HC Deb 05 June 1862 vol 167 cc441-65

House in Committee.

MR. MASSEY in the Chair.

(1.) £795, Commissioners of Education (Ireland).

(2). Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £5,473, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for the University of London.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

called attention to the increase on the Vote of last year. There was nothing on the face of the Estimates to show the items in respect of which the increase had arisen.

MR. PEEL

said, that the increase in the number of examiners and exhibitions had led to a necessary increase of expense. For instance, there had been appointed two Examiners in Forensic Medicine.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

moved that the Vote should be reduced by £473, making it £5,000.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

thought it would be best to put the University on a permanent footing. Since the House had been in Committee he had counted the number of Members in the House, and found there were six hon. Members on the Opposition benches, four on the Government benches, and—including himself, but not including the economical Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld)— there were below the gangway six "guardians of the public purse."

MAJOR O'REILLY

said, that as an old member of the London University he would defend the Vote. The number of students who passed the last matriculation was nearly 400.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

objected to the appointment of two Examiners in Forensic Medicine, and hoped the office would be suppressed.

MR. BAXTER

objected to this haphazard method of striking off a few hundred pounds from a Vote. Such a course could lead to no useful result; and if the hon. Gentleman went to a division, he would vote against his Amendment.

MR. J. R. MILLS

thought there could be nothing more pettifogging than to object to a Vote of £500 for a University which was in association with so many colleges throughout the country, and which was conferring so much advantage in promoting the education of the middle classes.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

believed that his hon. Friend was a member of the Council of the University. [Mr. J. R. MILLS: Not now.] His object was to prevent the constant yearly additions which were made to these Votes. Surely that was an intelligible principle. He saw an item of £120 for the salary of a new officer—an assistant clerk. Now, the salary of the Registrar had been settled after correspondence at £800; and it now seemed as if, by establishing this place of assistant, Parliament was asked to make up the salary of the Registrar to a larger amount. He saw no reason why this Vote should not remain at £5,000.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, he was not at all surprised that the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) should support this Vote; for the next Vote was for the Scottish Universities, which it was proposed to increase from £16,000 to £20,000. ["Order, order!"] His hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, a distinguished economist, called him to order. [Mr. WHITE: We have not come to that Vote yet.] But no doubt the hon. Member for Montrose, in advocating this small increase for the London University, had an eye to the Vote for the Scotch Universities. His hon. Friend (Mr. Baxter), like his hon. Friend (Mr. White), was a distinguished economist, and was always for reducing Galway contracts and Votes of that kind. Unfortunately, the Committee had not the advantage, now they were voting money in Supply, of the presence of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), or the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), or the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), or the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), or the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith), or even of the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, who so distinguished himself the other night. The only Members on the Opposition Benches from whose presence the Committee could expect to derive advantage at the present moment, were the noble Lord (Lord Robert Montagu) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole). He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. A. Smith) had propounded an intelligible principle when he said, "Let the University have a certain sum, keep to it, and dispose of it as it pleases." On that understanding he was quite ready to Vote even £20,000 to the Scotch Universities.

MR. BAXTER

could excuse the imputation of motives by the hon. Member who had just spoken, on account of the extreme ignorance he had displayed on the subject. It happened that he was almost the only Scotch Member who opposed the increase of the Vote to the Scotch Universities.

MR. DILLWYN

could not think his hon. Friend the Member for Truro was justly liable to the imputation of acting in a pettifogging spirit. He should support the Amendment.

Motion made, and Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for the University of London.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 8; Noes 41: Majority 32.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(3.) £20,161, Grants to Scottish Universities.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

took occasion to call attention to the large increase under that head which had within the last few years taken place.

MR. PEEL

said, the whole of the Vote did not apply directly to the Scotch Universities. Part of it was for the Royal Society, and the Royal Observatory and Botanic Garden; also for compensations to retired professors, and for the examination of parish schoolmasters; in all £6,000 must be deducted from the total amount of the Vote on account of those institutions. It was true, however, that an increase in the sum asked on their account had taken place of late years, an increase which was the result of recent legislation, in accordance with which a Commission had been appointed, which was empowered to nominate new Professors as well as to raise the salaries of those already in existence.

Vote agreed to.

(4) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding 42,312, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for the Queen's University in Ireland.

