Commons Sitting of 21 April 1856

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Athlone,
Hon. Captain Henry Handcock.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Dublin Metropolitan Police; Grand Jury Assessments (Ireland); National Gallery; Spirit Trade (Ireland).
3° Bankruptcy (Scotland).

THE WELLINGTON MONUMENT— EXPLANATION.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he wished to correct a statement he had made the other evening, in reply to a question respecting the erection of a monument to the late Duke of Wellington. He then stated that his predecessor at the Board of Works had considered two plans, one of which has been sent in by Mr. Baily and the other by Mr. Foley, but that, after careful consideration, neither of those plans was approved of. He (Sir B. Hall) also stated that, soon after he came into office, he saw the models which he had reason to believe, from the statements made to him, had been prepared by Mr. Baily and Mr. Foley. He had, however, received a communication from Mr. Foley, informing him that the plans to which he had referred were those of Mr. Baily alone. He (Sir B. Hall) might observe that it was his intention to invite those gentlemen to send in plans again.

THE SEBASTOPOL CLASP—QUESTION.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, that in reference to a statement made by the Under Secretary for War on Friday evening, that none but combatant officers were to receive the Sebastopol clasp, he would beg to inquire whether the War Office had decided that surgeons attending the wounded under fire or Commissariat officers bringing up supplies during action were non-combatants? He asked the question because he understood that those medical and Commissariat officers who were still at Sebastopol had received the clasp, while those who had returned since the city was taken had been refused it.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he could only repeat the answer which he gave on Friday, that, as a general rule, none but combatant officers were to receive clasps commemorative of actions, but added, that it had been decided to make an exception in favour of medical officers, on the ground that they were obliged, in the performance of their duty, to go under fire with their regiments.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that he had not answered that portion of the question which referred to the distinction made between the medical and Commissariat officers remaining in the Crimea and those who had returned home.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he must beg to explain that before the general rule which he had described came into
1326
operation a number of Commissariat officers received the Sebastopol clasp, which they had not since been requested to return, although the same distinction had not been conferred upon the remaining officers in the same department.

ORDNANCE—DEFECTIVE MORTARS— MESSRS. GRISSELL.
MR. MALINSsaid he rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the charges which were made by the Clerk of the Ordnance against Messrs. Grissell of having inserted pieces of iron in the mortars which were made by them, in order that the flaws in the materials which they had used might escape observation. That charge related to men of great respectability, and he was himself satisfied, and he hoped also to be able to satisfy the House, that it was entirely destitute of foundation. During the summer of last year the Government were greatly in need of mortars for carrying on the war, and, not being able to obtain the requisite supply from the houses with which they usually dealt, they applied to no less than fifty-four manufacturing firms of high reputation to ascertain whether they could furnish the mortars which were required. Among other persons, Messrs. Grissell, who held extensive Government contracts for machinery, and who carried on a very large business, were asked if they would undertake to supply a certain number of mortars. They stated that as the manufacture of mortars was not within their line of business they were reluctant to undertake a contract, but that as the Government were pressed they would afford any assistance in their power. They accepted a contract for furnishing eight mortars of five tons each, the price being limited to £24 a ton. Now, he was assured by those gentlemen, that having entered upon the contract, and deeming it important that the best materials for the mortars should be secured, they had instituted all the necessary inquiries upon the subject, and had come to the conclusion that Staffordshire cold blast-iron, with a mixture of Cumberland and old iron, would be found to be the best materials for their purpose. Acting upon that opinion one member of the firm had taken a journey through England, and having acquired all the information he could collect, had provided the necessary materials, and proceeded to carry out the manufacture of the mortars in question. Now, six out of the eight mortars which had been contracted for had subsequently

1327
been delivered, and of those six mortars no complaint whatever had been made. Upon the 29th of October, however, a mortar described in the papers as No. 4, was delivered, and with respect to that mortar the foreman, having been anxious to render it as perfect as possible, had adopted a new system of pouring in the metal, both at the bottom and the top, the consequence of which was that, when the currents of metal met a blistering was caused and some small holes appeared. Messrs. Grissell were perfectly satisfied that, notwithstanding these blemishes on the face of the metal, they had not cast a sounder mortar or one of greater strength. They therefore filled up the holes on the surface with iron of a different quality, and on the 29th of October the mortar was delivered. On the 20th of December that mortar was inspected for the first time by Colonel Wilmot, by whom it was rejected. The Messrs. Grissell considered that no good reason whatever existed for that rejection; and requested that the mortar might be tried. That request had, however, been refused and the mortar was thrown into what was called the "rejected ground." He might inform the House that the Messrs. Grissell, having found the contract more difficult of performance even than they had anticipated, had actually been obliged to expend upon the erection of new machinery a sum of £1,000, that being the whole amount for which they had originally undertaken to carry the contract into execution. On the 19th of November, Messrs. Grissell received a communication from Colonel Wilmot, asking whether they would enter into a contract to furnish the Government with fifteen more mortars. They stated that the price at which they had undertaken the first contract was too low; they sent in new specifications, and on the 23rd of November they were instructed to proceed with the manufacture of fifteen additional mortars, the price of which was to be £28 per ton. The terms of the contract provided that these mortars should be delivered by the last day of February, and at the end of January, when it became apparent that peace was about to be concluded and that the additional mortars might not be wanted, Messrs. Grissell were informed that none of those mortars would be received by the Government after the 29th of February. The firm were therefore obliged to work night and day in order to complete the contract, and on or before the last day of February all the mortars were delivered.
1328
It must be remembered that the manufacturers of guns and mortars had no means of testing them, but they were tested by the Government themselves. One of the mortars delivered by Messrs. Grissell burst, but mortars sent in by all other manufacturers had also burst, and on the 7th of March, Messrs. Grissell received a letter, signed "T. H. Monk," informing them that one of their 13-inch mortars had burst, on the firing of the tenth round, at Shoeburyness, when a plug was discovered screwed into the breech. The letter further stated that, in consequence of this discovery, the mortars at Woolwich, supplied by Messrs. Grissell, had been minutely inspected, and that a plug had been discovered in mortar No. 4, which was delivered on the 29th of October. Before they had time to answer that letter the Clerk of the Ordnance had come down to that House, upon the night of the 7th March, and in Committee of Supply had made, without the slightest investigation into the merits of the case, a charge against the Messrs. Grissell, for which, if true, no punishment could be too severe. The right hon. Gentleman told the House, on the 7th of March, that the Government had obtained a considerable number of mortars from private firms, but that the result had been most unsatisfactory; that several failures had taken place in respect to those mortars, and he was sorry to say that one firm, which he would not name, was found to have made attempts at deception in the manufacture of five of them by inserting pieces of iron in order that flaws in the material they had used might escape observation. That statement of the right hon. Gentleman had naturally awakened a feeling of profound indignation in the House against the men who had been guilty of a fraud so infamous. The hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Colonel Boldero), in giving expression to that indignation, had said that the firm which had supplied those mortars ought to be prosecuted for felony; and the hon. Member for the Cardigan Burghs (Mr. L. Davies) said that the name of the man guilty of the conduct described by the right hon. Gentleman ought to be published, so that every honourable person might treat him as a felon, and that he might be consigned to the infamy he deserved. But no name had been given in connection with the charge until the evening of the 11th of March, when the noble Lord the Secretary for War stated in another place, in reply to a question put by

