting this Vote to come Vote to come on, was not then in his place, stated that the Royal Academy was quite willing to erect a gallery on the site of Burlington House at their own cost. He implored the Government to give an assurance that, no matter what might be the Report of the Committee of the other House, they would ask 1014 for no Vote this Session, nor would they during the recess authorize the spending of a shilling, or the laying of a brick for the erection of a building for the Vernon and Turner Galleries. The reason he asked for this assurance was that Lord St. Leonard's had made no secret that his desire was that a gallery should be erected for the Turner pictures in direct communication with the National Gallery, and that a grant should be made for its erection. He asked the Committee to consider what the amount of the Vote would be for the erection of a new building. The mere alteration of certain rooms last year cost £17,000, and common sense told them that to acquire the site of St. Martin's Workhouse, and to erect an entirely new gallery from the foundation upwards, could not cost less than from £80,000 to £100,000. He knew from his experience in the House that whenever a Vote more monstrous than usual was required, it was the practice for the Minister in charge of it to inform the House that so much money had already been spent, that the public faith was pledged, and that, therefore, the House must agree to the completion of the work and grant the Vote. It was to prevent that that he now sought an assurance from the Government that they would not proceed further in the matter without the sanction of the House.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:
Sir, the noble Lord took a great interest in this subject last year, and was one of the advocates of Captain Fowkes' plan for the alteration of the present building. That was a very good plan, and, had it been carried out, a very handsome building would have been constructed at a considerable expense. The plan we adopted was one of a much more limited character, and effected a great improvement in the interior, without incurring a heavy outlay in altering the elevation of the front. Many people may think that a more handsome building might have been erected on the spot where the National Gallery stands, which is certainly a very commanding position, where a fine piece of architecture on a much larger scale would have been very effective. The gallery is there, however, and the question is whether it is sufficiently commodious for the purpose for which it was intended, or whether it will be necessary to pull it down and erect another at a large expense? My opinion is that we had better take advantage of what we have. The alterations which have been 1015 made, though they have not met the approval of the noble Lord, are reckoned great improvements by the public. In the first place, we have added to the accommodation of the gallery a large and convenient room, in which the pictures may be seen exceedingly well. This increase in space has enabled the pictures to be properly classified, according to the different schools and periods, so that the collection is now instructive as well as pleasing to the eye of the connoisseur. The noble Lord apprehends that if the Royal Academy were removed from this building a very large expense would be necessary to effect a communication between that portion of the building which is devoted to the National Gallery and that which is occupied by the Academy. The noble Lord is quite mistaken in that respect. There is a door-way communicating between the two parts of the building, which could be thrown open at a very small expense. Then, as to the sculpture-room, I do not mean that it is a place which would have been built intentionally for that purpose. But it is, at least, vastly superior to the little black hole in which the statuary used to be displayed. These changes have been effected at a very moderate expense—not much more, I think, than £15,000, and in a very short time. No doubt it is intended that the Royal Academy shall go elsewhere, and when that takes place a very great addition will be made to the space applicable to the national collection. The noble Lord has talked of "other arrangements;" but even supposing that the Royal Academy gone, and the rooms which they now occupy added to the space available for the public pictures, yet there is reason to expect that in the course of time even that will not be sufficient. As the Collection now stands, the Turner Pictures, if they were brought in, would nearly, if not entirely, fill the space occupied by the Academy. The question would then arise, how can the accommodation be extended. Plans have been proposed by which the present building might be enlarged at a comparatively small expense. That is a matter for future