SECOND READING.

HC Deb 19 May 1862 vol 166 cc1903-33

Order for Second Reading read.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Sir, I stated generally in introducing this Bill what was its general character and purport; and, in point of fact, the object and the justification of the measure will be best gathered from the papers laid upon the table. These papers show in what manner the Government and a large majority of the trustees have arrived at the conclusion that it is necessary to separate the collections of the British Museum; and, taken in conjunction with other papers, they also show what are the collections which the trustees and the Government have, upon the whole, deemed it most expedient to remove from the present site to one at a considerable distance. As respects the measures which are intended to be taken for this purpose, the Bill itself completes, in the main, the necessary explanations. The site to which it is intended to remove is perhaps the only one which would occur to the minds of those hon. Gentlemen who are prepared to contemplate the removal at all—I mean, South Kensington, that being the only desirable place in or about London where it is possible to have the necessary command of land at a moderate price, combined with the means of effecting almost any expansion, which can be required for the Museum in the lifetime of any person now living. I promised that on the second reading I would state briefly the views of the Government respecting the expenditure likely to be incurred in consequence of the measures now proposed; and it will be a mistake on the part of the House to imagine that this is not a very important measure in regard to the demand upon the public purse to which it will give rise. It is not practicable to keep collections like the British Museum without a very heavy charge. The present establishment although not less economical than other public establishments, involves an expenditure which, combined with that for additions to the collections, will convey some notion of what the cost of providing accommodation for such an establishment will be. But the Government think it would be absurd, at the point which things have reached, to propose to this House any half measure. There were, indeed, differences of views as to the amount of additional space which would be required, and that is, perhaps, the point upon which it is most easy to suppose that differences of opinion may arise in this House. But we have thought it best to follow what appeared to be the highest authority—that of Professor Owen, backed by precedents and illustrations which he has adduced from the practice of other countries—and these convince us that it is impossible to regard as a sufficient provision for the wants of the Museum any less space than five acres of ground, with a capacity of further expansion hereafter. The extension, of course, must remain vague, and incapable of minute inquiry till further progress has been made in the execution of the plan. This, therefore, is the basis of the plan proposed; and we ask the House for the means of finding five acres of ground at the least— probably somewhat more—and in a place too, where, in case of need, there will be a possibility of some extension. A committee of the trustees have investigated the question of expense, and they state that the cost of five acres of ground, near the site of the present Museum, will be in round numbers £50,000 per acre; the cost of the necessary buildings to be erected on that site will be £100,000 per acre. The total cost of the ground, therefore, will be £250,000, and that of the buildings £500,000. The estimate of the committee was, indeed, somewhat greater, but these sums may be taken as the amount in round numbers. The estimate for the building, however, does not include any charge for fittings; nor for enlarging the present buildings, to which considerable additions will have to be made. As to the readjustment of the present buildings, it will be better to keep that out of view, as the expense of that rearrangement will be about the same, whichever plan is adopted. At South Kensington the ground can be obtained for £10,000 an acre; this, on the five acres required, will be a difference in favour of the public on the South Kensington site of £200,000. Besides this difference, another item ought to be taken into view. I have examined the plans, and I am able to give a conjectural estimate of the probable cost of covering the ground with buildings, but I must not be considered as offering more than a reasonable conjecture. It appears to the Government that the cost of the building at Kensington will be from 20 to 25 per cent less than the cost of building on the site of the present Museum. The reason is, that on the latter site the style of the new buildings would be fixed by that of the existing edifice; whereas, by building at Kensington, we shall be able to employ a lighter style, with a greater amount of window space, and secure a cheaper and more convenient structure. The present building is in many departments extremely inconvenient from the deficiency of light, while a considerable portion of the collections require an abundance of light. The whole difference of cost in favour of the Kensington site will be £200,000 on the ground, and £100,000 on the building, or £300,000 altogether. As to the readjustment and enlarging of the present Museum, the alterations are described in the papers before the House; the effect of them will be to add largely to the available space. From 60,000 to 70,000 feet will be gained to the Museum by the removal of the natural history collection, and about half that amount, or altogether not less than 100,000 feet, by a readjustment of the present site. The plan of readjustment is regarded as a necessary consequence of the removal of the natural history collection; and it is a plan by which a very large amount of additional space will be obtained at a cost; comparatively very small. If am correctly informed, the readjustment will add at least 40,000 feet of available space to the Museum, at a cost of about £120,000, or at the outside of £130,000. Summing; up the whole figures, whichever way the question is viewed, it is a matter of considerable public outlay. The whole of the charge for the purpose at Kensington will be from £670,000 to £680,000. But, if the same amount of accommodation is provided at the present Museum, the charge: will be about £960,000 or £970,000. It is a great national undertaking. The national collection is one of the ornaments and treasures of the country, and both the Parliament and the country will readily recognise the duty of keeping it in a state of efficiency. After the long delay that has occurred, and the urgent demands made for complete facilities for exhibiting the collections, I think it would not be wise in the Government to ask the House for means of extension less than will be thoroughly sufficient for a long period of time. It is for a long period of time, therefore, that these plans have been framed and submitted to the House. A space of one, or perhaps two acres, in the immediate vicinity of the Museum, would cost less than the five acres at Kensington; but that would not meet the exigency of the case. The structure would hardly be completed before the demand for a fresh extension would be revived. We believe, therefore, we have proposed what will secure the largest amount of extension at the most economical rate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. GREGORY