1329
the Earl of Derby, that the firm to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred was that of the Messrs. Grissell; and when the Earl of Derby urged on the Government the propriety of considering whether the head of that firm ought not to be prosecuted, the noble Lord the Secretary for War said that the Government had, in the first place, erased the firm from the list of Government contractors, and had submitted to the law officers of the Crown whether Messrs. Grissell ought not to be prosecuted. Up to that moment the Messrs. Grissell had not received the slightest intimation from any quarter that they were the parties against whom the charge of the right hon. Gentleman was directed; but of course, after the declaration of the noble Lord the Secretary for War, they could no longer remain silent. What was the foundation of the charge against those gentlemen—a charge which was virtually one of felony? Why, it was simply this, that preparatory to turning the mass of iron a hole had to be bored in the breech for inserting the centre of the lathe, and when the mortar was finished a plug of iron was driven into this hole, simply to fill up an unsightly cavity. The plug had not, therefore, been inserted for the purpose of concealing any defect in the material, but simply for the purpose of filling up a hole which it was necessary to make in completing the manufacture. It was not a little remarkable that on the 10th of March, the day before the noble Lord the Secretary for War had made his statement in the House of Lords upon that subject, Colonel Wilmot had written to the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance a letter, in which he stated that there was reason to believe the hole at the breech had been made in the process of manufacture, and not with a view to conceal any flaw in the material; and yet, notwithstanding that statement of Colonel Wilmot on the 10th of March, the noble Lord the Secretary for War on the following day repeated in the House of Lords the charge of fraud, which had first been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance in the House of Commons. That fact revealed at least a very infelicitous mode of conducting Government business. A correspondence ensued between the War Office and Messrs. Grissell, and those gentlemen, in a lengthened interview which they had had with the noble Lord the Secretary for War, on the 14th of March, had convinced the noble Lord, as appeared from the papers laid before
1330
the House, that the charge of having put in the plugs for the purpose of concealing a flaw in the materials was unfounded. It further appeared, that two engineers of the highest reputation—namely, Mr. Brunel and Mr. Fowler, had, after due inquiry, made a report, in which they expressed their belief that "the description of iron used by the Messrs. Grissell, and the mode of proceeding which they had adopted, indicated a desire to perform work to which they were not accustomed in a creditable manner, and that it was clear no fraud had been attempted in the case." A letter had been written by the Messrs. Grissell, on the 14th of March, in which they entered into the fullest explanations upon the subject; and that letter was answered in a communication which, for some reason or another he (Mr. Malins) could not understand, was not inserted in the papers that had been presented to Parliament. In that communication the authorities at the War Office acquitted those gentlemen on the charge of fraud, but persisted in stating that they believed the plug had been inserted for the purpose of concealment. But the Messrs. Grissell very properly considered that a charge of concealment involved a charge of fraud, and did not allow the matter to rest there. The point in dispute was referred to Colonel Wilmot, and he drew up a Report, in which he made a statement to the effect, that on the whole he thought the opinion given by Mr. Brunel and Mr. Fowler, in favour of the honesty of the contractors, ought to be considered conclusive; and then he went on to declare that, in his belief, iron compounded of Blenavon and Pontypool would have been better than the iron compounded of Staffordshire coldblast, Cumberland hematite, and old iron, used by the Messrs. Grissell. That latter opinion, however, had been then stated for the first time by Colonel Wilmot—he had never before expressed a wish that the compound he recommended should be employed by the Messrs. Grissell—and he (Mr. Malins) could not help thinking that that new question had been introduced for the purpose of diverting attention from the real point at issue. Colonel Wilmot further stated in his Report that he had satisfied himself that the Messrs. Grissell had spent a sum of £1,000 in machinery, for the purpose of properly fulfilling their contract. He (Mr. Malins) had been induced to take up the case solely from a desire to obtain for a firm which had hitherto borne an unblemished character the reparation

1331
of what they regarded as a gross injustice; and on the 2nd of the present month he had asked the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance, whether the Government had yet satisfied themselves of the groundlessness of their charge against the Messrs. Grissell. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, in reply, that the correspondence upon the subject was still going on, and that he could not answer the question. But he (Mr. Malins) hoped that at present, at all events, that answer would not be repeated, and that the right hon. Gentleman would at length be prepared to do justice to those gentlemen. Among the papers presented to Parliament was a memorandum written by Colonel Wilmot, on the 11th of April, in which he stated that on the 7th of March, in the course of a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell), he had used the words "flaws in the material," when he ought to have said "defects in the manufacture." It thus appeared that after a loose conversation with Colonel Wilmot, perhaps in the lobby of the House, the right hon. Gentleman felt himself justified on the evening of the same day in making a ruinous charge against a highly respectable firm. There was no duty more incumbent upon Members of the Government, whose statements in that House, however hurtful, could not be questioned in a court of law, than to be particularly abstemious in bringing charges against individuals. But what did he find in a letter written from the War Department on the 14th of April? Lord Panmure there stated, that the material had been proved not to be of such a quality as to secure the fitness of the mortars for the service; but, on the other hand, he willingly admitted that the plugs inserted in the mortars, with the exception of those on the face, were not placed there for the purpose of concealing flaws, but for filling up holes made in the process of manufacture. Surely the Clerk of the Ordnance must now regret having made his rash and unfounded charges on the 7th of March. Messrs. Grissell were charged with having inserted plugs into three mortars, but of that charge they had been subsequently acquitted. This observation, however, did not apply to No. 4, but the pieces inserted in that mortar were as plain when sent to Woolwich as the spectacles on a man's face. The Government endeavoured to get out of the scrape of not detecting this, by alleging that the mortar had been painted; but that was disproved. The
1332
grounds of the charge against the Messrs. Grissell were at present completely removed, as he (Mr. Malins) believed, and were evidently in the opinion of the Government itself at least greatly altered. There was no longer any question even as to the character of the iron which those gentlemen had employed; for a Commission, in which Colonel Wilmot himself had served, had reported that their compound was the best they could have adopted. He had been informed by persons most competent to give a decision in such a case, that the piece of iron inserted in the hole of the mortars had not in the slightest degree diminished their strength. That was the opinion of Mr. Brunel and Mr. Fowler; and he believed it was also the opinion of the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Stephenson), than whom there could be no higher authority upon such a subject. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had violated the rules of fairness in bringing forward a grave charge in the hasty manner he had done against gentlemen who, he must have known, had long maintained an unsullied character in the performance of the duties of an honourable business; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, now that the whole of the facts were before him, would frankly admit that those gentlemen had honestly endeavoured to fulfil their contract. He felt assured that the House would concur with him in the belief that the charge was one which ought never to have been made, and that having once been made the right hon. Gentleman could not take too early an opportunity of retracting it. The right hon. Gentleman made a complaint that some of the mortars had burst. He did not, however, select those of Messrs. Grissell as having failed more than any others, but alleged general insufficiency; and if, out of the twenty-three mortars manufactured by that firm, one had burst, it was not from defective manufacture or material. Having gone out of their usual course of business in manufacturing those mortars they had determined to perform the duty in the best way they could. By doing so they had subjected themselves to a charge in that House which they had no means of removing but by an appeal to the generosity of the Members. If the right hon. Gentleman gave the assurance that he was now perfectly satisfied that whatever error might have been made by the contractors in the perforance of their contract the error was unintentional, there would be an

1333
end of the matter; but if he persisted in the charge which he had made, he (Mr. Malins) should consider whether it would not be his duty to move for a Select Committee to investigate the question.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House, that he should be glad if he could conscientiously arrive at the same conclusion with the hon. and learned Gentleman in reference to the subject before them. He should, in a few words, dispose of the charges which had been brought against himself and his noble Friend (Lord Panmure) in reference to the course which they had thought it their duty to pursue, and he should then explain to the House the real position in which the affair stood. With regard to himself, he thought the House would agree with him in thinking, that he was justified in making the statement to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred, when it was nothing more than what had been reported to him by the competent authority—the officer whose duty it was to examine and test the quality of the mortars supplied. Referring to that report, the only mistake which he could discover, after the explanation of the hon. and learned Member, was, that it was there stated that the plugs were to conceal defects in the material, instead of saying that they were to conceal defects in the workmanship. As to the fact that the mortars were plugged, there was now no denial; but the hon. and learned Gentleman stated that that was a matter of no importance, and that he was supported in that opinion by the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. Stephenson). Now, on the other hand, officers well acquainted with such subjects—Colonel Eardley Wilmot, the chief officer of Woolwich Arsenal, Captain Carrick, of the royal navy, and Sir Thomas Maitland, the head of the experimental department of the royal navy, had also given an opinion on the same subject, and it was one directly opposite to that of the hon. Member for Whitby. Their opinion was, that the flaws were defects of a most serious character, and weakened the mortars most materially. As to the question raised with respect to the holes being necessary for the process of turning, he could only refer to the unanimous resolution of the board of officers to refuse all mortars in any way flawed, and if the House would refer to the rule laid down by other nations in the selection of their mortars, they would find that their provisions were most distinct on that point. He (Mr. Monsell)
1334
could not agree with the conclusions to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had arrived, that the insertion of the plugs was no defect, for, on the contrary, he considered it a grievous and serious defect. He wished now to call the attention of the House to the mode in which the present question arose. On the 20th of December, it was discovered that there were certain plugs in mortar No. 4, when Mr. Grissell stated, that the flaws which they concealed were of a very insignificant character; but Colonel Wilmot refused to receive it. Colonel Wilmot, in his report, stated that Mr. Grissell waited on him, on hearing of the discovery, and expressed his regret that such a thing should have happened, but that it was an ordinary thing for such flaws to appear in castings, but that the mortar was nothing the worse for it, after which he earnestly besought him not to reject it, but that he (Colonel Wilmot) replied, that he would not enter into the question, as to whether the mortar was weakened by the plugs, but that, had he at first known it was plugged, he should not have even looked at it. Now, every one could see, that a plug in the breech of a mortar was a much more serious thing than one in the face of it, and he wished to ask the House this question—Did Mr. Grissell act as a man of that high character, which he was represented to bear, ought to have acted in not saying to Colonel Wilmot, when he knew that three other mortars supplied by his firm were also plugged? "Since you object to this mortar on the ground of its being plugged, although I, myself, think it is nothing the worse for being so, I think it right to inform you that there are also plugs in the other three." The House, then, would agree with him in thinking that it was impossible to acquit Mr. Grissell of misconduct in the matter. Again, in his letter, Mr. Grissell stated, that the plugs were used merely to stop up air holes which were of little importance, and that they were not more than from one-eighth of an inch to a quarter of an inch in diameter; but when it became Colonel Wilmot's duty to extract those plugs, he found them to be 1½ inch on the head, and from five-tenths to seven-tenths of an inch in the screw, and that the interior of the mortars were honey-combed. With regard to the question as to the badness of the materials, that was a matter on which the Government had no grounds of complaint. The three mortars tested had burst respectively at the 9th, 10th, and