consideration, but, of course, the noble Lord may rest assured that no such operation will be commenced without the previous sanction of the House. Burlington House had been suggested as a site on which the Royal Academy may construct their building, and I am inclined to think that it would be a very good situation. The question is 1016 whether the front should be towards Piccadilly or in another direction. Accommodation may be provided there amply sufficient not only for the Royal Academy, but also for those scientific bodies which, although the noble Lord spoke of them rather slightingly, are entitled to the protection and encouragement of the Government. Highly proper and expedient as it may be to give assistance to art, yet I trust that science will always be deemed worthy of public support in this country. It it obvious that while societies of artists may raise money for the exhibition of their pictures, scientific bodies cannot procure funds by the same means, and are often unable to provide the means of carrying on their meetings and investigations, unless the public assist them by providing some place of meeting. I am sure that the House will share that feeling; and that if the site of Burlington House should be held applicable for the Royal Academy ample room will be given both to art and science.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, it must be owned that the English were the most curious people in the world in dealing with their national art collections, for they were always admitting that their present arrangement was wrong, and inquiring how it might be set right, and yet nothing whatever was done. Last year £15,000 had been voted for the improvement of the National Gallery, but the only alteration made, as far as he could see, was the addition of an extra room, of which all he could say was that it might form a very handsome hall for a railway station. It was plain and unornamental, and almost every third-rate town in Italy had a much finer one for the exhibition of works of art. It was a great pity that so much valuable space should have been wasted by the construction of a couple of staircases, one leading to the Royal Academy and the other to the collection of old pictures, when one would be quite sufficient as soon as the Royal Academy is removed. At the present moment the National Gallery was already too crowded, and many of the pictures by the old masters were hung too high. They had abundant materials for a splendid national collection of pictures in this country, and proper provision should be made for its accommodation. At Hampton Court last year pictures of great value were going to ruin. He found some of them absolutely falling off the canvass. He understood that this year the restorers had been let loose there, so that he supposed 1017 there was some alteration; but there were pictures at Hampton Court which ought to be sent to the National Gallery. The really valuable part of the collection of Pictures did not form the attraction at Hampton Court. From personal observation he was able to say that that was the case with the cartoons, which, in his opinion, ought to be removed to the National Gallery as most important objects of study for our young artists. Then, as to Dulwich, there were many pictures of the Flemish school there which were wanted in the Nation Gallery. There were pictures in the National Gallery which he should like to see sent to Dulwich, and pictures at Dulwich which he should like to see sent to the National Gallery. They had no classification of schools and epoch in the present arrangement of the old pictures in Trafalgar Square. No man in the country had a greater knowledge of art, or had greater taste and judgment, then Sir Charles Eastlake; but, unfortunately, there was the trustee system, and as long as they had it they would not have a good gallery in the country. If there was proper space the national collection would be very much increased by bequests. They did not want any great additional expense. What they wanted was judgment. He hoped that there would be no more patching, but that some definite plan would be acted on to increase the National Gallery, and render it worthy of the country. The Committee were aware that many plans for affording additional room had been from time to time put forward. He had suggested one which had received the approbation of his hon. Friend the late Sir Charles Barry, and which he believed to be the best. It was to raise on the British Museum another story. His opinion was that by the adoption of that plan they might have the finest series of galleries in the world—exceeding in extent those of the Louvre and the Vatican. At all events, he trusted that some plan would be adopted which would put an end to the system of having the national collection scattered about the Metropolis.