said, he felt exceedingly sorry that the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) was not in his place, because in the remarks which a few minutes before he had made upon the finances of the country he had observed upon the great discrepancy of opinion with regard to the expenditure in our museums; and if he had been present, would surely have reiterated those statements, and would have been of opinion that the time had come to make a stand against the enormous expenditure proposed in the scheme of the Government. He (Mr. Gregory) was not one of those who had opposed in the abstract the removal of the natural history collections from the British Museum, or who had insisted upon the necessity of works of nature and works of art being exhibited under one roof. Upon the whole, he thought that the diffusion rather than the concentration of the national collections should be their object. But his objections to the removal of the natural history collections from the British Museum were threefold. He objected to the removal, first, because of the central position of the building and its accessibility to the lower and middle classes, among whom these collections were extremely popular; secondly, because the alterations contemplated would be a kind of patchwork which would bring discredit upon the country; and lastly, because it would involve an expenditure utterly disproportionate to the object in view — an expenditure entirely disapproved by every man of science with but one exception. Professor Owen seemed to be the person upon whose sole authority the outlay of £700,000 or £800,000 was to be justified. But the Professor had stated to the Committee that he wished the collections to remain at Bloomsbury, if he could only obtain the requisite space. His expression was, "Not that I love Bloomsbury less, but that I love space more;" and he was the advocate of the abstract principle of retaining the collections of art and science under one roof, for he signed a memorial in 1858 against the removal in which was contained this passage— Her Majesty's Government, we trust, will never yield to the argument, that because in some countries the products of nature and art are exhibited in distinct establishments, therefore a like arrangement must be copied here. Let us, on the contrary, rejoice in the fact that we have realized what no other country can boast—a vast and harmonious collection of art and science, round a library which illustrates part of each branch of knowledge. With regard to the second objection—that it would lead to patching the Museum, by the formation of certain rooms for the sculpture—it was obvious that it would be, if he might use the phrase, a mere avoirdupois arrangement—not systematic or chronological, but one in which the statues would be placed according to weight, and the rooms most capable of sustaining the greatest pressure devoted to those of the largest size. Upon this point he quoted last year the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard), and he would quote it again, as an opinion in which every man who cared for the artistic reputation of England must concur. The hon. Gentleman said:— "In the British Museum we have erected a building without reference to its purpose, and which is the very worst of its kind for the exhibition of works of art;" and in the plan now proposed the object seemed to be the mere gaining room, without taking into consideration in the slightest degree to what collections the space was to be devoted, or in what manner the collections ought to be exhibited. He had always advocated a plan which was inexpensive and which was approved by all the artistic feeling of the country—namely, that the second floor of the Museum should be given up to natural history, and the sculpture placed in cheap galleries capable of continuous extension westward. They had evidence that the expense of such an arrangement would not amount to one-half the expense of the plan now proposed, which would provide both for natural history and antiquities. The House must remember that on the assumption that the present plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided for natural history, there would still remain a heavy outlay for the arrangement of the antiquities; both which objects would be obtained at a comparatively small expenditure by the plan he recommended. The last and not the least objection was upon the score of the cost, and that turned on one thing— whether the House was prepared to adopt the plan of Professor Owen, or whether it was prepared to adopt the plan of the other scientific men who were examined before the Committee. They had on the one side, and standing alone, Professor Owen and his ten-acre scheme, and on the other all the other scientific gentlemen, who were perfectly unanimous in condemning the plan of Professor Owen as being utterly useless and bewildering. Amongst those gentlemen were Professor Maskelyne, Mr. Waterhouse, Dr. Gray, Sir R. Murchison, Mr. Bell, Professor Huxley, Dr. Sclater, Mr. Gould, and Sir B. Brodie. In his letter to the Trustees, of the 10th of February, 1859, Professor Owen said— Due regard being had to the utmost economy, he should require for the proper exhibition of the collections of his department, and the accessions likely to accrue in thirty years, a building of one story covering more than ten acres, or a building of two stories covering five acres. The questions of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller) proved that Professor Owen had not fully considered his plan, because his hon. Friend pointed out, that if he could not do with less than a ten acre building of one story, a five-acre building of two stories would be quite inadequate, inasmuch as through the spaces which it would be necessary to leave for the lighting of the two-storied building, there would be a considerable loss of room. To give the House some idea of that gigantic plan, he might mention that a part of it consisted of galleries of 850 feet in length for the exhibition of whales. The scientific men examined on the subject one and all disapproved of that plan in toto, and they advocated what was technically called a "typical" mode of exhibition—that was, a system by which all the genera, the species, and the striking varieties, and, in short, everything calculated to attract attention or be useful to the public, should be shown, without distracting and bewildering the spectator with innumerable specimens of every description, resembling each other so nearly that even the most experienced person could not detect the difference between them except by holding them in his hand and closely examining them. When asked whether, as a scientific man, he thought it for the interest of science that there should be the immense collection contemplated by Professor Owen, Sir Benjamin Brodie replied that he did not believe it to be at all necessary, but thought the whole thing might be done in a very much smaller space. One of the witnesses examined argued that the House of Commons would more readily vote £160,000 or £180,000 if split into two and divided between two different establishments than if asked for in one sum for one establishment. The witness was perfectly right, because nothing in the world was easier than to bamboozle that House. Sir Benjamin Brodie, however, gave it as his opinion, that looking to the state of the finances, the public would not approve the House of Commons being so lavish in these matters as it had been, and in that view, he must say, he (Mr. Gregory) himself entirely concurred. What the Select Committee proposed was that there should be an exhibition of all objects of general interest and utility, that there should be drawers in which all other specimens should be kept, and that there should be studies to which scientific men could resort for the purpose of comparing and examining those specimens. Common sense must point out to every man, save the mere enthusiast, that that was the proper course to adopt. And certainly it was astounding that a conscientious and honourable man like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who went itinerating about the country to lecture and denounce the extravagance of the House of Commons, should, with all his professions respecting economy, venture to propound a scheme of the kind before the House, the first cost of which would amount to £790,000. Why, the calculation had been made that any person visiting the projected Natural History Museum, if he wished to inspect the whole of the glass cases from beginning to end, would have to traverse no less a distance than five miles to accomplish it.