1335
116th round, and, in fact, he (Mr. Monsell) thought that all he had advanced against the contractors was borne out by the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, that it was impossible for young hands to manufacture mortars. It was painful to him to make that statement, and he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that he entertained no personal feeling against the Messrs. Grissell, but it was his duty, from the position which he had the honour of occupying, to lay those facts before the House.
MR. G. DUNDASbegged to say a few words on this matter, with the details of which he had endeavoured to become familiar by careful inquiry, by a perusal of all the papers laid on the table, and by personal inspection of the mortars as they lay on the wharf at Woolwich, and of the heads of the mortars which were now lying at Messrs. Grissell's manufactory on the Regent's Canal. He must confess that when he first heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) he received it with surprise and incredulity. He would not believe that persons in the position of Messrs. Grissell would so hazard their reputation, as to attempt to palm upon the Government bad material and workmanship, knowing it to be so, and, from these inquiries, he was convinced that the charge was unfounded. The charges divided themselves into three heads. First, that Messrs. Grissell had inserted plugs into the base of the mortar for the purpose of covering defects in the metal. That statement was made by a noble Lord in another place long after he had had the opportunity of informing himself of the facts by communication with Messrs. Grissell, and on which very day, namely, the 10th of March, as appears by the correspondence now on the table of the House, the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance received the following communication from the Superintendent of the Royal Gun Factory:—
"It is probable that the holes in the breach were made in the process of manufacture, and were not flaws in the metal."
The second charge was, that they had inserted pieces of iron into the face of a mortar in order to hide defects in that face. The third charge was, that they used a material for the construction of the mortars which was altogether unsuited for them. With regard to the plugs which had been inserted in the breach of the mortars, it was to be observed that mortars are generally cast with a heavy head of iron over that
1336
part which afterwards becomes the mortar. This is to give density and solidity to the piece of ordnance. These heads are about fifty inches high, and weigh perhaps six tons. The finished thirteen-inch mortar weighs about five tons. Any one may judge of the density imparted by these heads by inspecting one which is cut up into sections at the Messrs. Grissell's works. Near the mortar it is dense, hard, and heavy as adamant, while at the upper part the metal is loose and spongy. To separate this head from the mortar the mass must be placed between the centres of a lathe, and a parting tool being applied in the slide rest, the two masses are divided; but centre holes, small conical indentations, require to be made for the lathe centres to work in—one in the top of the head, the other in the base of the mortar. These need not be above an inch and a half deep, and the upper centre holes might be seen in the heads now. The lower, or that in the base, was, on Messrs. Grissell's afterwards observing that the Government mortars were finished off straight on the base, filled up by a small hole being tapped in the base, and a screw inserted, for the sake of neatness and uniformity, but without the most remote idea that by so doing the mortar was weakened. The first four mortars made by Messrs. Grissell were thus treated, but in subsequent ones a boss was cast in which the lathe centre worked, and this boss was subsequently chipped off. It was difficult to suppose that great importance could have been attached to the minute aperture thus made in the breaches of these mortars, as there was now lying on the wharf at Woolwich a burst mortar, the vent of which had been bored to the size of nearly an inch in diameter, from the exterior of the piece to the chamber, in order to receive a bouche of wrought iron. This mortar was split into two halves through the vent, in the manner that mortars generally burst, the fracture passing also in a line with the centres, and, in the case of Messrs. Grissell's mortars, disclosing the small plugs which gave rise to those grave and unfounded accusations that have been brought against them. With regard to inserting plugs into the face of the mortar, he thought it a great pity that the charge had been revived, because, after the mortar was rejected on that ground, the Government entered into a second contract with Messrs. Grissell, thus evincing the slight importance attached to the charge. The fact of the plugs appearing on the face of the mortar

1337
was known by the end of December. The second agreement with Messrs. Grissell was signed on the 23rd of January. If the Government had had any very strong grounds for supposing that fraud had been intended by Messrs. Grissell, it was not too late to have broken that agreement. He had not seen the air-holes before they were filled up, but he had seen the doubles of them in the head of the mortar. They appeared to him to be very insignificant, and they had appeared equally so to Messrs. Grissell and their foreman. A mortar made just before this particular one, having presented the same appearance, had been sliced into small pieces by the planing machine, and upon examination disclosed nothing like flaws. Messrs. Grissell had every reason to believe that the mortar was perfectly sound and solid, and that the small defects which they filled were superficial and of very little consequence. The mortar stood the proof at the butt with twenty-one pounds of powder, and it was only upon the application of the water test that the holes became more apparent, in consequence of the water trickling down the face and lodging in the interstices, between the plugs and the solid metal. Messrs. Grissell were so satisfied, no imperfection whatever having been discovered when the bore was turned out, that they were ready to stake their reputation upon that mortar. With regard to the third charge of using materials unsuited for the purpose, Messrs. Grissell had taken every means in their power to secure proper materials. The iron they used was Messrs. Grazebrook's cold blast, which was a very high-priced iron, and believed by Messrs. Grissell to be the best for the purpose intended. As to the mortar that burst under proof, though cast of the same high-class and expensive metal as the others, it appeared to have got chilled in the casting from the mould becoming damp, thus seriously affecting the texture and strength of the iron. It must be remembered that Messrs. Grissell were new to the trade, and had to contend with difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance would know something more about when the Government established their own iron foundry, as it was in contemplation to do. He was certainly of opinion that the Government ought to be the manufacturers of their own implements of war, and though, at first, many similar errors to these now denounced
1338
would be committed, and probably a good deal of money spent, yet valuable experience would be gained, and it must in the end prove beneficial. What he had said was a plain and simple statement of the case, and he regretted that the appeal which had been made to the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance had not been attended with such results as might have been anticipated. He had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have acknowledged that he had, at the least, spoken rather hastily, and have made to Messrs. Grissell that amende which bare justice required, for the expressions used by the right hon. Gentleman a few weeks since, echoed and indorsed as they were by a noble Lord in another place, and giving rise to still darker insinuations of a traitorous sympathy with the foe, were well nigh sufficient to blast the reputation and irretrievably injure the character of a firm, whoso fair fame, however, rested upon years of acknowledged integrity, and who, he (Mr. Dundas) believed, were second to none in England for honesty and uprightness, for patriotism, and for loyalty.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, it appeared to him that the debate had taken a very strange turn, for the Government seemed to be put on its trial for their condemnation of the material and workmanship of articles supplied to it under a contract. That was a contract, too, in which if there were any fraud, it was calculated to inflict immense damage and risk of loss of life. The Government, therefore, were justified in instituting the most searching examination into the quality of the articles, and it was hard, indeed, that they should be called in question for rejecting what they considered improper articles; and the moment that they hinted that there was an intention to defraud them, up jumped a dozen hon. Gentlemen to defend the contractors. It was the bounden duty of the officer rigidly to inspect those mortars, and he seemed to have done nothing more than his duty, He (Lord Lovaine) thought that it was impossible, after perusing the papers which had been laid before the House, and after hearing the statements which had been made, to deny that the Government were perfectly justified in the course they had taken; and in his opinion, when the mortar in which the plug was first discovered was rejected, the contractors ought, in common honesty, to have pointed out that the same defects existed in the others. It was a matter of immense