MR. HENNESSY

took occasion to ask what was the precise number of those who had obtained the degree of Master of Arts in the Sessions of 1860 and 1861? He found, he said, in the list of those who had obtained that degree in 1860 the name of a gentleman who appeared to have obtained it in a previous year, and who was Professor in a College at Belfast. He also found among the Masters of Arts the name of a gentleman who had acted with the right hon. Baronet in promoting this scheme, and he wanted to know whether the same person was secretary to the University? It must strike the Committee that the return of students could not be quite accurate. He found that the seven gentlemen he had just referred to competed for honours, and, with the exception of two officers and one other, each received a gold medal and money exhibition. The case of the Bachelors of Arts was more extraordinary. In 1860 twenty-four gentlemen got the degree of Bachelor of Arts, and upon that occasion twenty-nine gold medals were given to these twenty-four gentlemen. Notwithstanding this, the Chief Secretary for Ireland told the students, in a speech, that they were not rewarded with honours and prizes like the students of other Universities. He should like to know how many students got the degree of Doctor of Law in the last Session. He found in the list only two students—one of whom was Professor at Belfast; the other Professor at Galway. He also desired to be informed what was the total number of scholarships maintained by public money in the Faculty of Arts. He had got a return of the number of students of the second years' course belonging to Queen's College, Galway, who during the period from 1850 to the present year competed for scholarships in the Faculty of Arts, and he found that it amounted to 128; and these 128 students competed for 139 scholarships. Such being the case, he begged the right hon. Baronet, if he had endowed additional scholarships, to consider carefully in future the accuracy of the statements made by those who furnished him with information on such a subject. The right hon. Baronet got information from certain gentlemen who were anxious to promote a certain object, and, having acted on that information, the right hon. Baronet was now hound to acknowledge to Parliament that he made a mistake.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

denied that he had made any mistake. He thought the sneering observations against the Queen's Colleges came with a bad grace from the hon. and learned Gentleman, seeing that he himself belonged to one of them. With regard to the number of students who entered Queen's College, Belfast, in the Session 1861–2, the Parliamentary Return was accurate in stating it at 152.

MR. HENNESSY

said, that in making his observations, he had showed himself the best friend to these Colleges. He found the Professors making before the Royal Commissioners similar statements, and one Professor proposed to take away certain scholarships, as the circumstance of the whole number of the scholarships being more than the number of students in the Faculty of Arts acted injuriously on education in Ireland, and did not operate to attract scholars to the College. Was it, then, fair in the right hon. Baronet to charge him with making sneering remarks against the Queen's Colleges? The Royal Commission recommended that the number of scholarships should be reduced; and the right hon. Baronet, if he thought that by going to Ireland and sending out circulars for subscriptions for endowing scholarships he was in any way assisting education in Ireland, was greatly mistaken. The course which the right hon. Baronet had taken had signally failed, and a member of the National Board of Education (Lord Dunraven) had not only refused to subscribe to the right hon. Baronet's scheme, but had protested against the conduct of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Gentleman defended his statistics. He (Mr. Hennessy) wished to know, whether in the year when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to increase the number of scholarships it was not already greater than the number of students; and he should also like to know how it happened that twenty-four gentlemen received twenty-nine gold medals—a fact of which the right hon. Gentleman had taken no notice whatever?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

It would seem as if there must be some peculiarity of constitution in the mind of Irish students, for it is certainly a strange argument that an increase in the number of prizes to be obtained in a university or college discourages students from coming to it. It may happen from various other causes that students are not so numerous, but I think it a very odd assertion that by the multiplication of prizes you diminish competition. Certainly, the feeling among Irish students must be very different from that of students in other parts of the world if they are discouraged on account of increased rewards held out for successful study.

MR. DISRAELI

I cannot agree with the principle laid down by the noble Lord. By multiplying prizes you do not necessarily increase competition; but you may, on the contrary, establish monopoly. I do not desire, however, to enter into any controversy on this subject, or at all to enter on the question of mixed education; but I think I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman who introduced this question, who stated his case with great ability, and who brought forward facts quite worthy of the attention of the Committee, does not appear to have been replied to in that tone which the importance of the subject, and the temper and ability with which it was introduced to the Committee, deserve. With regard to the taunt that the hon. Member for the King's County was himself a pupil in one of the Queen's Colleges, I can only say I congratulate the Queen's College that produced a pupil who does them such great credit.

VISCOUNT PALMERSON

I think there is an old authority applicable to this case— —"Quis enim virtutem amplectitur ipsam, "Praemia si tollas?

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

likewise believed that an unfair attack had been made upon the hon. Member for the King's County. Complaint was made that the hon. Gentleman had used sneering remarks upon the Queen's Colleges; but what did the House think of the words employed by the noble Lord, who said that there must be a "peculiarity of constitution in the mind of Irish students"? He was afraid the noble Lord had been sitting too close to the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whose society he would advise him to get rid of at the earliest possible moment. He referred, of course, to his official society; his personal and private society, no doubt, was extremely agreeable, and perhaps it was its very charm which had induced the noble Lord to place the right hon. Baronet in a position for which he was wholly unsuited. For his own part, he had never expressed any opinion on the subject of the Queen's Colleges. He had received from the right hon. Baronet a circular, addressed to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, asking for subscriptions, which, considering that it was signed by ten or twelve very distinguished gentlemen, all Protestants or Presbyterians, he thought, to use an old Cambridge expression, the most "bumptious" letter he had ever seen. He returned the same answer to that circular that he once received from the noble Lord at the head of the Government to a letter which he addressed to him, asking why no Irishman was included in the Cabinet— that was to say, he returned no answer at all, and he thought the precedent an excellent one. He observed in the Votes that it was proposed this year to increase the salary of the Examiners in English Literature and History by £50; and, as no explanation whatever had been given with regard to the item, he begged to move that the amount be reduced by £50.