§ COLONEL SYKES
remarked, that he was agreeably surprised by, and decidedly satisfied with, the alteration effected during the last twelve months in the National Gallery.

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
observed, that he thought the nation had not got a quid pro quo. The accommodation afforded for the exhibition of the national collection of pictures was not value for the 1018 money expended in providing it. If another story were added to the British Museum it would be best applied to affording additional room for the rapidly increasing collection of books; but it had been, on very strong grounds, suggested to add another story to the National Gallery for the purpose of affording additional space for pictures. The soot of London did not ascend above a certain height, and, therefore, if the National Gallery had a higher elevation, the pictures would be taken out of a very deleterious atmosphere. It was monstrous to provide accommodation for the Royal Academy when they wanted it only for three months in the year. That year's exhibition would now soon be over, and, as they had to find an asylum for the Turner pictures before next November, he hoped they would be deposited in those rooms. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to ask for any grant that Session towards alterations in the National Gallery?

§ MR. W. EWART
said, that the sooner the Royal Academy had their own rooms the better. They would then enter into free competition with other societies, and would, he believed, on that principle, effect greater good to the Arts than at present. The original design of the National Gallery contemplated extension in the rear, and there was space enough in that direction to form one of the finest galleries in the would.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, the Committee must be very much obliged to his noble Friend for having brought forward this question. He agreed very much in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Augustus Smith), and they must all concur in the observation of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard), that the National Gallery was either now or would soon be required for the purposes of the national collections alone. The Committee had for some years fully agreed that the Royal Academy must go elsewhere, and he should like to know from the Government what chance there was of that event taking place. Three or four years ago negotiations were entered into for a transfer of the Academy to Burlington House. The negotiations were then in a very satisfactory state. No opposition was raised by the Royal Academy. They were ready to erect buildings if a site was given for the Purpose. Other societies who had claims on the consideration of the Government were also to be accommodated. He was 1019 the last person to say that the £15,000 had not been well expended; but beyond that improvement nothing had been done with a view to removing the Royal Academy, or applying the site of Burlington House to the object for which it was purchased. As it was admitted that the accommodation obtained by the expenditure of the £15,000 was not sufficient, it was important for the House of Commons to know whether the negotiations previously commenced with the Royal Academy were still in progress, or whether they had entirely ceased, and there was no probability, after all, of the Royal Academy being transferred from Trafalgar Square to Burlington House? If the noble Lord at the head of the Government could give an assurance that the negotiations were in progress, and that some definite scheme was on foot for applying the space acquired at Burlington House to those objects, for which a large sum of money had been expended in its purchase, it would give satisfaction not only to those hon. Members who took an interest in all questions affecting the progress of science and art, but to all classes of the community.

§ MR. TITE
said, he had seen the sketch of Mr. Pennethorne, and the improvement already effected was part of a complete plan, which, when carried out, would give the nation a gallery neither disgraceful to them nor discreditable to the architect. He thought that the £15,000 had been well spent, and that great additional accommodation had been obtained by that means. One advantage of the discussions on the subject was that all were now agreed that Trafalgar Square was the proper site for the National Gallery. He remembered sitting on a Committee to inquire into the subject, and he rather thought that their Report was in favour of removing the pictures; but the common sense of the community had prevailed, and it was now admitted on all hands that the interests of science and art would be best consulted by the national pictures being collected on that one spot. He hoped that the Turner Gallery would form part of the national collection, and that there would be a gallery representing the English School. If a site were given to the Royal Academy at Burlington House nothing would be easier in an architectural point of view than to erect a building which would be a credit to the nation.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, he hoped that if a Committee were to be appointed next 1020 year it would be composed of hon. Gentlemen who had some special knowledge of art, and who were independent of the Government.

LORD HENRY LENNOX
said, he must press for an assurance that no further demand for money for building purposes would be made that Session. In the remarks which he had made he had not had the slightest intention of saying anything in detraction of the usefulness of the scientific bodies. The noble Lord had misunderstood him on that point.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, he wished to ask why the £8,670 remaining from last year's grant for the National Gallery was not deducted from the amount of the present Vote?

§ MR. LAYARD
said, he hoped that the trustees of the National Gallery would not be called upon to expend all the money voted in any particular year within the twelve months, which would sometimes lead to the purchase of common instead of really valuable pictures.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he was not aware that there was any intention to propose an additional grant.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, he would remind the noble Lord that he had asked what was the state of the negotiations between the Government and the Royal Academy with reference to the transfer of the latter to Burlington House?

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
was not aware of the exact state of the negotiations, but the Royal Academy was prepared to go to Burlington House when they were summoned to do so; but some alterations in the building would be required, and he believed the plans had not yet been prepared.

MR. PEEL
said, that, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Lambeth, he had to observe that the balance in hand for the Purchase of pictures was only £3,000, and as had been remarked by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard), it would be very unwise to compel the trustees of the National Gallery to expend the whole of the Vote for Pictures in each year.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £2,000, British Historical Portrait Gallery.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, he had always opposed this Vote and he should continue to do so. He would ask for an explanation of the object for which the gallery was formed. It could not be to promote art, for the 1021 trustees set out with the declaration that they did not care how bad the picture was so long as it was a portrait of somebody notorious in our history. Neither could it be to show respect to the memory of the persons who were exhibited, for the 0persons was so long as they fulfilled the same condition. There would soon be a demand for a building in which to keep these portraits. He thought the House was already expending too much money in the promotion of arts and sciences. He would move that the grant be not allowed.

§ MR. SLANEY
said, he entirely differed from the hon. Member, as he thought the grant one that would be sanctioned by the great body of the working classes. He regretted the collection was placed in so obscure a building, but when it was opened to the public, and it was known for the purpose of collecting the portraits of personages whose names were illustrious in the history of the country, he felt sure that none of our more public collections would be more popular. [Mr. SPOONER: Why, Nell Gwynne is one of the Portraits!] He must certainly admit that some of those whose portraits might find a place in it were not of that high moral character that might be wished. However, he fully believed that the more the public were familiarized with works of art the better it would be for the public taste and the public happiness.