1339
importance to the country at large, and hon. Gentlemen had no right to treat it as a private concern, or to impute motives to the Government which they did not deserve to have imputed to them.
COLONEL BOLDEROsaid, that after reading the whole of the correspondence on the subject, he thought it quite clear that of the charge of fraud the Messrs. Grissell must be acquitted; but he certainly could not acquit them of negligence, for the results of the defects in their mortars might have been very serious in the military operations the country was then carrying on. There could be no doubt that the firm had some difficulties to contend with; they were new to their work, and should have been extremely cautious. If Messrs. Grissell and Co. could not devote their time to the superintendence of casting and forging of the guns, their foreman, who was doubtless a person of great experience, should have reported to them that certain defects existed in a given number of mortars. They would, undoubtedly, at all events, be acquainted with the fact, and it appeared to him (Colonel Boldero) that they were to blame, inasmuch as they had not represented to Her Majesty's Government, when sending in the guns, that they had done their utmost, but that in four of the mortars those defects did exist. He would like to be informed, however, of the reason why the Messrs. Grissell had been singled out from amongst the thirty odd iron founders who had accepted Government contracts some time back. Nothing had been said of the number of guns which had been rejected, or which had burst that were manufactured by other firms. He would also inquire why the test charge used had been one of 21 lbs.? It was an insufficient one, insomuch as the service charge which produced the greatest range was one of 25 lbs. The contract altogether was an improper one. The Messrs. Grissell had supplied twenty-three pieces of ordnance, but of which one had burst, which was a matter of no great blame to them. The present charge against the Government contractors affected the whole contractors of the kingdom. The debates in that House were translated into foreign newspapers, and would be calculated to affect, injuriously, British manufacturers, by encouraging the idea that one eminent house had imposed upon the Government of the country, and that therefore they were not to be relied upon. The merchants
1340
of England, however, need not fear, particularly that class which had undertaken ordnance contracts; the manufacture of 13-inch mortars required a great deal of experience to attain perfection, and the guns and mortars used at the siege of Sebastopol would sufficiently speak for the ability of the old firms which had manufactured them. From a Return which he held in his hands, it appeared that the total number of guns which burst, out of 476, in active service during the whole siege, was only eleven, although 269 were rendered unserviceable from other causes. That number was, however, susceptible of still greater diminution, for three out of the eleven were Lancasters; and although he (Colonel Boldero) believed that the invention of Mr. Lancaster would ultimately prove to be the most effective portion of the artillery, it had not been sufficiently used as yet to insure the degree of perfection which it would doubtlessly attain. One 68-pounder burst through being struck in the mouth by a shell from the enemy, and another piece of a like calibre met with a similar fate owing to its having been elevated for a very unusual range. Considering that during the siege 1,239 tons of gunpowder had been used by our artillery, and 9,056 tons of shot and shell projected from those pieces, he did not think that eleven casualties by bursting was a large proportion upon nearly 500 pieces of ordnance The present discussion he thought would be attended with good results in the event of the country finding itself engaged in another war. It would, at all events, insure its entering upon it with efficient artillery, and in a better position as regarded the condition of the soldier; and, in a word, more to the satisfaction of the country.
MR. EVELYNsaid, he must express his regret at the accusation which had been made against Messrs. Grissell, and at the same time to declare his belief that there was no ground whatever for imputing fraud to those gentlemen. He had read the documents bearing upon the case, and he entirely acquitted Messrs. Grissell of any fraudulent or dishonest intention.
MR. CUBITTsaid, he had known Messrs. Grissell for many years, and had read with astonishment the charge which had been made against them, for he knew it was morally impossible that such men could have meditated or committed fraud. He had read the documents, and he was

1341
satisfied that Messrs. Grissell had not been actuated by any fraudulent intention, but that they had undertaken the contract with the desire of carrying it out in such a manner as to sustain their reputation. Numerous errors had been committed in the course of the war by the Government themselves, who, he thought, ought to be somewhat more indulgent when, from want of experience, gentlemen who had endeavoured to carry out their objects had been betrayed into mistakes.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of imputing any blame to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Monsell) or to Her Majesty's Government for being strict in their investigation. He quite agreed with the noble Lord the Member for North Northumberland (Lord Lovaine) in thinking it the first duty of the Government to do their utmost in protecting the public from anything like imposition. He thought that the Government would, on the other hand, however, admit that a house of great eminence and respectability, like that of the Messrs. Grissell, was entitled to the fullest consideration. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell) must have been aware that the firm had complained, amongst other things, that the diagrams furnished by the Government for the construction of those mortars were not correct. No answer had been returned to that complaint. The main question at issue, however, was not whether the Messrs. Grissell were led into any error in the construction of those mortars, but whether that error was committed with fraudulent intentions. The noble Lord the Secretary for War (Lord Panmure), if he (Sir J. Pakington) had read the papers rightly, had already acquitted the Messrs. Grissell of that imputation. He had no hesitation in saying that he could not, for a moment, believe that the Messrs Grissell would, for so insignificant an object, be guilty of an intention to defraud.
MR. TITEsaid, that Messrs. Grissell had executed very extensive works for him in the most satisfactory manner, although they could scarcely be gainers by the contracts. With regard to the general question, he might state that, at the last meeting of the British Association, it was asserted in one of the sections that the guns cast for the present war were not equal in quality to those cast before the last peace; and that, at the request of the Duke of Argyll, a Committee was appointed
1342
to consider the subject. He mentioned that to show that to scientific men themselves the casting of guns and mortars was a matter of considerable doubt and difficulty.
The Motion for the adjournment of the House till Thursday was then agreed to.
On Mr. SPEAKER putting the Question that the House should go into Committee of Supply,

HEREDITARY PENSIONS.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he wished to draw attention to the fact that certain sums had been expended without the sanction of Parliament. It had been settled that the charges of collecting the revenue should be under the control of Parliament. Yet it appeared that certain charges had been paid out of growing revenues without having been voted. There was a sum of £213,000 which had been expended without the authority of Parliament, and but for the voluntary declaration of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury (in answer to a question from himself), would never have been disclosed to the House. How far from perfect was our system of public accounts appeared from this circumstance. The expenditure of this large sum need not have been disclosed at all, for anything in the accounts. There was nothing at all in our system of accounts to entail a disclosure of it. It appeared neither upon the accounts nor the Votes. The amount was very large to have been expended without cognisance of Parliament. The Secretary of the Treasury might have entirely suppressed it. The hon. Gentleman disclosing it had displayed the inefficiency of our system of public accounts, and to this it was he desired to call the attention of the House more particularly. This sum of £213,000 had never been issued from the Exchequer at all, for the sum never got into the Exchequer; yet it figured in an account commencing with a balance in the Exchequer. Now what had this sum to do with Exchequer accounts which never went into the Exchequer? It had nothing to do with Exchequer accounts at all. How was the "balance" made out? It was properly to be made out from moneys which had come into the Exchequer. And, therefore, the sum of £213,000 properly should not have been brought into the account at all. The Treasury had brought into the account of net income sums paid into the Exchequer and sums which had

1343
been stopped on their way to the Exchequer. It was extremely difficult to understand such a system of accounts. At all events, it was clear that our system of accounts was very imperfect, and required inquiry and improvement.
MR. WILSONsaid, his right hon. Friend was in error in treating the account in which this item appeared as an Exchequer account; it was only a revenue account, including sums that never went into the Exchequer. The object of the Bill of 1854 was to remove certain charges named in the schedules from the gross revenue, part to the Consolidated Fund and part to the annual Votes; but, as stated by the right hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell), a few items, consisting of some pensions granted to different families, were omitted from the schedules. It was thought better to leave these unchanged, as some had been redeemed, and negotiations were in progress for the redemption of the rest. In 1853, two pensions of Lord Cowper's charged on the Post Office and Land Revenue, were redeemed and appeared in the financial accounts for that year. If the pensions to the Duke of Grafton and to the heirs of the Duke of Schomberg had not been redeemed this year, they would have been paid out of the gross revenue, and have appeared, next year, in the usual accounts.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, if the Government had laid the gross amount of revenue before the House instead of the net amount, it would have been more satisfactory, although it might not have removed the objection of compounding these pensions without the authority of Parliament. With regard to the holders of those pensions, he could not help thinking that there was an example which they would do themselves great credit if they were to follow. The late Marquess of Camden was entitled to a pension of £10,000 a year, and he on conscientious grounds renounced that pension for the benefit of the country. Others, he thought, might be induced to follow that example; and these facilities of compromising pensions without the sanction of Parliament ought to be strenuously opposed.