MR. HENNESSY

said, on the authority of a Professor of History, there were lectures on History in the Queen's Colleges, but no examinations in it. What kind of history could be taught in mixed Colleges of this kind? For instance, English history was in the curriculum, but it was a history in which the word "Reformation" never occurred; nothing about the action of the Church in ancient or modern times was ever taught. It was English history, but so emasculated as not to be worthy of the name.

The O'CONOR DON

pointed out that no explanation for the increase of the Vote on that of last year had been given. He believed that the large increase of the prizes did not tend to promote the desire to obtain them; for when the prizes were made more numerous than the scholars, it ceased to be an honour to obtain them.

MR. AYRTON

thought the present discussion was a strong contrast to that of Tuesday evening. This was an instance of a great waste of public money. The hon. Member for the King's County had frequently brought this subject before the House. Instead of being met in the manner his ability and fairness deserved, he had been treated in a manner painful to all who witnessed it; but it had gained him, the sympathy of the House. Of all political blunders, the establishment of these Queen's Colleges was the greatest. It was an attempt to introduce a system of education for part of the community at variance with their religious feelings. It might have been an excusable blunder at the time, but what took place last year had made it inexcusable. If they adopted the opinion of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), the money voted for the colleges was a mere payment to students for acquiring a certain amount of knowledge. If so, the institution was a degradation of learning, and ought to be immediately abolished. The noble Lord had put the expenditure on a very low footing. When it was brought under the notice of the Government that the expenditure did not tend to the advancement of learning, ought it not to reconsider the question? The Vote on the paper was only in addition to the very large sum charged on the Consolidated Fund. He was almost afraid to say what was the whole charge for the University. It was so large that when the Government was told, by those who spoke in behalf of the Roman Catholics, that the University was a failure, it was its duty at once to reconsider the subject. If no useful result was obtained, so many thousands a year ought not to be paid for no satisfactory purpose. The whole discussion to-night proved that the proceedings of Tuesday were "a solemn sham."

MR. CARDWELL

wished to point out that the increase in the Vote was for the purpose of rendering the remuneration of certain gentlemen engaged in instruction, which was now very inadequate, more suited to their ability and attainments, A proposal was then under the consideration of the Government, not to ask for more money from Parliament, but to redistribute the money it had already voted, in order to make the remuneration of these gentlemen less inadequate than it had been. The present Vote was for the examinations of the pupils who had been educated in the Colleges. This expenditure had not been forced on the country by the Government. The Colleges had had great difficulties to contend with, having met much opposition; but the number of students was now continually increasing, and in the last year the number of pupils was 752. Those 750 pupils were nearly equally divided between Catholics, Protestants, and Presbyterians. He had heard it said that few of the pupils were worthy of any distinction. But the number of pupils who, in open competition for offices in the Indian and other services, had greatly distinguished themselves was a better test of the sort of education obtained at the Colleges than the opinion of any individual. It was also said that the number of degrees was not large in proportion to the number of pupils. Where the taking a degree was of advantage, as it was to young men intended for orders, for the bar, or for the medical profession, the degree was taken. In the first few years of the London University, the number of degrees was not greater; and in the Universities of Scotland, which no one pretended to be failures, the number was not exceeded. The reason was that young men went to the Queen's University, not for the purpose of obtaining degrees, but for the purpose of obtaining an education which would be of value to them in their future life. It was the legitimate object of all colleges and universities. They were not founded to give degrees, but to give a sound and valuable education. Then it was said there were more scholarships than students. If the Committee were really under that impression, they would of course hesitate to give the Vote. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary told him that last year 311 pupils entered. There were in the three colleges exactly forty-eight scholarships, and, unlike the scholarships of Oxford and Cambridge, they were only tenable for one year. The highest was, he believed, £25, and that small sum was given to assist the pupil to maintain himself during the year, subject to a subsequent challenge and examination in the next year, when, if beaten, he lost the scholarship. He was not referring to the blue-book which had been quoted, but to communications with the Professors, and those communications had led him to believe that the Professors would go without any addition to the remuneration which they received rather than that the small sums given to the students should be diminished. The constant increase of pupils, the numerical equality in the religious opinions of those who entered, and the success of the students in public competition, at which they had to meet students from the older Universities, from Trinity College, and from every school and seminary in the kingdom, all showed that the sum granted was accomplishing the object for which it was voted—namely, educating indiscriminately the different classes of the people of Ireland; and as the Committee had just given a largely increased Vote for Scotland, he hoped they would not reduce the amount which was now asked.