He next came to the estimate of the expense, and here he was glad to find himself in such entire accordance with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His own estimate of the cost of Professor Owen's plan, without any architectural front, amounted to about £720,000; and in that estimate the Committee over which he presided generally coincided. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate for the building at Kensington was £680,000; but the right hon. Gentleman had not allowed anything for the new library, for which it was proved before the Committee that a sum of £30,000 more would be requisite. Then there was also to be taken into account the probable charge for new fittings and glass cases, which Mr. Smirke, the architect, stated in his evidence last year would amount, under Professor Owen's scheme, to about £80,000. These various sums, in round numbers, would give a total of £800,000 to be expended, and they must remember that the expense of the library was continually increasing, and that the cost of transferring that immense collection to Kensington would be very great. Now, it was a financial age, and they required to look a little closely into these things. The annual expenditure on the British Museum was now £98,000—a very large sum indeed. The time would come, although not in that Session, when he should pull in pieces that item, and when the House must deal with the enormous expenditure upon that establishment. He found, on examining the Estimates of the year, that, taking away the Natural History Collections from the Museum, all they could expect to gain in the diminished expense of that institution was not more than about £12,000 a year. In that estimate he had debited the Natural History Department with half the cost of the staff of the Museum; therefore there would remain an annual charge of some £86,000 to be met for the British Museum deprived of natural history, and there would also be the heavy annual cost of the new Natural History Museum, together with the enormous outlay of £790,000 as a first estimate upon Professor Owen's scheme. And then let them look at the large staff which they would have to employ at the new Museum at Kensington. The old stereotyped phrase on the Treasury Bench was, when undertakings were commenced, that since they had begun, they must go on, and carry out their scheme; but they had not begun the proposed scheme, and he hoped the House would take care it was not begun. He would express no opinion as to the removal of the collection of natural history, but that it should be removed at such expense in the present state of our finances was, if not an insane proposition, one which, at least, he could not understand. Dealing with scientific men, they might rely on this—when they said they wanted a very small space for the exhibition of their collections, they might place confidence in them; but if they encouraged them to set to work in order to contrive what they might consider desirable, they would have to excavate another Serpentine for an aquarium, or build another crystal palace for butterflies. He had very grave objections to the Bill. The general artistic feeling was that the drawings of the great masters should be placed with the national pictures, that artists might have the opportunity of studying the original designs; but the Bill provided that while the pictures were in the National Gallery, the prints and drawings should remain at the British Museum. He had no objection that the prints should remain in the British Museum —they were more in the antiquarian line of research; but that the drawings should be classed among the objects that should not leave the British Museum was, he thought, something monstrous. There was another blot in the Bill which, if it stood alone, would be sufficient to condemn it. He meant the proposal to transfer to the new institution at Kensington a form of government which had been disapproved of by every witness who had been examined. The trusteeship was to be carried down to Kensington along with the natural history collection. He could understand that there might be objections to break up a system which had lasted so long; but that they should extend to a new institution a system which had been condemned as involving every fault that could be imagined, surpassed his comprehension. They should rather have taken advantage of the present opportunity of getting rid of that noxious system, which had been condemned by all Committees and Commissions. He even claimed the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) as an authority on his side —that to transfer a trust to look after the natural history collection, when many of the members constituting the trust rested their sole claims on the fact that some of their ancestors had contributed some statues or books to the Museum, was a most illogical proceeding. What he advocated, if the removal were determined on, was, that Sir Roderick Murchison and Sir Philip Egerton, together with five or six other scientific Gentlemen, should be appointed trustees, not as an executive body, but as visitors; the management being placed in the head of the department; and that a Government officer should be responsible for the Estimates of the Museum, and bring them before Parliament. In conclusion, he sincerely hoped that any observations he had made would not be imputed to pique on his part because the suggestions made by the Committee of which he was Chairman were entirely set aside. That was not the case. Yet he was bound to say it did appear extraordinary that every provision had been framed with the view, as it were, of contravening the decisions at which the Committee of last year had arrived. It appeared as if the trustees of the British Museum considered it quite beneath them to brook or tolerate any interference of the House of Commons, which annually voted £98,000 in support of that institution, which they conceived to be their own particular domain. He could only say, with regard to the removal of the natural history collection, if they found a suitable structure, in a suitable position, under suitable management, and at a moderate expense, he could have no objection to it; but he did, unquestionably, object to the enormous expenditure that would be entailed by the Bill for alterations in the Museum, which would be a discredit to the country, and were condemned by nearly every man of science. Influenced by such motives, he should give every opposition in his power to the passing of such a measure, not being one of those Members of whom the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) said a short time since, that they showed their liberality by the reckless manner in which they advocated every attack on the public purse.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