§ MR. SCLATER BOOTH
said, he would recommend the Government to put a stop to the purchases of portraits until they had a proper building to put them in. If the last Government had continued in office the Royal Academy would be by that time in their own palace without the expenditure of a shilling on the part of the public That negotiation had, however, been put a stop to—no one knew why, although it was clear the space was wanted for the National Gallery. He was ashamed that there was no suitable building belonging to the country in which so interesting a collection as the national portraits could be placed.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he though that that infant collection had made fair progress during the short time that it existed. The Royal Academy understood that it would be their duty to vacate the National Gallery whenever the public convenience required it, when the House had made up its mind as 1022 to the disposal of Burlington House, and when the National Gallery had been enlarged on an adequate scale to allow of future extension. The occupation of the first portion of the site of Burlington House by the Royal Academy would, however, dispose of the whole question of the employment of that side. This was a question which ought not to be compromised until it had been considered as a whole.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, that no answer had yet been given to the simple question— what were the Government about to do with respect to moving the Royal Academy from Trafalgar Square? The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said the Royal Academy would vacate the National Gallery whenever public convenience required it. But the Public convenience required them to go for some years; and, as the public convenience required them to go, and the Royal Academy were ready to go, he wanted to know why they had not gone? The Committee ought to be told whether there was any real intention to propose any plans which would have the effect of accomplishing the transference of the Royal Academy from Trafalgar Square.

§ MR. LAYARD
said, he did not believe the public grudged the expenditure, but they had a right to know what was done with the money, and why the pictures were kept in a private house, where they were virtually inaccessible to people at large. Why was not the collection added to the National Gallery or placed in some of the buildings at Kensington?

§ MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH
said, he would remind the Committee that there were many bare walls in the lobbies and corridors of the Houses of Parliament where these pictures might be hung. If the lady whose portrait had been alluded to was not thought a proper character to hang in the corridors she might be put in the tea-room. He did not grudge the £2,000 for the gallery, but he grudged the separate establishment, and he should oppose any banishment to Kensington.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, that as he appeared to be alone in his view of the question, he should not trouble the committee to divide, but would content himself with protesting against the public money being wasted on such tomfoolery. It was all very well to say that the people would not grudge the money. Perhaps those living on the spot would not. But the Committee ought to think of the people from the 1023 Land's-end to John O'Groats, who had not a chance of seeing these pictures, or of benefiting from the expenditure. The Portrait Gallery neither served for the promotion of art nor for the cultivation of a healthy moral feeling, for the Commissioners said they did not care how bad was the quality of the picture or the character of the person depicted.

§ MR. CONINGHAM
said, he believed that, if proper arrangements were made —that was, if the Royal Academy was removed from the building in Trafalgar Square, and a portion of the building appropriated to the collection—all the necessary accommodation might be afforded there. In any case, he hoped Parliament would not allow the collection to be removed to Kensington. The pictures of the nation ought to be placed in Trafalgar Square; but at present they were scattered all over the town.

MR KER
said, that a more miserable set of portraits could not be produced than those in Great George Street. They were totally unworthy of the collection.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £3,000, Purchases from Soltykoff Collection.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, it was unsatisfactory that these purchases should take place while no one knew where they were to be put. He complained of the arrangement which they seemed to be getting into of scattering these collections all over the town.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he agreed that the arrangement was objectionable, but it was one which they were not getting into but getting out of. At present, objects of mediaeval art were divided between the British Museum and Kensington. It was possible that those two establishments might authorise rival bidders to compete at auctions, but when the question of the Soltykoff collection was brought before the Treasury they declined then to enter into the question whether any purchases which might be made should go to the British Museum or the Treasury, but determined to treat the purchases as made by the nation. In his opinion, it was unreasonable to maintain a mediaeval department at the British Museum and he thought the Kensington collection ought to be the single collection of objects of this kind.

§ MR. CONINGHAM
said, he hoped that the truth of the proverb ce n'est que le premier pas qui coute was not about to be 1024 exemplified, and that the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not lead to the breaking up of the British Museum.