MR. MONSELL

said, the real question had been correctly raised by the right hon. Gentleman—whether these colleges had served the purpose for which Parliament voted the money. They were intended to include Catholics; but in 1859, of forty-five students who obtained degrees at the Queen's University, fifteen were Catholics and about twelve or fourteen others took degrees at Trinity College. Out of 4,500,000 of the population who were Catholics, less than thirty a year obtained degrees. The reason that so few Catholics took advantage of the Queen's University was, that no one could take a degree there unless he came from the Queen's Colleges; and the Catholics, upon conscientious grounds, objected to the system of education at the Colleges. He suggested that instead of the Government appointing the Senate of the Queen's University, vacancies should be supplied by election, and that any student, no matter where he had matriculated, should be allowed to come up for a degree. He admitted the right of the State, which gave the money, to fix an intellectual standard, and he did not care how high it was placed, provided those who reached it were admitted to examination for degrees. The refusal of permission, because persons in Ireland had an objection to education without religion, was a kind of persecution unknown in France, Belgium, or any other country. In the last volume of M. Guizot's Memoirs he found this anecdote. In 1848 M. Guizot was obliged to leave France, and he came with his son to London. He consulted with the late Lord Macaulay as to whether he should send his son to King's College or University College, where there was no religious education; and Lord Macaulay said, "As a Whig statesman, I have always supported University College; but if you ask me as the father of a family, I say, send him to King's College." All they sought was permission to follow the advice which Lord Macaulay gave to M. Guizot, and to bestow upon their children a religious education.

MR. HENNESSY

said, that no argument could be drawn from the number of students, as matriculation consisted merely in the payment of a 5s. fee. He had been told of a case where one of the College authorities went round the town getting shopmen to put down their names to swell the list of students. It had been stated in evidence by the Professor of Agriculture that one man had taken a scholarship in that faculty whom he never saw, and that for agricultural purposes it was worse than useless. A Parliamentary Return showed that at Queen's College, Cork, ten scholarships were competed for in 1860 by ten students; in 1861, by eight; and in 1862, by only five.

MR. VINCENT SCULLY

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) had not touched the real question—the salary of the Examiners. He required information why the salaries of the Examiners in English Literature and History had been raised from £50 to £100, and asked explanations with regard to other items.

MR. CHILDERS

hoped the Government would, during the recess, consider the undeniable fact that of late years a feeling had grown up that the principle of the Queen's Colleges was very defective. Unless some change were made, there would be a great waste, not merely of public money, but of valuable energies. He did not say this in a party spirit, but because he desired that the experiment should not fail for the want of proper development. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, when speaking at Oxford of the middle-class schools, had urged the neces- sity of religious education, would look to this matter. There was a feeling abroad that the sums voted on account of these Colleges were rather in the nature of bribes, to absorb the youth of Ireland into them, and wean them from the ordinary channels of education.

SIR CHARLES DOUGLAS

hoped the Government would explain the reason of the increased Vote.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, the reason was simply that the Examiner on English Literature could not be expected to discharge his duties for £50, while others were paid £100 for similar work. He thought a salary of £100 was not at all too high for the services rendered.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

called attention to the circumstance that in many years there were fewer scholars than scholarships, and therefore the sums appropriated for some of them were not needed. He asked what became of those sums, and suggested that it might be desirable to increase the amount of the scholarships, so as to stimulate competition.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, that what was required was more students. He saw no reason for altering the system.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

wished to know what became of the surplus funds.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that the money which was not expended must, of course, remain undrawn from the Treasury.

MR. MONSELL

complained that his Question had not been answered, and objected to any increase in the value of the scholarships.

Motion made, and Question, That the Item of £100, for the Salary of Examiner in English Literature and History, be reduced by £50, —put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(5.) £4,800, Queen's Colleges, Ireland.

MR. PEEL

explained, that owing to the increase of the number of Professors in each of these Colleges from twelve to twenty, without a corresponding increase of the sum appropriated out of the Consolidated Fund for their remuneration, many of them were at present underpaid. The Government were prepared to consider a plan for reducing their number, so as to make the permanent provision for the Colleges suffice; but, in the mean time, as such a plan could only take effect gradually, and as this Vote, which was intended to defray the cost of museums and libraries and the general expenses of the Colleges, was at present more than adequate to meet their wants in those respects, it was proposed that the balance should be applied to increasing the salaries of such of the Professors as were now insufficiently remunerated, and that when the reduction was carried out, this Vote should be diminished from £1,600 to about £1,000 for each College.