MR. MONCKTON MILNES

Sir, it was the saying of an old wit that whenever there was a topic in vogue he went out of town, by which, I suppose, he meant that when there was any idea very prevalent in the minds of people it was apt to infect all their conversation and views on other subjects, to pervert in some degree their judgment and even to render them dull. Although the last malady has not overtaken my hon. Friend who has just sat down, he has allowed himself to be too much engrossed by the prevalent topic of economy. If subjects like this, involving great public interests, are converted into mere questions of economy, they are apt to sink somewhat in the respect of the public. Such matters are entitled to be judged on their own merits. I do not see, moreover, that the question of economy is very much affected by the Bill before us. It is intended to authorize the trustees to remove certain portions of the national collection to some other locality, but contains no reference whatever to the cost of the operation, or to the different plans which may be adopted. My hon. Friend has anticipated all those questions which may be brought legitimately before the House when we are desired to vote the money for the alterations. The Bill gives the Government no power to appropriate any money to carrying it out, and whatever the sum required may be—a million, or half-a-million—it can only be voted after full discussion on the Estimate. The object of this Bill is one which I have long had at heart, because I have always been of opinion that the British Museum ought to be divided, and that the proper method in which to carry out that division was to remove the natural history collection to some other locality. In this opinion I have had the support of the best officers of the institution and of almost every authority abroad. In no other country could the collection under one roof of this enormous and heterogeneous collection of articles have occurred, and in England it was not the result of any system of theory, but solely of accident. If the constitution of the British Museum had been other than it is—if that institution had been a great public establishment of science, literature, and art, somewhat of the nature of a college, where all those subjects might be studied with the assistance of professors, and where men of different pursuits might meet together, modify their opinions, and become acquainted with the limits of their knowledge, then there might have attached to the present state of things some advantages which would have given it permanence and strength; but the fatal constitution of the Museum seems to render it impossible that these collections can any longer remain united. The recommendations of the Commission which sat many years ago, and of which I had the honour to be a member, were, that the Museum should be separated into two great divisions, one including literature and art, and the other science; that these divisions should be under the superintendence, one of a first-rate man of letters, and the other of a first-rate man of science, and that at the head of the whole institution there should be some nobleman or gentleman of high social power and reputation. If that plan had been adopted, you might have kept all the collections under the same roof but under the existing system of management by trustees, you will not much longer be able to keep them in the same locality. It will be impossible to retain the new establishment under the government of the trustees of the British Museum. Although it is very important that the natural history collection should be removed, it is equally important that it should be placed under such an administration as will render that removal most advantageous to the public. The two establishments in this country which have had the most complete success are the Observatory at Greenwich and Kew Gardens; and each of those places is under the sole management of a perfectly capable man, communicating directly with the Government and perfectly understanding what expense he will be allowed to incur. I trust that the natural history collection will, when it is removed, be placed upon a similar footing, and that the system of trustees will, if continued at all, be confined within the present boundaries of the British Museum. My hon. Friend went into great detail about the plan of Professor Owen, and produced several authorities to show that it is entirely objectionable. But those authorities did not object to the system of Professor Owen; they merely stated that they did not think it necessary for purposes of scientific demonstration or of public amusement. The question, how much is to be shown in the Museum, depends upon the further question, whether the Museum is intended for purposes of public amusement or of scientific demonstration. If you are to have a great first-rate museum of natural history, you must not have any strict limitation for want of space; you must allow the exhibition to be commensurate with the present state of science. The old idea of a museum of natural history was the exhibition of a whale, a tiger, and a few birds of Paradise, what are called specimens interesting to the public in general. Such an exhibition could not now be passed off as a museum. Every day science is becoming more and more clearly defined; every day distinctions, imperceptible to the public and even to well-informed men, open to the minds of men of science new regions of discovery and new realms of thought. Look at that great work, the publication of which last year formed the commencement of a new era of science in England—Mr. Darwin's work upon the Origin of Species. It is clear that a museum, to be complete, must include many specimens which, although of the greatest importance to the man of science, are of no interest to the mere visitors to the institution. I hope that whatever we do we shall do in a serious and scientific manner, and not establish a mere natural raree-show. What we want to do is to rival that magnificent establishment, the Jardin des Plantes; an establishment which has satisfied the aspirations of all scientific men, but which it never occurred to any Frenchman to unite with the Louvre. I know there is something to be said for the present state of the British Museum as a mere exhibition. It may amuse a great many people. The amusement of the people is a very important object; but I do not attach the same importance to the removal to South Kensington that some people do, because I think that too much weight may be given to the miserable moment in which we live, overlooking the time before us, when perhaps South Kensington will become the very centre of London. The main question is—is this to be a scientific institution or not? If it is, let the matter be treated with the liberality with which a great nation ought to treat questions of science, and do not let us be influenced by the fact that we have heard a capital speech in favour of economy in the early part of the evening. I do not understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is pledged to any particular details either as to space or arrangement, and so far from desiring to encourage extravagance, I gathered from his speech that he is taking the economic line; and that it is my hon. Friend, who, by desiring to keep all the collections in Bloomsbury, is the advocate of extravagance. There can be no doubt that the cost of building at Kensington is less than in Bloomsbury; therefore if you go for cheapness, you will go for Kensington. Any building to be erected on or near the present locality must be built to some degree in accordance with the style of the existing structure; but at Kensington we may have a building almost as light, although perhaps more permanent than that now occupied by the International Exhibition. If we leave the British Museum in its present state of congestion without trying to provide a remedy, I do not think we shall do our duty by the collection of science and art in this country. It behaves those who oppose this Bill to say what is to be done with our multifarious collections. If, some ten years ago, when the most distinguished men in the country concurred in opinion that a great museum of art should be formed at South Kensington, that plan had been carried out, great benefits would have been conferred on the public. I trust, now that a wise scheme has been matured by thoughtful men, that the House will not refuse to read this Bill a second time, but will reserve the discussion of details until we get into Committee.

LORD HENRY LENNOX

said, he would not venture to give an opinion in direct contradiction to that of Professor Owen on the scientific question. His plan certainly seemed a very extensive one; but the House should remember that in this, and in most other cases, it was easy to obtain great authorities on either side of the question. There were two points included in the proposition before the House to which he wished to direct attention— the question of finance, and that comprised in the saving clauses of the Bill. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that the House was not entitled on that occasion to discuss the financial part of the subject. True, the question of finance was not included in the Bill, but it formed the staple of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore the House was bound to take it into serious consideration. He confessed, for his own part, that he had heard with dismay the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Contemplated removal would cost about £600,000. Hon. Members could not have failed to remark that the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to bind himself as to the amount of the actual expenditure required, contenting himself with submitting what he had called, in his own dexterous way, a "preliminary and conjectural" estimate. Now, the House ought by this time to be pretty wide awake as to the meaning of such a phrase. Not many years ago a First Commissioner of Works laid before the House a preliminary and conjectural estimate for the building in which they were then assembled. That estimate amounted to the modest sum of £700,000, but the actual expenditure up to that time might be stated at £2,400,000. In the face of this and other equally startling precedents, he could not help regarding with alarm, especially since a removal of some kind must take place soon, the "preliminary and conjectural estimate" of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He supposed, that if there was to be a removal at all, the most economical site which could be fixed upon was South Kensington. [Cries of No !] Even among those who were opposed to removal altogether the opinion was almost universal that there was a considerable difference in point of expense in favour of South Kensington, and this opinion was strongly shared in by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole), who had thoroughly investigated the matter; and to his mind that site had this additional advantage—that, whatever the original outlay might be, there was so much available land that there could be no question of further removals. But the great and radical defect of the present Bill was the saving clause, which proposed to transfer to South Kensington that distinguished and mysterious body of trustees which had heretofore flourished in Bloomsbury. Only a short period had elapsed since the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole), and the hon. Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Layard) acknowledged, that if they had to found the British Museum over again, the existing system of management was not the one which they would select. And yet six weeks had scarcely elapsed, and the House was called upon to vote £600,000 for a new museum at South Kensington, at the head of which it was actually proposed to put the very identical body of trustees whose mismanagement had been so often and so generally condemned. At the same time, he thought it a question whether the hon. Member for Galway should persist in his Amendment. It might convey to the country the impression that the hon. Member was opposed to any removal to South Kensington, whereas his real meaning, according to his speech, was that it was neither the time nor the place; to vote so large a sum as £600,000, and that some change should be made in the system of management. This was an early stage of the Bill, and he should be sorry to give any vote which could infer hostility to the principle of removal, or to the site chosen; but if his hon. Friend should persist in his Motion, he should have his support, as he should feel bound; to show his sense of the crude and unsatisfactory nature of the Bill, and of the arguments by which it had been introduced to the House.