TENANT RIGHT—QUESTION.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he wished to recall the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland to the question which had been asked by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore).
1344
The hon. Member had only put off the question, in order to afford opportunities to ascertain the feeling of the people of Ireland upon the subject; and it was to be deeply regretted, considering the great importance of it, that the inquiry of the hon. Member had elicited no answer from the Government. Without agreeing in the opinions of the hon. Member, he felt that the subject was one of the greatest importance, and that the request of the hon. Member for a day on which he might bring it forward ought at all events to have elicited some kind of answer from the Government.
MR. HORSMANsaid, the Government had no notice of the hon. Member's question.
MR. G. H. MOOREsaid, he had given the Secretary of the Treasury notice of it, and the hon. Gentleman had said that he might ask for a day, but was not very likely to get it.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he could assure the House that neither he nor the noble Lord at the head of the Government had been informed of the notice, nor was the noble Lord in the House at the time when the question had been asked.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES —BRITISH MUSEUM.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
(1.) £60,000, British Museum.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL,in moving the Vote for the salaries and expenses of the British Museum establishment, said, that the sum proposed this year was somewhat larger than that taken last year. After rendering distinguished services to the Museum for fifty-six years, as Chief Librarian, Sir Henry Ellis had retired on the allowance of £1,200 a year, that sum being the full amount of his salary, to which his services had so justly entitled him. There had been a determination arrived at by the Trustees, at the suggestion of Government, to appoint a superintendent of natural history; and it was probable that the person nominated, whose name was well known in this country, would fill his office in a manner which would redound to the benefit of the Museum itself and the public generally. For some years past it had been matter of observation that the departments of natural history and science had not received the attention which ought to have been paid to them; and he felt assured that the gentleman to whom he

1345
had alluded would endeavour so to arrange those departments as that they should be of great use, not only to the natives of this country, but to foreigners. It was likewise thought necessary that there should be a Keeper of Minerals. A gentleman had therefore been appointed, who had paid particular attention to the subject of mineralogy, and to that gentleman a salary of £500 a year had been allotted. There was also an increase of £270 for the purchase of printed books, and there likewise was to be an increase of £500 for the purchase of manuscripts. There had been some Arabic manuscripts of great interest collected, of which he had the particulars, but which he would not trouble the Committee with. There was also a sum of £175 for bookbinding; £100 for reparations in the natural history department; and £500 for fixing, &c. the Assyrian antiquities which had lately arrived in this country. Public attention had lately been drawn to these antiquities, and it was desirable that access should be had to them. He believed that his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes) intended to call the attention of the Committee to the subject of patronage in connection with the Museum, and also to the Report of the Commission which had sat some years ago. Without wishing to anticipate his hon. Friend, he might state that it had been thought that a large body was not the fittest governing body; and the Commission (at the head of whom had been the present Duke of Somerset) proposed that a small number of persons should form the governing body of the institution. It was proposed also that the office of principal librarian should be abolished; but the Government in the first instance declined to act until the Trustees had considered the proposition. The Trustees took this recommendation into consideration, and the late Sir Robert Peel advised that they should not recommend the Government to adopt the Report of the Commission; but that a body much less numerous should be selected, to be called the "Standing Committee," and that to that Committee should be entrusted the general direction of the Museum. The then existing offices were to be maintained precisely as they were; but practical changes were to be introduced. That plan was adopted, and on the retirement of Sir Henry Ellis it was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was not intended that any alteration should be made.
1346
The Trustees, therefore, concluded that the Act of Parliament was not to be altered, and the consequence was that the principal Trustees named a successor to Sir Henry Ellis. Those principal Trustees were the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and the Speaker of the House of Commons. The arrangement of Sir Robert Peel was considered satisfactory. The officers of the Museum acted with great zeal, and there had been no reason to complain of the general management of the Museum. With regard to the number of persons who had frequented the Museum during the past year, there certainly had been a falling off, but that falling off might be ascribed to accidental circumstances, and it was likely that next next year the attendance might be more numerous. With respect to readers, about 1,100 volumes a day had been consulted by those visiting the libraries, and it was undoubted that the library of the Museum had proved of very great use to students generally. There were other general questions affecting the Museum, into which he did not propose now to enter. All that the Trustees could do was to carry on their management according to the mode at present adopted, and at the same time act upon any improvements which could be suggested. Last year an order was given that after a certain hour on the afternoon of Saturday, the public should be admitted for three or four hours. About 3,000 or 4,000 persons had attended; but Saturday was not a day on which the working classes were likely to attend, and he did not know that any great benefit had accrued from the alteration. But the Trustees intended to persevere in that order during the present year; and on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, the Museum would be open as usual.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, that the reason which principally induced him to call the attention of the Committee to this subject was the fact that the Report of the Commission of 1850 had remained almost unnoticed. Now that Commission was a continuation of the Committee of 1835, which had separated without making a Report. It appeared to him that the management of the Museum had been by no means satisfactory. If the Trustees were all connected with literature, science, or the arts, it might be inferred that a certain number would devote their attention to that part of the institution with which their sympathies were in accordance. The

1347
number of Trustees rendered them unfit to be the governing body of a great establishment, and therefore, as early, he believed, as 1755, a Standing Committee was appointed. But the main object of the Standing Committee was neutralised by the practice of giving votes to all other Trustees who chose to attend, and the Commission found that the government of the Museum really depended on the casual attendance of Trustees when matters were considered in which they happened to take an interest. The Commissioners, although differing in points of detail, were agreed as to the remedy. They thought it, above all things, expedient to substitute for the fluctuating and casual body of attending Trustees a standing Executive Council, composed of men really responsible for the management of the Museum. The Commissioners, therefore, reported—
"The Executive Council, as we have now proposed it, carries with it, in the opinion of all of us, this great and leading advantage, without attaining which all other reforms in the constitution of the Museum are, in the view of your Commissioners, comparatively of little consequence—that it commits the ordinary and daily recurring business of the Museum to an Executive Council consisting of a number such as must leave upon each and all of them individual responsibility, insure knowledge and careful consideration of the business of the Museum in its whole course, and prevent that change of views and uncertainty of decision which cannot but be the consequence of a fluctuating Board."
There was some difference of opinion as to the composition of that Executive Council. A considerable majority of the Commissioners were in favour of recommending that the Museum should be divided into two great departments—one for taking into consideration all matters connected with literature—the other for taking into consideration all matters connected with science; that at the head of each department a person distinguished for attainments in literature or in science, according to the department over which he would have to preside, should be nominated by the Crown, and liberally remunerated for his services; that above them should be appointed a Chairman, of great consideration and weight in the country, to whom reference might be made in difficult cases with regard to the management of the Museum; and that, with these two paid and one unpaid officers, should be combined four Trustees, to be elected annually. The minority of the Commissioners were of opinion that it was advisible not to divide the Museum in that distinct manner, but to retain the
1348
departments much as they were. That division of opinion was very unimportant, as the Commissioners were all agreed that the governing body should be constituted of only a few persons, to whom the public and the House might look as the body responsible for the management of the Museum. When the Commission had reported the Trustees met, and a real Standing Committee was formed, consisting of the three principal Trustees—the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and the Speaker of the House of Commons, and fifteen other Gentlemen. It was then clearly understood that they were to form the governing body of the Museum, and that they alone were to vote upon matters connected with the management of the Museum for the year for which they were elected. But he could not say that the Standing Committee realised all the objects of the Executive Committee recommended by the Commissioners. The Standing Committee was composed of Gentlemen filling high political positions, who were engaged in other and important occupations. The noble Lord who moved the Vote, not happening to be engaged at present in public affairs, was the last addition, but it was not to be supposed that the noble Lord would devote himself wholly to the objects of the Museum; and he would rather have a Committee composed of persons giving their continuous attention to the affairs of the Museum than accept the services even of the noble Lord. The Report of the Commission had certainly not received the attention it deserved either from succeeding Governments or from that House. The noble Lord who issued the Commission was bound, in his opinion, to have brought in a Bill to carry out its objects, unless he was satisfied that they were sufficiently attained by the appointment of the Standing Committee. The Trustees, however, appeared to have treated that Report with more respect, for they had gradually absorbed into their body the more prominent Members of the Commission, and he could not help thinking that that fact had something to do with the indisposition of those Gentlemen to press for the alterations which they themselves, in their Report, had declared to be necessary. The present government of the Museum was anything but satisfactory, and Her Majesty's Government would do well to consider the necessity, or at least the advisability, of establishing the government the Museum