LORD HENRY LENNOX
said, he could bear testimony to the sterling merits of the various articles purchased from the Soltykoff collection, and to the marvellously cheap rate at which they were obtained by the Government.
Vote agreed to, as were also
(4.) £6,620, Magnetic Observations Abroad.
(5.) £500, Royal Geographical Society.
(6.) £1,000, Royal Society.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
, at twelve o'clock, moved that the Chairman report Progress.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he understood that the right hon. Member opposite intended to discuss the Colonial Votes, which would be next taken.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
said, he was perfectly ready to proceed.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.
The following Vote was then agreed to.
(7.) £4,300, Bermudas (Civil Establishment).
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £6,278, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Ecclesiastical Establishment of the British North American Provinces, to the 31st day of March, 1862.

MR. WHITE
said, he must object to the item of £2,990 for the ecclesiastical establishments of Canada, as the prosperity of that colony had passed into a proverb. Her revenue was upwards of £2,000,000 a year, and she was, therefore, rich enough to pay for her own ecclesiastical institutions. He did not like the Vote for Nova Scotia, but he would admit that Nova Scotia was a poorer colony. However, he should move to reduce the Vote by £2,990, the amount asked for Canada.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
said, he had intended to call attention to the amount of the colonial expenditure on going into Committee of Supply, but under the circumstances he would not detain the House many minutes while he rapidly glanced at the mischief involved in the Estimates before them. He considered that expenditure of the taxes of one country in the administration of another was as unprecedented in the history of the world, as it 1025 was mischievous to the best interests of the colonies themselves. He did not complain so much of the burden laid upon the British taxpayers, who were perfectly able to bear much more if just cause were shown; but he objected to the principle of the existing system—the colonies became suckers rather than off-shoots, and diminished the aggregate power of this country by a process of subtraction from instead of multiplication of its internal resources. The largest portion of the English expenditure for the colonies was the military expenditure, but he had no opportunity of bringing that matter before the Select Committee on the subject had reported. He would, however, call attention to the Report of that Committee, which contained many remarkable suggestions, and which was the more remarkable, as it showed, what, from his experience of the Hose, he was led to believe was a rare circumstance, an instance of hon. Members coming out of Committee with different opinions from those with which they went in. Nothing he believed had operated more to bring about this result than the evidence of prosperous colonies having troops and pay from England, for local purposes of their own, or even merely to support a Governor independently of his local legislation in some special policy over which we had no control. The amount voted for the civil expenditure in colonies was less than for their military expenditure but it was by no means unimportant, and though the amount included in the present Estimate could not be reduced by more than £1,00,000 a year, yet as long as one shilling of it remained it was like poison to the empire both at home and abroad, and ought to be eradicated as quickly as possible. He had pressed that consideration on the attention of the House before, and likewise on the particular notice of the hon. Member for Birmingham, and he was surprised to find that that hon. Member had, at a public meeting during the last recess, endeavoured to reconcile his habitual absence from Committees of Supply with his diatribes against a wasteful public expenditure by saying that the Committees only attempted to economize in thousands, attempted to economize in thousands, whereas he wished to deal with millions. He (Mr. Adderley) must, however, submit that such a plea was absurd as it was unstatesmanlike. He should like 1026 to know, too, what was the use of the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming down to the House, Session after Session, and complaining of the extravagance of the public expenditure, if he took no practical steps to check its amount in such an instance as this? It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman was in the position of a man throwing gold into the sea while bewailing his poverty. He would support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite on the Vote for the clergy of North America. What reason on earth had they to provide the salaries for the Bishop and Archdeacons of the colonies? He knew it would be said that there was an honourable understanding that the salaries of these clergymen should be paid; but he would remind the Committee that these salaries were originally paid out of lands which were now given up to the colony, and it ought to have been provided at the time of the transfer that these salaries should be paid. He was reminded of what happened to a right rev. friend of his own—the Bishop of New Zealand. The right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) was accustomed year after year to bring forward the case of Bishop Selwyn's salary, and this House's refusal to pay it, as a positive breach of faith; but that right rev. Prelate had over and over again assured him that he did not wish the point to be urged; that he would rather be without payment from the Parliament of Great Britain, and derive his income from the bishopric itself. For his own part he thought Bishop Selwyn was right; and that those payments were as injurious to the Church as the military expenditure was to the colonies. Was ever a Church on earth so supported? There were instances of Churches flourishing on local endowments, and there were instances of Churches flourishing on the voluntary principle; but when was it ever heard before that a Church in one country throve on the finances of another? They were accustoming the Church to lean on support that would one day fail them, while they were drying up the real sources of her strength. He did not expect to remove the Vote at once; he knew that was impossible, for the money was pledged; but he gave notice that, if no other hon. Member took up the subject, he would early next Session call attention to the matter, and he hoped the House would then determine to put a complete stop to this expenditure.
1027 Motion made, and Question proposed, That the item of £2,990, on account of Ecclesiastical Commissioner's Establishments in Canada, be omitted from the proposed Vote.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, he thought he should be consulting the wishes of the Committee by not entering at that moment into the question of the military expenditure connected with the colonies. He might observe, however, that the result of the Committee alluded to by the hon. Gentleman had been to prove that the expenditure, amounting to £4,000,000 and upwards, which it was stated was the expenditure on account of the colonies, had been enormously exaggerated, and that a very great portion of the expenditure was not on account of the colonies properly so called, but on account of the naval and military stations which the country had to maintain for its own imperial purposes. It was impossible to apply to the military system of the colonies any self-acting and unbending rule. The Vote in question was an expiring Vote, inherited from former years, and was the execution of a pledge on the part of the Crown. That pledge, however, did not go beyond the lives of the persons to whom it was made, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no idea on the part of the Government of assisting systematically Canada, or any other colony in the maintenance of her clergy.