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

said, that if a foreigner had been listening to the debate of that evening, it must have struck him that it was, to say the least, a rather curious coincidence that a proposal to vote £600,000 for a new collection of birds, beasts, and fishes at South Kensington should have been brought forward on the very evening when the leader of the Opposition had made a speech denouncing their exorbitant expenditure—a speech, he might add, which was re-echoed by many Liberal Members in that House, as well as by the press generally throughout the country. The Government might be said to be employed at present in digging its own grave. The expenditure about to be made so recklessly was not one on which people were agreed. There were many who thought that the money might be more beneficially applied in other directions for the promotion of art. Far from thinking it desirable that the collections should be separated, he could not conceive a more fortunate circumstance than that they should be near one another, because they knew that a simply scientific mind was too apt to despise the works of imagination, and ima- ginative minds were too apt to despise the works of science; but by bringing the two classes together the faults of both were corrected. A great deal was said about educating the masses, but how were people in the south and east of London to get to Kensington? Moreover, who could answer for the vagaries of fashion? For his own part, he believed that its tendency would not be always westward, but towards some of the newer parts of London, either north or south, where the situation was more picturesque and the soil more favourable. Why did the Commissioners of 1851 wish to bring down everything to South Kensington? The National Exhibition of 1851 was intended for the good of the country, and the surplus funds ought to be applied in that sense. If it were determined to be for the public interest that the collection should be maintained at the British Museum, what right had the Commissioners to draw it down to South Kensington against the wish of the nation? The name of Professor Owen had been mentioned frequently. He had conversed with Professor Owen, and he had said that he did not care where the collection was placed, so that he had plenty of room. He would, however, of course, prefer being near the library of the British Museum.

MR. SCLATER BOOTH

observed, that they had been many years employed in concentrating the public offices, but the Bill was one for separating a great department. The trustees of the British Museum had conducted the business in Russell Square very much through the hands of their secretaries; and if the management were to continue as hitherto, after effect had been given to the proposed removal, there would be a divided, and perhaps conflicting administration, which would lead to great expense and great uncertainty, and no one would be satisfied. He thought, therefore, before they consented to the second reading of the Bill, the House should understand that the trustees of the Museum had some plan for dividing the government, so that the department at South Kensington should not be interfered with, or be under the influence or control of the central department in Russell Square. If that were not so, constant complaints would arise, and dissatisfaction would exist between the officers of the Museum. In the event of the natural history collection being removed, it would be absolutely necessary to have a further large outlay for a library in connection with the department, as it would be impossible to separate that portion of the library from the Museum; and he had been credibly informed that such a library for South Kensington would cost many thousands of pounds.

MR. PULLER

said, he had listened with great astonishment to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which was one of the most remarkable instances of a petitio principii he had ever heard. His calculation that the expense of the collection maintained at Bloomsbury would be £980,000, while if removed to South Kensington, it would be only £680,000, proceeded upon the assumption that Professor Owen's plan was to be adopted. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I said so.] Yes; but his right hon. Friend treated that part of the case as if it was a thing about which there could be no question, and as to which it was not incumbent upon him to offer a single argument. From what did all the discussions upon the subject arise? Was there any pressure for the removal of the natural history collection? No. All the scientific men examined, with the exception of Professor Owen, stated that the more limited mode of exhibition was the best—part to be kept in drawers for the use and study of scientific persons, and part to be fixed in cases for public inspection. The unscientific visitors would only be wearied by having to pass along miles of glass cases, containing in one place several hundred varieties of rooks, in another several hundred varieties of pigeons, and so on; differing, indeed, one from another, but differing, for the most part, by such minute distinctions as would hardly be appreciable except by a well-instructed eye. On the other hand, a specimen shut up in a glass case was comparatively of little use to the naturalist. What he wanted was to take the skin of a bird in his hands, to examine it all round, to hold it up to the light, and perhaps to extend its wings and take accurate measurements of its different parts. Then, as regarded expense, if every species were exhibited, as proposed by Professor Owen, not only would there be a vast expense at first for the building and fittings, and for obtaining and preparing those species, such for instance as the whales, of which there were not at present any specimens in the Museum, but there would be a further and very considerable expense continually recurring for the renewal of the collections, if they were to give any true idea of the creatures as they existed in life. Because it was well known that the colours of many specimens, more especially those of delicate shells and the skins of the mammalia, entirely faded after a certain period of exposure to the light. He might mention as an instance the case of a valuable collection of differently-coloured kangaroos, presented a few years back, which after a short time were found to be all one colour. What they really wanted space for was not the natural history collection, but the collection of antiquities. There was at the Museum a large and continually-increasing collection of sculptures, many of them of great interest, which for want of room could not be exhibited at present, and which were now in a state that was really discreditable to the nation. The proposal of the trustees to find room for these sculptures in the present building by removing the natural history collections to Kensington, was open to various objections. All persons who were really interested in the study of antiquities would wish to have the remains of any one country and period brought together without reference to their size or weight, so that one object might illustrate another. But such a chronological arrangement would be impossible on the plan of the trustees. The lighter articles must be placed upstairs, the heavier sculptures must remain on the ground floor, where they could not have that sky light which the witnesses most conversant with matters of art considered so desirable for exhibiting them to advantage. Then as regarded the comparative expense. If the whole of the first floor at the Museum were given up to the natural history collections, it would be amply sufficient on the more limited plan of exhibition; and the expense of adapting it for that purpose would not exceed the sum proposed by the trustees to be spent at the Museum. For the existing collections of sculptures ample accommodation could be provided, and with sky light to most of the rooms, by purchasing one acre of ground between the Museum and Charlotte Street and covering it with buildings on some such plan as that proposed by Mr. Oldfield. That would cost £50,000 for the ground and £100,000 for the buildings, or £150,000 altogether. On the other hand, it was admitted that for the building at Kensington more than £500,000 would be required; and it must be remembered that by that plan, although the sculptures now at the Museum might be accommodated in the existing building, no provision was made for further additions to the collection of antiquities, so that they must sooner or later extend their buildings at Bloomsbury. With respect to the question of site, he did not lay much stress on the facilities which the position of the British Museum afforded for the visits of the labouring classes; for, having regard to the extension of the metropolis, and the increased means of communication between the different points, South Kensington might perhaps become almost as convenient in a few years; but in considering this question he would have regard to the convenience of scientific men. South Kensington would be an expensive place for them to live in, while the neighbourhoods north of Tottenham Court Road were comparatively cheap. Taken as an abstract question, he had no objection to a separation of the collection; but if there was to be a separation, his feeling was that the sculptures ought to be taken to South Kensington, because they were a portion of the collection which possessed more interest for the persons who lived at South Kensington. He should like to hear the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) as to whether it would not be better to move the sculptures than the natural history collection.