MAJOR O'REILLY

said, he must call the attention of the Committee to the want of explicitness in the answers given to questions which had been asked. He wished to know what the Government intended to do with respect to professorships in the cases in which the Professors had little or nothing to do. At Belfast there was a Professor of Agriculture, who taught a class in practical agriculture consisting of one student, and a class in the diseases of farm animals which also consisted of one, and, as he was credibly informed, of the same student. The Professor also stated he made excursions with the students or student. He hoped that this was not one of the Professors who wore thought to be underpaid. In Cork the number of students attending a similar course was three only, of whom one was matriculated; the other two probably belonged to that class who put down their names to swell the list. In Galway there were six students attending the same class, but whether matriculated or not he could not tell. Then with regard to the Professorships of the Celtic Languages, in Belfast the chair was vacant at present, and he hoped long might continue so. In Cork there was no class, and not any prospect of one. In Galway, during five years, there were in some years two, in others three pupils, and during six years, at different intervals, no pupils at all. There was another branch of instruction nominally established, which strongly illustrated the fact that those institutions were supplying a description of teaching that was not wanted. In each College there were two Professors of Law. In Cork there were four students for two Professors, and in Galway there were in some way or other seven. Mr. Denis Caulfield Heron had been appointed Professor of Jurisprudence in Galway; he had a large practice in Dublin, and he had only to go down occasionally to teach his class. Having gone down one time he went to the porter and inquired, "Where is the Jurisprudence Class?" "Oh, please your honour, sir," said the porter, "he's sick." Like Dean Swift's congregation, he was sick—so the Professor returned to Dublin, and being a gentleman who would not hold a Professorship for the honour of it, he resigned his chair and its emoluments, in opposition to what the Premier had said. he hoped, then, that the Government would no longer attempt to keep up a staff of teachers that were not wanted, and also that they would weigh well the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), and endeavour to conciliate the people. If they did, they would find that the difficulty in the way of mutual concession would not proceed from the people of Ireland.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, the Government intended to recommend a reduction of three professorships in each College, making a total reduction of nine. He might mention that it was originally proposed that there should be only twelve Professors, though the number was afterwards increased to twenty. The original proposition also was that they should have, with fees, about £280 a year each; whereas, in consequence of the increase in the number, the salaries averaged only about £170—an amount which was wholly inadequate to the duties to be performed. It was true that some of the classes had not succeeded as it was hoped they would, and it was probable that the professorships which had been more particularly referred to—in particular the Professorship of the Celtic Language—would not be continued.

MR. HENNESSY

said, that the Professors of Greek, Latin, English Literature, and others had salaries of £250 a year; those of Chemistry, Modern Languages, Natural History, and Geology, £200, while others had only £100. [Sir ROBERT PEEL said he had given the average.] Those gentlemen were to receive fees as well as salaries, but they received scarcely any fees, because the students had not come. In a great many of the chairs the fees amounted to only £5, £10, or £15 a year, instead of £200, as they were expected to be at first. The Government would do well, then, to augment the salaries of the Professors, but that ought not to be done by suppressing certain chairs. The far better course would be to take the advice of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), and they would then draw students to the classrooms and augment the fees. He was of opinion that those who were the real friends of the Queen's Colleges were not to be found upon the Treasury Bench.

MR. AYRTON

said, the result of it all was that £360,000 had been spent in teaching 300 persons as much as they learnt in an ordinary University education. That was the result of this attempt to undermine the Roman Catholic religion —an attempt which had produced constant irritation in Ireland, and the sooner it was abandoned the better.

Vote agreed to; as was also

(6.) £500, Royal Irish Academy.

(7.) £2,750, National Gallery, Ireland.

MR. A. SMITH

asked for an explanation of this Vote.

MR. PEEL

said, it was not intended to initiate a series of Votes for the purpose of establishing a National Gallery in Ireland. An understanding had been come to between the Government and the Trustees, to carry out which this Vote was proposed. The Vote was asked for on exceptional grounds, and would be for this year only.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) £2,500, Theological Professors at Belfast.

MR. BAXTER

said, he had serious objections to the principle of paying Theological Professors of Dissenting congregations out of the public purse. Seeing that all the great Dissenting congregations of this country and of Scotland paid their own Professors, he saw no reason why this House should continue year after year to pay for the Dissenting congregations of the north of Ireland.

MR. DAWSON

said, the principle of this Vote had been often discussed, and accepted by the House. The money was productive of a great deal of good, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not divide the Committee.

MR. FRANK CROSSLEY

did not believe that it was any benefit to these Professors to be paid out of the State funds.

Motion made, and Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £2,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for the Salaries of the Theological Professors and the Incidental Expenses of the General Assembly's College at Belfast, and Retired Allowances to Professors of the Belfast Academical Institution.

The Committee divided: — Ayes 75; Noes 21: Majority 54.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £99,012, British Museum.

MR. WALPOLE

then rose to move a Vote of £99,012 for the British Museum. The right hon. Gentleman said the alterations in the amount this year were few and not very important. The total amount of the Vote was £99,012 against £100,414, showing a reduction of £1,402 upon that of last year. There was an additional charge of £2,200 for the increased expenses attendant upon throwing open the reading-room to the inspection of foreigners and country visitors during the holding of the International Exhibition, and another £1,000 for additional attendants. That sum the Trustees proposed to provide out of the surplus arising from the Votes of the preceding year. The increase upon several items for the present year arose from the greater attendance in the reading-room, and from the necessity of appointing one or two additional officers in the manuscript department. Upon some other items there was a decrease, and he hoped the Committee would give the Trustees credit for a desire to observe economy under another head of expenditure—the building charge. The Vote for building had only come under the control of the Trustees within, the last three years, and whereas the Vote was at that time £22,000 odd, it was reduced in the next year to £19,000 and some hundreds. It was now £2,249 less than last year, and he hoped that there would be a further reduction in future years. There were only two points in addition which he need refer to. Under the former regulations of the reading room, gentlemen were admitted from the age of eighteen and upwards. The rooms would only accommodate 330 or 340 persons; but the daily average number of those who attended was beyond that amount. The consequence was, that persons who were employed in severe and more difficult studies were excluded from the accommodation to which they were entitled, by the younger students who could not properly be called readers. The Trustees, therefore, had felt it to be their duty to limit the admission of readers to persons of twenty-one years and upwards, instead of eighteen as at present. Those persons who now possessed the privilege of admission would continue to enjoy it, but no further admissions would be granted to younger students, except in special cases. He would only further observe, that as those Gentlemen who had always taken the greatest interest in the Museum Estimates — the hon. Members for Galway (Mr. Gregory) and Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes), and the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord H. Lennox), were all now absent, he proposed, with the concurrence of the Government, to take the Vote now, but that the report should be taken later than the first day of the reassembling of Parliament after the recess, when those hon. Gentlemen might be able to attend, and to make any observations they wished.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY

asked, what steps had been taken to afford greater facilities to the working classes to visit the Museum? As there were such grave objections to the opening of the Museum on Sundays, he thought it hopeless to attempt it.

MR. WALPOLE

said, that for a portion of the year — namely, from May to the middle of August—the Museum was kept open until eight instead of closing at five. He wished that the facility thus afforded was more generally appreciated by those in whose behalf the arrangement had been made than hitherto had been the case.

MR. LOCKE

said, the working classes probably felt tired in the evening, and had no desire to visit the British Museum. But he should like to know what had been done in reference to opening the institution on Saturdays, now that that day was generally observed as a half-holiday. The question of opening the building on Sundays had not been mooted this Session, and he was not anxious to raise it, because such a strong feeling had been exhibited against it last year by the hon. Members who came from north of the Tweed, and they were numerous in the House that evening.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

hoped that some reason would be given for keeping up the zoological specimens at a cost of £1,500 a year. There was an excellent living collection in the Zoological Gardens; and whenever he saw those mangy lions and tigers in the British Museum, he regarded them as rubbish. Why have stuffed animals, taking up room, and costing so much money, when such excellent living specimens were to be seen in the Zoological Gardens?

MR. AYRTON

said, that the Trustees would not, perhaps, feel themselves justified in opening the Museum on Sundays, seeing the difference of opinion which existed on the subject; but they ought to give in the week all the opportunities they could to persons who wished to visit the institution. He had heard with regret that the experiment of opening the Museum in the evening had failed. He thought that the institution should be kept open to a later hour than eight o'clock, and should be well lighted. Now, the returns from Kensington Museum showed that one-half of the visitors went in the evening, and he thought it was clear that the arrangements made for them must be much better than those made at the Museum. He thought the Trustees of the British Museum had not done their best in that respect; and if they would follow the course pursued by the Kensington Museum, they would soon double the number of the visitors to the British Museum.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he had been told by an officer of the British Museum that the people were only allowed to walk through a portion of the rooms, and that they could only see the backs of the books in the library.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY

hoped that every exertion would be made to make the Museum available to the working classes, and that it might be opened after two o'clock on Sundays.

MR. TITE

wished to know what were the arrangements under which the Trustees of the British Museum had subscribed towards the publication of a very important and valuable work on the Antiquities of Halicarnassus with a view to the distribution of a number of copies among certain public institutions.

SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID

said, that the greater the objection was to opening the Museum on Sundays, the greater was the necessity for making it as available to the working classes on week days. He thought that it should be kept open to the latest practicable hour in the evening, and that the access to it should be facilitated in every possible manner.

MR. WALPOLE

said, it had been the constant effort of the Trustees to increase as much as possible the facilities of the public in visiting the Museum. The Museum was now open till eight p.m. He did not exactly recollect the facts relative to the publication of the book about Halicarnassus. It was a very expensive work, and the Trustees took a certain number of copies in order to assist its publication; a certain number could therefore be purchased at a reduced rate, and copies were also given to various institutions. He would make further inquiries on the subject, and inform the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) on the report. With respect to the zoological collection, no fewer than 25,000 specimens in natural history had been added to the collection during the year ending 1860; and if these had not been added, the collection would have been incomplete. When the gorilla was making a great stir in the world, the Trustees purchased stuffed specimens as well as the skeleton. With respect to the larger question, whether public exhibitions should be opened on Sunday, no body of Trustees would be justified in deciding such a point when Parliament declined to do so.

MR. LOCKE

asked what had been the result of the Saturday opening.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he could not answer the question. The Museum had been opened on Saturday evenings. If kept open later, the general opinion of scientific men was that oil or candles would not give sufficient light, and that gas would injure the specimens.

MR. AYRTON

hoped the Trustees would inquire what would be the expense of lighting the Museum with gas outside, so as not to injure the specimens.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY

suggested that it should remain open till ten o'clock on Saturdays.

MR. WALPOLE

observed, that according to the reports of Mr. Braidwood and a very able chemist, great dangers would arise from the use of gas; in fact, scientific people were agreed that the collection would be spoiled altogether.