1349
on a larger and more permanent basis. The Commission had recommended that there should be on the Executive Council two gentlemen to represent the two departments of science and literature; but the Standing Committee had allowed that recommendation to remain entirely unheeded. On the question of patronage, the Commission had recommended that the Executive Committee should make all the appointments; but that, as an additional security for the satisfactory execution of that trust, they should be subjected to the approval of the Secretary of State. That recommendation had not been carried out, and the whole patronage of the establishment, from the principal librarian to the lowest housemaid, was vested in the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and the Speaker of the House of Commons. Those distinguished personages, he contended, could not be regarded as the best depositaries of this power. Their time was so fully taken up, their public duties were so numerous and so important, that they could not possibly have any opportunity of exercising their own discretion with regard to those appointments. They could have no means of obtaining any primary knowledge of the persons whom they appointed, and they must, therefore, necessarily trust to the recommendation of others. There ought, therefore, to be some alteration in these respects. By the present constitution the whole internal management of the Museum was conducted by one officer, who was called the principal librarian, and who was at the head of the establishment under the Trustees. The library was managed by an officer called the Keeper of the printed Books. Formerly there was an officer called the Secretary to the Museum, but that officer had been much criticised by the Commission, and the office had since been abolished. Sir Henry Ellis had until lately held the office of principal librarian, and Mr. Panizzi had managed the affairs of the library for a long period with great ability, and with universal approbation. On the resignation of Sir Henry Ellis Mr. Panizzi was appointed principal librarian. His (Mr. M. Milnes's) experience of that House had taught him that no one ever suffered from having his name mentioned there. There was always a generous feeling displayed in personal questions which entirely prevented any prejudice to the individuals interested. Nothing but a strong sense of public duty would have led him
1350
to mention the name of any person, last of all a foreigner; for he had ever advocated the principle, that honest and able men, who, from the political circumstances of their own countries, had been compelled to take refuge here, should not merely enjoy the bare right of an asylum, but should possess opportunities of exercising their talents and abilities. He was always desirous that men in such a position should be received in this country as those Protestants who took refuge here after the revocation of the edict of Nantes were received, and that they should have the opportunity of rendering their names as honoured as were those of Lefevre and Labouchere. He must say, however, that the recent exercise of patronage on the part of the Trustees of the British Museum had been regarded by the literary men of this country with a feeling which he could not characterise otherwise than as a feeling of indignation. There were in this Empire so few positions of public trust to which literary men of ability and distinction could aspire, that he did not think there was anything ungenerous in the feeling which existed among that class—that when the chief position in the great library and museum of the country became vacant the appointment should have been bestowed upon a member of their own body, and not upon a gentleman who was a foreigner. The other day he heard the Due de Broglie refer, at the French Academy, to those happy times in France when a free trade existed between politics and literature, but in this country they were in the habit of dividing into two separate classes men of thought and men of action, and it was not easy for any literary man to found for himself such a position of public usefulness and honour as would be fairly afforded in the situation of chief librarian of the British Museum. If he were told that the Trustees knew of no other person so well qualified as Mr. Panizzi for the position to which he had been appointed, he would say that that fact was in itself the strongest condemnation of the system upon which the Museum was now governed, for it showed that the Trustees were not intimate with the literary men of this country, that they knew nothing of their struggles, difficulties, and resources, and that thus living apart from literary men they were not the fittest persons to be entrusted with the management of such an institution. If it was said that the appointment of Mr. Panizzi was a

1351
proper one, because that gentleman had been mainly instrumental in improving and arranging the library of the Museum, he would ask why Mr. Panizzi should have been removed from a position in which his services had been so useful and placed at the head of the whole establishment? He must say, that he thought those who placed Mr. Panizzi in a position the duties of which could only be adequately discharged by a person possessing the entire confidence of the literary and scientific men of this country had not rendered the best service either to Mr. Panizzi himself or to the Museum. It could not be expected that literary men would repose the same confidence in a foreigner which they would place in a distinguished countryman of their own, and he doubted whether Mr. Panizzi would be able to conduct the affairs of the Museum with the efficiency which would have been ensured by the appointment of a literary man who was a native of this country. He would suggest whether, when the Government set about reforming the Museum, some arrangement might not be made which would leave Mr. Panizzi at the head of the literary department, which would give Professor Owen the superintendence of the scientific department, and which would place over those gentlemen, as the President of the institution, a man whose character and attainments fitted him for such a position? He (Mr. M. Milnes) thought the Returns which had been laid before the Committee showed that the Museum was not in a satisfactory state. He found that the number of visits made to the reading-room was, in 1850, 78,533; in 1851, 78,211; in 1852, 1853, and 1854, there was a progressive diminution; and in 1855, the number had fallen to 53,567. The number of visits made by artists and students to the galleries of sculpture was, in 1852, 6,983; in 1854, 3,652; and, in 1855, 3,594. The number of visits made to the print-room was, in 1851, 3,867; and, in 1855, 2,868. There was also a striking diminution in the number of the general public who visited the Museum. In 1850 the number was 1,098,863; in 1851, 2,527,216; in 1852, 507,973; in 1853, 661,113; in 1854, 459,262; and, in 1855, 334,089. If the establishment had been conducted with greater energy, as it would have been under such an Executive Council as he now proposed, such a diminution would, in his opinion, not have taken place. He begged to apologise to
1352
the Committee for detaining them so long upon this subject; but, in his opinion, no encouragement ought to be given to the notion propagated by some of the Trustees, that it was impossible to find in this country a literary man fitted to be at the head of such an establishment, and therefore he had taken the liberty to address these observations to the Committee. It was the wish of all that the Museum should assume even larger proportions than those to which it had already attained, and in that prospect it was of the highest importance that a distinction should be made between the literary and scientific departments. He hoped the time would come when all the resources of the establishment would be devoted to the purposes of a great national library—when the works of art would be combined with a National Gallery worthy of the name, and when the objects of natural history would be handed over to the Zoological Gardens. Hence a division of the literary and scientific departments seemed to him advisable, both for the present good administration of the Museum and for its future management; and he was sure that if the Government turned its attention to the subject, and, having appointed a head of the scientific department in the person of Professor Owen, should perform the same good office for the literary department, it would put the country in possession of an establishment superior to every other of the kind in Europe.
MR. SPEAKER: Sir, I am unwilling to trespass upon the attention of the Committee even for a few moments, but I trust that, after the allusions which have been so pointedly made to the conduct of my colleagues and myself, with respect to the appointment of Mr. Panizzi, the Committee will permit me to make one or two remarks in reply. I am not going to discuss with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down what shall be the future management of the British Museum. He has very fairly stated the principal recommendations of the Commissioners, of whom he was himself one, who sat in 1850, to inquire into the management of the Museum; and the noble Lord the Member for the City of London has also fairly stated the steps which have been taken by the Trustees of the British Museum to carry out those recommendations in some very essential particulars. But it is my duty to explain by what considerations the principal trustees were actuated in the selection of Mr. Panizzi