MR. WALPOLE

Sir, as one of those who have taken some interest in the proposals before the House, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words in support of the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do so the more willingly, because I believe it is known to those who take an interest, in the British Museum that up to this time I have always been of opinion, that it would be better to enlarge the Museum buildings than separate the collection, and take a portion of it to another place. I wish to guard myself on this point, because I still think, that if it could be done, we ought to enlarge and extend the present Museum so as to keep the collection together; but I shall presently bring before the House the reasons which have convinced me that we have no longer to deal with this question as a matter of choice, but as a matter of necessity. The House may judge, from the diversity of opinions expressed in the course of this debate, of the very great difficulty there is in dealing with this subject in a satisfactory manner. Of those who have spoken, no two Gentlemen have agreed in opinion. Some hon. Members are for one plan and others for another. Some are for having the collection arranged typically, some for exhibiting them in parts, and some are for the plan suggested by the most scientific man of the day in his particular line. It may be said, and, indeed, it has been said by Professor Owen —and it must come home to any one who wishes that this great collection should be available for all the great purposes to which it can be applied—it may be said, and it has been said, that the great object of having these collections together, and of exhibiting these specimens in the form and to the extent Professor Owen desires, is that we may show—to use his own words—the one creative principle extending and manifesting itself through all parts of creation. I do not presume to give an opinion upon that point; but this I do say, that when it has got the opinion of Professor Owen, the House will do well to hesitate before it decides against the opinion of such a man. If the present Museum is to be extended, we shall want a very large additional space. Professor Owen thinks that less than five acres will not suffice; and in order to gain that space around the Museum, it will be necessary to buy all the houses on three sides of the Museum, to pull them down, and construct buildings on the site to hold the entire collection. The cost will be £50,000 an acre, or £250,000 for the purchase of the land alone. By going down to South Kensington—and this is the great argument for removing a portion of the collection—the same quantity of ground can be purchased for one-fifth of that sum. That is a consideration which, when we are dealing with the matter financially, we ought not to lose eight of. Ten years ago, the trustees applied to the Government for the opportunity of extending the space of the present Nuseum. The Government replied, they were not prepared to sanction the extension of the old building. In 1857 the trustees, among whom were Earl Russell, Lord Macaulay, Earl Stanhope, Sir Roderick Murchison, and Sir Benjamin Brodie, came to a resolution, urging the Government to enable them to buy some of the houses to the north of the Museum, that they might provide accommodation for the sculpture then in glass sheds under the portico. The Government referred the matter to a Commission. Thus the trustees neither neglected their duty in 1851 nor in 1857; but the action of the Government, the appointment of a Commission, and the difference of opinion in this House, prevented the recommendation of the trustees from being acted upon. If their suggestions had been adopted, the gradual extension of the Museum would have been commenced ten years ago, new space might have been added as circumstances required, and one-half, if not the whole, of the ground required might have been by this time purchased. The refusal of the Government, however, the action of this House, and the inquiry by a Commission and a Committee, have prevented this great good from being achieved. What is our present position? At the present moment the rooms of the Museum are so crowded that neither the antiquities nor the natural history collection can be exhibited to advantage. That has been the case for the last five or six years. Let me ask the House, whether they would wish all these antiquities from Halicarnassus, Cyrene, and Cnidus to remain in glass sheds under the portico of the Museum, because they will neither grant the extension of the Museum on its present site nor allow the antiquities to be removed to any other spot? We have the finest collection in the world in natural subjects, as well as in subjects of art and literature; and the real way for the House to regard this matter is to take care that at the end of fifty years those who come after us may not look back with regret at the want of due accommodation for this magnificent collection. The question is, whether you can provide the additional space necessary for keeping the Museum where it is, or whether you are not driven by necessity to go elsewhere. If you reject this Bill, what do you intend to do? To purchase the houses around the Museum? If so, your expenses will be financially greater. Will you leave the objects where they are? If so, the trustees will every year be unjustly reproached for having a collection which they do not exhibit. If the House declines to adopt either of these alternatives, will any hon. Member get up in his place and say that we could find a better site for a portion of the collection than South Kensington? If no better site can be found—if nothing financially more economical can be proposed, the expense being diminished, moreover, by spreading it over a period of years, can we do a better thing than to pass this Bill? My noble Friend (Lord H. Lennox) says there is a saving clause that the trust is to remain with the present trustees, and the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) reminds me that I have expressed an opinion, if the matter were res integra, in favour of having one responsible person at the head of an executive body. I adhere to the opinion that in every department of the Government the principle of individual responsibility in executive matters is the best. That is, however, no reason why you should intefere with a trust that has long existed, unless that trust has been mismanaged. I defy any hon. Gentleman to show mismanagement in the present trust. So difficult are these questions that when the hon. Member for Galway considers what would be the trust that he would substitute for the present, he creates a similar trust; for he would put upon it Sir Roderick Murchison, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheshire (Sir P. Egerton), and one or two gentlemen at the head of departments at South Kensington, to see that all is properly managed. That would be really a revival of the present trust in a more limited form. The real truth is, that the best management is by making the keepers of every department responsible for that department. They are always on the spot; they apply their minds to the subject of their collections, and it should be their duty to suggest to the trustees the additions that ought to be made, and the measures necessary to be taken. By that means you get an individual responsibility, and at the same time a superintending control. That is exactly what you have got now, and it is far better to continue the present management than to hand over the Museum to a new set of men, because that will only increase the expense instead of diminishing it. If, then, the removal or extension of the Museum is no longer a matter of choice, but of necessity—if the expenses to be incurred will be less by removing to South Kensington that portion relating to natural subjects, retaining at the Museum the collections relative to literature and art — I ask the House to pause before it rejects this Bill, unless it is prepared to agree to some plan that is preferable to the present. If I could have my own way, and could be sure that the House would consent, by purchasing the houses around the building, to make the present Museum the receptacle for holding the entire collection, I should be in favour of that plan. As, however, that course is not likely to be sanctioned either by the House or the Government, I trust that the House will agree to this Bill, and that when we get into Committee we may make provision for the proper reception of this collection, so that, in the words of the Act, it may "remain and be preserved for public use to all posterity."