§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD
said, that while entirely concurring with his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Adderley) in the opinion that the colonies ought as a general rule to pay themselves the salaries of their public officers, he thought it was undesirable he should seize the opportunity presented by the present Vote to express opinions which wore the appearance of casting a doubt on the liability of this country to perform the pledges which were entered into with respect to it.

§ MR. G. W. HOPE
said, that the purpose for which he rose was to call attention to the distinction between imperial and colonial purposes. His right hon. Friend talked of taking off £100,000; but he (Mr. Hope) did not know where it was to come from. Bermuda was a naval station, and British Columbia could hardly yet be left to its own resources. There then remained the West Indies, where the only person responsible to the country was the Governor; and he was of opinion that that official should not be left dependent for his income on the colony. As to the 1028 colonies on the coast of Africa they were maintained for the suppression of the slave trade. British Caffraria was perhaps a more questionable item; but on the whole he did not see how any portion of the Vote could be got rid of.

MR. WHITE
said, he would withdraw the Amendment.
Motion, by leave withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(9.) £1,600, Indian Department (Canada).

§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD
said, he thought it ridiculous that, year after year, we should be called on to Vote blankets for the Indians.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, that the Vote was much smaller than it had been, and would probably cease in the course of a few years.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) £8,600, to complete the sum for British Columbia.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
said, he took objection to that Vote. In particular he objected to the charge for the Royal Engineers. They had been sent to survey the land, and land surveys should be paid for by the colony. If they were intended for defence the number was ridiculous. He hoped that in a few months they should hear of British Columbia meeting its own civil expenditure. He also thought that some explanation ought to be given of the item of £2,000 for contingencies. He did not see why this country ought to be called upon to contribute to the civil expenditure of British Columbia.

MR. CHICHESTER FROTESCUE
said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that this country ought not to be required to contribute to the civil expenditure of its colonies; but it should be borne in mind that the colony was as yet only an infant colony. The greater part of the Vote was for the additional pay to the Royal Engineers, owing to the high price of provisions there. The Vote would not be of a permanent, but purely of a temporary character.

MR. WHITE
said, he should oppose the Vote, on the ground that when the colony of British Columbia was established, the right hon. Member for Hertfordshire promised distinctly that it was to be a self-supporting colony. With a proper title any money that was necessary could be got from capitalists in the city.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
explained that if the cost of the Royal 1029 Engineers were left out of the question British Columbia did at the present moment bear its own expenditure.
Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes:—
(11.) £14,728, Governors, &c., West Indies and other Colonies.
(12.) £5,706, Stipendiary Justices (West India Colonies and Mauritius).
(13.) £9,630, to complete the sum for Civil Establishments (Western Coast of Africa).
(14.) £5,954, Saint Helena.
(15.) £700, Orange River Territory.
(16.) £15,000, British Kaffraria.
(17.) £960, Heligoland.
(18.) £2,986, to complete the sum for the Falkland Islands.
(19.) £2,914, to complete the sum for Labuan.
(20.) £500, Pitcairn's Islanders.
(21.) £700, to complete the sum for the Fiji Islands Inquiry.
(22.) £10,090, Emigration Board.