MR. FREELAND

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, on the report, inform the House what precise sum had been granted by the Trustees for the purpose of aiding the publication on the Antiquities of Halicarnassus, and whether the work had thereby been rendered accessible to the public at a more reasonable price.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he would do so, and asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Report would be taken.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the Report would be taken on Monday week. He hoped the Trustees would submit to the Government an estimate of the expense necessary to open the Museum in the evening lighted with gas. If the gas were placed outside, no injury could result from its Use.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) £11,953, National Gallery, was also agreed to.

(11.) £1,000, British Historical Portrait Gallery.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

asked what was the nature and object of the institution.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

replied, that the Gallery was intended for the collection and exhibition of the portraits of persons eminent in British history.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

suggested that the Estimate should include the names of the persons whose portraits were exhibited in the Gallery.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the effect would be to introduce a catalogue into the Estimate.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

objected to the Gallery, because it was a separate establishment, with divided responsibility, and different rules of management. In 1857 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, declared that if the Trustees were allowed a lustrum, they would be able to show an exhibition of portraits which would prove that they had not betrayed their trust. In 1859 the present Secretary for War, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated that when the National Gallery was enlarged, it would be in the power of the Government to set apart rooms for the pictures now in the Portrait Gallery. Again, in 1860, when the opinion was expressed that there was no reason why the pictures in the Portrait Gallery should not be looked after by the officers of the National Gallery, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that there was something anomalous in having a separate establishment, adding that he thought its dissociation from the National Gallery should be regarded as provisional. The enlargement of the National Gallery contemplated by the Secretary for War had now been effected; the lustrum alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks had been accomplished by the fluxion of time, and on the present occasion he hoped the Government would say what they intended to do with the Portrait Gallery. There could be no doubt that the existence of a separate establishment was detrimental to the object in view. At present the Portrait Gallery was a small National Gallery without any of the advantages of the large one. It had no staff; it was open only eight or ten hours a week; the public could not go to it, and they could not see the pictures if they did go. The Trustees were always crying out for more money, and they evidently looked forward to a period when the annual charge would be far more than £1,000, the amount of the present Vote. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Government would seriously consider whether a separate establishment should be continued. The National Gallery was not absolute perfection; but the Trustees and their advisers had been taught to act with caution, and their purchases were not now so reckless as they used to be. Such was not the case with the Trustees of the Portrait Gallery. They had all their experience to learn, as was proved by a list of pictures, with the prices attached to them, which was laid on the table last Session. Before that time it was exceedingly difficult to ascertain from the Trustees what they had paid for their pictures; no account was submitted to Parliament; and the consequence was some of the most reckless purchases ever made by any body of men. Let him give the Committee a sample. In 1859, there was a sale in Eaton Square. At that sale Mr. Graves bought three pictures — a portrait of James I., as a boy, £20; a portrait of Queen Anne of Denmark, £30; and a portrait of the first Marquess of Winchester, who was Treasurer to Henry VIII., £17. Would the Committee believe that in a few months afterwards Mr. Graves sold these three pictures to the Trustees of the National Portrait Gallery for an aggregate sum of £680? Nor was that all. One of the pictures changed its name, and the portrait of Queen Anne of Denmark became the portrait of Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke, by an unknown painter, costing the country £315. Why the Trustees should have paid so large a sum for a portrait of the Countess of Pembroke he could not understand. He had ascertained from the Biographical Dictionary that the Countess was most remarkable for having written certain books which nobody ever read or would ever want to read. A portrait of Mary Queen of Scots had cost the country £120, but the best judges believed that there was no authentic portrait of this Sovereign in existence. The National Gallery was administered upon an open system, and every one knew what the pictures cost. But the Portrait Gallery was a mystery, and no one knew how the money was to be applied. He did not move the reduction of the Vote, but he trusted the Government would announce its intention in regard to this Gallery. Why should not the administration be added to that of the National Gallery? As to the pictures, they might be sent to the South Kensington Museum instead of the Turner Gallery. His hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. A. Smith) had suggested that space might be found for these portraits in the Palace of Westminster; and if they were not sent to Brompton, he trusted that suggestion would receive attention.