1353
for the office of principal librarian in the British Museum. The Committee will recollect that the Act of Parliament requires that when a vacancy occurs in that office the principal trustees shall select two names to be forwarded to the Secretary of State, and that those two names shall be submitted to the Crown with the view of one being chosen for the office. For my own part, I am quite prepared—and so, I am sure, are all my colleagues—to accept the responsibility of selecting Mr. Panizzi, because I do not believe a better choice could have been made. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to the fact of Mr. Panizzi being a foreigner; but that has been no unusual case in the British Museum. Since its formation in 1776 there have been five persons appointed principal librarians prior to Mr. Panizzi. Of those five, two were foreigners; one, Mr. Maty, a native of Holland, and the other, Mr. Planta, a native of Switzerland. The trustees, therefore, were quite justified by precedent in selecting a foreigner; at all events, no objection can be made to their appointment on that score. Again, we found that the invariable rule in the appointment of the principal librarian had been to select some officer of the establishment for that post; and the Committee will at once see how essential it is for the good conduct of an institution like the British Museum that deserving officers should be rewarded with promotion. The Committee may well suppose that I have not had it in my power to devote that time and attention which I ought to the interests of the Museum; but, from what I have myself seen of Mr. Panizzi during my connection with that institution, I must say that I think he is possessed of great talents, of great honesty of purpose, and of remarkable administrative ability—all qualities which are essential to a person who is to be the chief officer of such an establishment. I should be sorry, however, to ask the Committee to rely upon my testimony alone, and, with their permission, I will read extracts from three letters which I received, in common with my colleagues, with regard to Mr. Panizzi, before we made the selection. The first is from a gentleman well known to many Members of this House, now one of the canons of Westminster, whose testimony is peculiarly valuable, not only because he is a man of high character and attainments, but also because he was upon the establishment of
1354
the British Museum for thirteen years. The Rev. W. Cureton says:—
"You must naturally be most anxious that the vacant office of principal librarian should be filled by the most efficient person, who is best qualified to discharge its duties for the advantage of the public. You are doubtless fully aware of the long and valuable services of Mr. Panizzi, of his great talents, his extensive knowledge, his ardent zeal and untiring energies, which have been most faithfully exerted during a quarter of a century for the benefit of the British Museum. There is, however, one point respecting which you may not have had the means of being so fully informed, but which the constant observation of nearly twenty years has made me well acquainted with—I mean Mr. Panizzi's great administrative powers and capacity of governing a large body of subordinate persons. I have never known any one in authority so strict and precise in maintaining order and discipline, so rigid and exact in requiring the full amount of duties to be performed, who at the same time had the singular happiness of gaining the respect and esteem, and securing the warm attachment and affection of all those placed under his authority. From my own experience of thirteen years' service in the British Museum, I am sure that no qualification is more essential to insure a due performance of public service in such an establishment, than this of which I have last spoken."
The next letter, with which I shall trouble the Committee, is from a gentleman who has for many years devoted much time and attention to the British Museum, who filled for many years an important office under the Crown, and who is well known to many Members of this House. I refer to Mr. William R. Hamilton, one of those trustees who are spoken of in the Report of the Commissioners, as having evinced the deepest interest in the advancement and success of the establishment; and I may add that Mr. Hamilton by his constant attendance to the business of the Museum, fully deserves the commendations bestowed upon him. Mr. Hamilton says:—
"You will, of course, have heard that there is likely to be very soon an important change in the staff of the British Museum; Sir Henry Ellis, the principal librarian, having, after a very long service, given in his resignation: and the choice of one of two persons named by the principal trustees will fall to the Crown. I know that it is hardly necessary to trouble you on this subject, but I cannot refrain from stating it as my earnest conviction, that the name of Mr. Panizzi, now Keeper of the Printed Books' Department, ought on every account to be one of the two submitted to the Queen, and I fervently hope that he may be so selected. There can be no doubt whatever—and I believe that this is the universal opinion among my co-trustees—that, of all the officers now engaged in the service of the Museum, Mr. Panizzi is by far the most capable on every imaginable

1355
ground to fulfil efficiently the duties of this situation. To a perfect acquaintance with the general duties of all the different departments, great experience in the details of the management of the establishment, he adds in a peculiar degree great knowledge of mankind, a most happy mode of extracting from all under him the greatest amount of efficient service, and of exacting the strictest regularity of attendance, great impartiality, a deep sense of moral justice, and an honest devotion of his whole time to the public service. He has also been mainly instrumental in introducing very many of the improvements, by which the service of the Museum has been greatly benefited. He is also most liberal in his views of extending its benefits to the largest number of the public, on the most liberal and safe terms. He must, therefore, be thought fully entitled to the promotion contemplated."
The only other letter with which I will trouble the Committee is from a nobleman, who was formerly a Member of this House, whose great talents and eloquence must still live in their recollection, and who enjoys the respect and esteem of all who have the honour of his acquaintance. I refer to the Earl of Ellesmere, whose testimony is entitled to the greatest confidence, because he was the Chairman of the Commission, that inquired into the conduct and management of the Museum. His Lordship says—
"I understand that the subject of the selection of a successor to Sir Henry Ellis at the British Museum is now under your consideration. I am entirely ignorant of what claims may be before you for that important succession, and should not think myself warranted by the experience acquired in the chair of the Commission of Inquiry to obtrude an opinion on their relative merits. That experience, however, I think may justly be expressed in saying this much, that should your choice fall on Mr. Panizzi I should be prepared to speak of that decision as one, in my opinion, than which no better could be made for the interests of the public service and for those of the subordinate officers of the Museum. The latter are, in my opinion, an interesting class of men, and I have reason to believe that Mr. Panizzi, in his dealings with those hitherto under his authority, has combined consideration and benevolence with great energy in the exaction of duty."
I will not trouble the Committee with any more letters on this subject; but I will venture to refer to a passage which appears in the Report of the Commissioners, with respect to the state of the library. In speaking of that department, the Commissioners say, that among the most magnificent establishments in Europe, there is no great national library which affords so large a measure of accommodation to all classes of readers as the library of the British Museum under the existing management; and in support of that statement
1356
they quote the testimony of two American gentlemen who visited Europe for literary purposes, and one of them with the special view of inquiring into the management of libraries. We have, therefore, the testimony of the Commissioners themselves, as to the management of the department over which Mr. Panizzi presided; and I have read the testimony of three persons abundantly qualified to judge, all concurring in expressing a high appreciation of Mr. Panizzi. Under these circumstances, we did not feel the slightest hesitation in selecting that gentleman, as one of those to be submitted to the nomination of the Crown for the office of chief librarian. With regard to the patronage of the Museum, I can assure my hon. Friend, both for my colleagues and myself, that we should not have the slightest objection to be relieved from the trouble and inconvenience necessarily attending its distribution. But so long as we retain it, I hope that we shall exert ourselves, as we have hitherto done, to the best of our power, to promote the public interests, and by such appointments, as that of Mr. Panizzi, to secure the future good government of the establishment.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he thought that upon the whole the Committee was indebted to his hon. Friend (Mr. Milnes) for the observations he had made. He also thought that there could be scarcely any hesitation on the part of any hon. Gentleman in admitting that there had been something radically wrong in the government of the British Museum. He was himself inclined to agree with the Report of the Commissioners, for it was impossible that a government constituted like the present governing body of the Museum, consisting of some trustees appointed ex officio, others as representatives of certain families, and others forming a Standing Committee, could properly administer its affairs. In his opinion it was most essential that the heads of departments should have the means of continually communicating with the trustess; and that at present they had not got. Before the appointment of Mr. Panizzi to the post of chief librarian, he had been opposed to that appointment, but it appeared that the Government had no choice in the matter, but were called upon to appoint a librarian. Now, the office of chief librarian and secretary to the trustees was an office which required very great and at the same time very peculiar qualifications,