MR. COX

said, the Bill involved an expense of nearly £700,000. As the national expenditure was £70,000,000, and as the noble Lord did not hold out the slightest hope of reducing it, he hoped the House would not sanction a further outlay, for which no necessity whatever had been proved. Under present circumstances they might very well wait until they saw the result of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Disraeli's) administration. When they had realized the reduction of the five or six millions per annum which the right hon. Gentleman had shadowed forth, it would be time to talk not about removing any portion of the Museum, but about adopting the plan which the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken admitted that he should himself prefer, and having one great collection in one building. Besides, he (Mr. Cox) did not think the scheme proposed was the best that could be adopted, even if the division of the collection was really a necessity. After the experience they had had of the tens of thousands of persons who every holiday visited the Museum, they must be aware that the natural history collections were precisely those which afforded most amusement, and, he hoped, instruction to the masses. If, therefore, they must take anything to the West End, it should be not that which interested the millions, but that which interested the few. He must say he had been much struck with the phraseology of the schedules contained in the Bill. It was not stated what was intended to be removed, but what was "capable of being removed." Surely books and manuscripts and antiquities were as capable of being removed as the natural history collections. If the books were removed, they would be removed from a place where they could be generally used to a place where they would be used in a very minor degree, because they would be removed from a very populous to a less populous locality.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

Sir, this subject is fortunately not new to the House, and I am certainly not desirous of occupying its attention more than a few minutes. The question has undergone so much consideration by different Go- vernments, and has so frequently been brought under the notice of the trustees of the Museum, of whom I have the honour to be one—[Ironical cheers.] I confess I do not understand the meaning of that cheer. I have taken part in various debates on this subject, and have therefore acquired some knowledge of it, which, perhaps, other hon. Members of the House may not have obtained. This question has at different times been referred by the executive Government to the trustees of the British Museum, and I apprehend that nobody is so well qualified to form an opinion upon the interests of that institution, or the management of its collections, as the trustees, who are persons of all opinions, representing all departments of science and art. After many decisions, which I admit have been various and conflicting, they have ended by agreeing almost unanimously to the adoption of the plan which has lately been brought under the notice of the House. They say it has become practically impossible to maintain all the collections which are now united in the British Museum, that some separation has become a matter of necessity, and that some arrangement by which the natural history collection shall be provided for in some other building than the existing British Museum, is, on the whole, the most expedient. Now, an hon. Gentleman has told the House to-night that it is only the collection of antiquities and not that of zoology which is inadequately provided for. Now, to that statement I wish to give an entire denial; and if it is the wish of the House that that splendid collection now located at the Museum should be adequately accommodated, it has become a matter of necessity either to enlarge sufficiently the present buildings or to provide others elsewhere. The trustees have considered the propriety of purchasing land in the vicinity of the Museum. To that there are two objections—one that the land in the immediate vicinity of the Museum is more expensive ["No"]—yes, it is more expensive than land in a less central and more suburban position—and the other and most powerful objection is, that by attempting to combine large and miscellaneous collections in one building you prevent that efficient management which would be better secured if some of the collections were otherwise located. We have only to consider, then, where a site may be found. It may be proposed to obtain a site in the Regent's Park or some other place in the neighbourhood of the most frequented part of the metropolis; but the offer of the trustees of the Exhibition of 1851 to give the land at Kensington Gore at a moderate price, determined the trustees and the Government in favour of that scheme. And I cannot conceive a more wonderful scheme than that of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. H. Seymour), that the trustees should give the land at a less price—

MR. HENRY SEYMOUR

said, the land would bring £10,000 per acre. What he proposed was that the Commissioners should give the land, which was half paid for by public money, that it should be sold, and the proceeds be applied to purchase land near the Museum.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

That makes the case rather worse, because the hon. Member says that this land was bought by the public money. [Mr. H. SEYMOUR: One half part of it.] The land was purchased by the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851. But then came another proposal from his hon. Friend in his zeal for economy. —Medio de fonte leporum Surgit amari aliquid. There came out a plan for a great street, from Trafalgar Square to the British Museum, with a view to diminish the public burdens. Now, I should think, if we were to purchase all the land through the Seven Dials, Holborn, and that part of the town, the probability is that we should not pay the bill with less than £2,000,000. When hon. Members bore in mind that the plan had been carefully examined and ultimately agreed to by the trustees of the British Museum, the executive Government, and those most competent to form a judgment, they would see that it would be plainly out of place, upon the Motion for the second reading, for the House to resolve itself into a Committee to examine into the question of square feet, and of all the details involved in a plan of such magnitude.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