LORD HENRY LENNOX

said, that in the last report of the Trustees of the Portrait Gallery there was but one note of complaint—of want of space. The Trustees recounted, with justifiable pride, that Her Majesty had presented them with a portrait, now doubly dear, of the late illustrious Prince Consort. For this, however, there was no adequate room; and the same was said of other pictures. There was a sort of Kensington-phobia on the benches opposite; but there were three or four rooms at the South Kensington Museum which had been used for the Vernon Gallery, and which were now empty. Instead of being seen by 10,000 persons in one year, these portraits would be seen at Kensington by 400,000, The Chancellor of the Exchequer was, he believed, quite aware of the anomalous position of this institution, established in a corner in Great George Street, and only open for a few hours twice a week. His hon. Friend (Mr. C. Bentinck) demanded that these pictures should be bought with good taste, and a fair price given for them. But among a body so constituted, whose taste would his hon. Friend accept—that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks, or the noble Lord the Member for Stamford? This gallery was another illustration of the truth that the national collections of a country, if they were worth anything, were worthy of being properly cared for. He trusted the Government would consider whether the object which they had all in view would not be carried out by the temporary removal of these portraits to South Kensington.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the question of the proper accommodation of national collections was one not very easy of solution in that House, as experience had amply proved; for sometimes, when the Government made a proposal on this subject, they were met by a sudden desire for economy. He would, however, admit that the present position of the National Portrait Gallery was not satisfactory, and that the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Bentinck) were deserving of careful consideration. The difficulty about moving these portraits to a home of their own was, that the question of the final constitution of the body responsible for the Portrait Gallery would thereby be prejudged when it was not yet ripe for adjudication. The present condition of the Portrait Gallery was provisional, and was not unconnected with the final destination and development of the National Gallery itself, which was in its turn connected with the other question of sites for the national collections. It was probable these portraits might find more satisfactory accommodation at South Kensington; but he was unable to give any assurance or pledge on this subject, except that the suggestion deserved, and should receive, consideration. No doubt the portraits would there be seen by a greatly-increased number of persons. His hon. Friend had quoted the prices paid for some of the portraits some time back; but great care had been taken by the Trustees not to pay extravagant prices. The difficulty about laying the prices of the pictures before the House as they were bought was, that the Trustees would thus be raising the market against themselves. He had attended a great number of their meetings, and he could conscientiously say that they appeared to consider with all care the amount of money to be paid for pictures. Whether a statement of the price given for each picture should be produced, or whether, instead thereof, the judgment of the Trustees on the point should be acquiesced in, was a matter which it must remain in the discretion of the House to determine.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

said, he was convinced, that if this collection should be sent to South Kensington, in another year the House would be called upon for a vote for additional officers. The best place for these pictures was in that House. They might be placed on the walls of the corridors, and no expense would be incurred.

MR. GREGORY

disagreed from the suggestion to stow away the portraits of the great men of the country in the badly lighted corridors of that building. Regarding these pictures apart from their artistic merit, he thought it of importance to be able to form some notion of the appearance of the great characters that had illustrated English history; but with respect to the arrangements connected with the national pictures, the axe ought to be laid to the whole system. Looking at the several different places where those pictures were now kept, the matter was at the present moment in something like a mess, and he complained of the Trustees of the British Museum keeping apart from the collection of pictures the original designs and drawings of the great masters, which it was essential to study in connection with the paintings. In his opinion, the Government should take into consideration the question of providing a fitting depository for the whole of the national collections of pictures, which at present were very unworthily accommodated. The International Exhibition at Kensington had shown them the way in which a Gallery should be provided; and he would suggest, that if the portraits could be transferred to similar galleries at Burlington House, they would then be placed in a central position, acceptable to the community at large.

MR. THOMSON HANKEY

said, that public money was spent uselessly in maintaining the establishment of the Portrait Gallery, for all the pictures might be sent to the South Kensington Museum. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to say what the ultimate destination of this Gallery ought to be.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, it might afford his hon. Friend some gratification to know, that as there was a balance to the credit of the Historical Portrait Gallery, it would only be necessary to take a vote of £1,000 this year. At the same time, he could not hold out any hope that the expenses of the secretary's office were capable of diminution. Two entirely different kinds of knowledge were required for the selection of portraits and general works of art. It would be absurd to expect that Sir Charles Eastlake should possess this special kind of talent.

MR. CONINGHAM

thought a Director of the National Gallery ought to be quite competent to determine the value and authenticity of portraits. He was opposed, on principle, to the distribution of collections, because in time the fragments grew into great establishments. For that reason he believed the suggested removal of pictures to Burlington House would be attended with great expense. The true way to obtain space sufficient for all the pictures would be by turning the Royal Academy out of the National Gallery. They would never go unless they were compelled; and at present they were rather in straits, having taken to holding 6d. exhibitions in the evening, with a view of popularizing themselves.

MR. LOCKE

said, the Royal Academy gave a conditional promise some years ago to remove from the National Gallery, provided they could obtain accomodation suitable for carrying on their school of painting. But from that time to the present nothing whatever had been done.

MR. TITE

held that it was a mistake to condemn an important collection like the National Portrait Gallery, and to determine that it should proceed no further, simply because it had outgrown its present site. If it were not so already, it would one day become one of the most interesting collections in the kingdom.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

wished to know whether the Government intended to take away the portraits from the zoological gallery of the British Museum and add them to the others?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

replied, that that was one of the objects of the British Museum Bill.

MR. CONINGHAM

said, he should certainly move to omit the entire amount of £2,000.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the Government only asked for £1,000, there being a balance in hand.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following:—

(12.) £7,640, Magnetic Observations Abroad, &c.

(13.) £500, Royal Geographical Society.

(14.) £1,000, Royal Society.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported on Thursday next; Committee to sit again on Thursday next.

House adjourned at One o'clock till Thursday next.