said, that he for one would accept the advice of the Secretary for War, and would confine himself in the few remarks he had to make, to criticising, not the details, but the outlines of the Bill; and he must say that in the speeches made in its support he remarked one singular omission. They had had an aesthetic speech from the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes), who, eschewing all notion of economy, seemed to have adopted the motto of Charles Surface, in the School for Scandal, and to say, though he did not actually use the words, "D—n the expense." They had also had two speeches from trustees of the British Museum, and he would warn the House not to be led away by speakers who spoke as trustees. He offered no opinion on the judiciousness of separating the collections, because that was a matter which stood on its own merits, and he did not intend to give his vote as to that part of the question; but he wished the House to consider the very important question "Where was the money to come from?" They had a Government who represented themselves tonight to be a purely economical Government, and anxious on the first occasion to make any retrenchment, for the very natural reason of gaining popularity, and here was their first essay in retrenchment. He would not complain of this, if there was a flourishing state of affairs in Ireland, if there was no distress in Lancashire, and if there was a surplus in the Exchequer. It might, then, be natural for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come down and put forward a conjectural estimate of £650,000, which would involve an expenditure of a million and a half. The real position of the question was this—were this little estimate to remove a portion of the Museum to another place to be agreed to, where did the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to get the money from? It was called a great national undertaking, and they might easily guess what the expense would be when the nation had to pay the piper. Therefore he hoped, in going to a division, that all trustees, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, and aesthetic Members of Parliament, would have some consideration for economy, and not vote the proposed removal at the present time, when there was no surplus in the Exchequer, and when there was great distress in the country. Let them not now undertake new, and, as he thought, most costly plans of building, and upon whose recommendation? Certainly, upon that of one of the most profound zoologists of the age—Professor Owen. But if hon. Gentlemen read Professor Owen's evidence before the Committee over which the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) presided, they would have a knowledge to what that Professor's plans extended. Were they aware that he called upon the Committee to build a hall 850 feet in length for the reception of whales, of which there were no less than fifteen different species? Professor Owen also advocated the preparation of apartments for every variety of elephant, and he (Mr. Osborne) would put it to the House whether the sum of £680,000, as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would cover all the expense? This is no joking matter. The fact was that the whole financial part of the question had been left completely in the dark that evening. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who could lecture so wisely at Manchester on the unwholesome state of the finances, had said nothing on that part of the question that night. Let not the House be led away by that most questionable of all matters—a matter of taste. Let them beware of the hon. Member for Pontefract when talking, in a manner which showed a contempt for economy, of Darwin's Origin of Species, and everything but the real topic for the consideration of the House. What brought Sir Visto's ill-got wealth to waste? "Some demon"— (in the shape of a Chancellor of the Exchequer) — "whisper'd, 'Visto ! have a taste.' Let the House delay the Vote until the finances of the country were in a better position to allow of such an expenditure. Let them test the Government to-night as to the sincerity of their promises of economy, and show that they wished to place the finances of the country in a wholesome state; if they did, they could have he hesitation in supporting the Motion of the hon. Member for Galway.

COLONEL SYKES

said, he wished the House to bear in mind that the Museum was established not merely for the upper ten thousand, but for the working classes also. He thought that wherever was the focus of population, there the national museum ought to be.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

—Sir, undoubtedly, this is a question involving a principle of economy. But the curious circumstance connected with the debate is, that those gentlemen in this House who profess themselves to be the stoutest advocates for economy are recommending that plan which would be by far the most expensive. It is admitted by all that the present building of the Museum is choke-full of objects. With regard to natural history, persons who go there will see specimens of animals huddled together in cases and cupboards like sheep in a fold, and in a state of crowding in which it is perfectly impossible to see them with the necessary attention, or to study the object which they come to look at. It being agreed by all that extension of space is required for the proper enlargement of the collections contained in the British Museum, the only question really is whether that extension shall be acquired in the neighbourhood of the Museum, or whether it shall be acquired as proposed by my right hon. Friend by additional ground at Kensington. Well, then, the question is, do you prefer to pay £50,000 an acre for the land you want, or will you be content with paying only £10,000. And strange to say, the advocates of economy, those gentlemen who profess an earnest desire to put a limit to the expenditure of the country, have a preference to pay £50,000 an acre instead of £10,000. Now, the Bill of my right hon. Friend does not specify the quantity of land to be acquired. You may have five acres or one acre, as you choose. The only effect of the Bill is, that you are to get the land you want, be it more or less, at the rate of £10,000 an acre, instead of the expensive rate of £50,000 an acre. My hon. Friend who spoke last is alarmed at the notion of the vast space required for the accommodation of whales. Let me propose a compromise to my hon. Friend. Let him, when the House shall go into Committee on the Bill, introduce a clause prohibiting any whales. I have no doubt whales are objects of great curiosity; but sooner than go to the expense of paying £50,000, when we can get land for £10,000 an acre, I, for my part, shall be willing, with my hon. Friend, to exclude whales altogether from disporting themselves in Kensington Gardens. As my hon. Friend says, this is not a joking matter. It is no joke to compel the country to pay £50,000, when you can get what you want for £10,000; and therefore I hope that the House will support the Bill of my right hon. Friend.

MR. HENLEY

said, he did not wish to give a silent vote on what seemed to him a curious Bill; still less so when he heard from his right hon. Friend near him that the sum to be expended was not quite agreed upon. But it was not on account of the disagreement that he objected to the Bill. He objected to it on this simple ground—that it was a Bill professing to give power to the trustees of the British Museum to do something; and it had been stated indirectly that it would entail upon the country an expenditure of between £600,000 and £700,000. He did not wish to say much about economy, but he had always deemed it to be his duty to vote against what he considered to be extravagance, and he did not feel disposed to depart from the rule in the present instance. He should remind the House that there was no plan before it, and he for one should decline to give his assent to a measure which might lead to an expenditure of which he did not know the amount. When they had a plan before them, they would be in a better position to judge whether the arrangement was economical or not, whether £600,000 or £700,000 was to be expended, or whether double that amount would not be required. Without expressing any opinion on the question whether the collections in the Museum should be divided, or whether they should all be kept in one place, he should vote against any of these short Bills, which would involve an expenditure of no one knew what, and hardly any one knew what for. All that the House knew was that a building was to be put up somewhere. He considered this a had way of doing business, particularly at a time when nobody could be sanguine that the finances of the country were in a flourishing state; and if there could be one circumstance worse than another, it was the dragging-on of a matter of the sort by small and miserable instalments. If it was necessary to have a building of the kind, let the House look the question boldly in the face, and ascertain what it would cost, and erect it at once. If they, were to go dragging on for four or five years, it would be ten to one that the plans would be changed over and over again, and instead of the building costing £600,000 or £700,000, the amount would be much nearer £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. Let the stone once be set rolling, and then all gentlemen of taste would have a kick at it, and it would be kicked from one to the other, and none of them probably would ever live to see an end of the expense.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 163: Majority 92. "

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Heading put off for three months.