1357
and it was no reflection upon the literary men of this country to say that perhaps no man was so well fitted to fill that office as Mr. Panizzi. He was, therefore, very much astonished to hear his hon. Friend object to Mr. Panizzi on the ground of his being a foreigner, because that was an objection which ought not to come from that, the Liberal, side of the House. Did the hon. Gentleman not remember what had happened on the Continent? Why, in France the Department of Public Instruction had been confided to an eminent Italian, and, as he understood, the office of librarian at the Vatican had been offered to Cardinal Wiseman. [Mr. MILNES: No, no!] The hon. Gentleman appeared to think that an English literary man could not expect from Mr. Panizzi due respect; but he could tell the Committee an incident which had occurred, and which might lead them to think differently, and that was, that on one occasion, during the absence of that gentleman, the persons employed in his department subscribed for the purpose of having a bust of him. Mr. Pannizzi was in one respect placed in a very awkward position. He was looked upon as the responsible person, and was, in fact, responsible for acts which he did not perform. As to the management of the British Museum, there was no doubt that the greatest errors had been committed. First, as regarded the building itself, if one person had been responsible, such a building would never have been erected. Why, half the space was positively thrown away for want of light, and the edifice had been constructed on such a plan that it could not be enlarged, and the result had been, that in order to procure room for the printed books it had been necessary to build upon the courtyard and thus shut out both light and air, so necessary to an establishment of that description. Then, again, as to the manner in which collections were made. The Commissioners advised a collection of British antiquities, and two or three years ago the collection of Mr. Fawcett might have been procured for the Museum; but, no, the trustees were mostly men possessing great information connected with the classics, and could not appreciate a collection of "Saxon rubbish." They had expended on the building upwards of £70,000, while only £340,000 had been expended on the collections, and were now called upon to expend a still greater sum for building purposes, though he was sure that for a
1358
larger collection half the money, properly expended, would have been sufficient. Some reforms, however, were necessary in the management of the British Museum, and if his hon. Friend (Mr. M. Milnes) would bring forward a Motion on the subject next year, he (Mr. Layard) should be prepared to support him. There was no place to be compared with the British Museum in its resources, but there was no place worse managed. Everything was higgledy-piggledy—there was no series. There wanted more room to expand the specimens over a period of thousands of years. What was the consequence to those whom they wished to instruct? They took the specimen of a good age, and then that of a bad one. Centuries were mingled. This the learned could understand and appreciate, but the populace could not. If they saw a good and a bad object in juxtaposition, they conceived them to be both alike. He, therefore, hoped that some change would take place in the arrangement of the Museum. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that it was impossible they could go on with the present building. Every year fresh objects of art and antiquities were coming in, and unless some different system were adopted it would be impossible to accomplish the object for which the Museum was maintained. He held in his hand a pamphlet written by Mr. Fergusson, showing how the library and works of art might be arranged, and making other suggestions worthy of consideration. He regarded the present subject as an important part connected with the question of national education, and he trusted the Government would give it their earliest and most serious attention. With regard to the numbers attending the British Museum he believed they were gradually falling off. There was no system to guide them; the people knew not for what purpose they went there; and thus they were without any motive for going again. But, if they had a British Museum well arranged, they would have a most useful institution of a national character.
LORD ELCHOsaid, it had always appeared to him that the British Museum was too much crammed; and he thought that, once for all, they should take a large view of the subject, and consider whether it would not be advisable to separate the collections—the mineral, the artistic, and the archaiological collections, by sending some of them to a new National Gallery. In the Committee of 1853 that particular

1359
subject was brought under consideration, and a Resolution which was moved by himself was passed with respect to it. Sooner or later the House would have to consider what they would have to do with the National Gallery; and when the library increased at the rate of 16,000 volumes a year, he thought the only conclusion they could arrive at would be to have it separate from all other objects of the Museum.
MR. TITEsaid, that the library was one of the most extraordinary and valuable in the world. But he must complain of the great difficulty of obtaining the use of its treasure because of the defective arrangements as to the catalogue. At present it was necessary to consult five catalogues before a person could find out whether a book was or was not on the shelves at all. He thought it most desirable that a complete catalogue should be formed, and that it should also be printed; that if printed it would be a guide book for all other libraries in England, and save the enormous work of the time of the student now occupied in hunting for a book in a series of catalogues, without classification and with but little system. In France considerable progress had been made with a classed catalogue under the active administration of M. Taschereau, who had published the first volume in quarto of the Catalogue of the Bibliothèque Impériale, in December, 1854, and two more in the year 1855: by his system he had increased the number of titles of books written out from fifty in each day to 750. This library contained probably 700,000 volumes, the British Museum about 600,000, but though numerically less, it was of far greater value. George the Third's collection consisted of 63,000 volumes, but cost £130,000, and the Grenville Collection, placed at the disposal of the Trustees in 1846, cost its owner £60,000; two cases of the MSS. alone were estimated as worth £250,000, but in an historical and literary point of view the collection was beyond all price. He thought, too, that steps should be taken to increase the number of days on which the Museum should be open. During the best part of three days in every week the Museum was closed to the public. The excuse was, that it was necessary for the attendance of students. But he did not think that since the establishment of schools of design, it was any longer so. From a Return he had procured, with respect to the week before last, it appeared that the number of visitors, on the closed
1360
days, did not exceed twenty; and, on Saturday, when they might have attended, there were none present. He should be glad to be informed when the new catalogue and the new reading-room were likely to be completed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the principal recommendation of the Commissiom of 1850 was, that the offices of librarian and secretary should be remodelled, and that recommendation was shortly afterwards carried into effect by the abolition of the office of secretary and the consolidation of the duties with that of principal librarian. Sir Henry Ellis performed the duties of principal librarian and secretary for many years, and it was to that combined office that Mr. Panizzi had, as he believed with excellent judgment, been recently appointed. The Commissioners further proceeded to recommend the appointment of a responsible Executive Council, but they did not agree as to the manner in which that Council should be constituted; and, therefore, that part of the Report merely suggested an improvement, without pointing out the means by which it was to be carried into effect. But soon after the Report of the Commissioners was presented, Sir Robert Peel, one of the trustees, took the matter into consideration, and framed a series of regulations, which he submitted to his colleagues, by which he proposed to constitute a Standing Committee selected from the general body of the Trustees. The objection of the Commissioners being to the large number of Trustees and the irregularity of attendance, that scheme was supposed to carry into effect substantially those recommendations. He believed that in practice it had been found most successful, that the government of the Museum now worked well, and that there was no ground for bringing in a Bill to alter the constitution of the Museum as established by the Act of George II. There was another recommendation made by the Commissioners with respect to the superintendence of the department of natural history. They thought that some more general superintendence of the department of natural history, under different heads, might be introduced. That recommendation had received the attention of Her Majesty's present Government. When a change took place, in consequence of the recent retirement of Sir Henry Ellis, the expediency of appointing a person to superintend the joint department of natural history

1361
and science was brought under the attention of the Trustees. The Trustees thought such an arrangement would introduce an improvement into the management of the Museum, and they applied to the Treasury to sanction the salary of a superintendent of that department. The Government had sanctioned a salary to the extent of £800 a year, and it was the belief of the Government that the selection of the Trustees would fall on Professor Owen, whose name was a sufficient guarantee that the department would be ably superintended. There did not appear to him to be sufficient reason at present for adopting the advice of his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes), and laying before the House a Bill to alter the constitution of the British Museum. The hon. Member for Aylesbury had proposed that a separate building should be provided for each of the three departments—namely, manuscripts and printed books, natural history, and objects of art, into which the Museum is divided. The British Museum was of great magnitude, having cost between £700,000 and £800,000, and large additions had, from time to time, been made to it. One of those additions was at this moment in progress. In consequence of the great augmentation of the library a central hall was in course of erection, which would add materially to the accommodation for printed books, and also for reading these books. If the suggestion of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, of dividing the British Museum into three departments—for books, natural history, and works of art—were adopted, it would be necessary to expend large sums of money in the erection of new buildings. The plan offered some recommendations, but could only be carried into effect at an enormous sacrifice of money, which the present state of the Museum did not justify; for it was calculated that the library, with the new building, was sufficiently large to hold the annual additions for another century. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) had asked when the new reading-room would be ready. He would beg to inform the hon. Member that it was expected to be completed in about ten months from the present time. The hon. Member for Bath also asked what progress had been made with the catalogue. He understood that when the Commission sat, a promise was made that the catalogue should be completed in 1860. Progress was regularly made with it, and he knew no reason to doubt that it
1362
would be completed at the time promised. With respect to the question of printing the catalogue, the conclusion which the Commissioners arrived at was, that upon the whole the advantages of printing the catalogue would scarely be commensurate with the expense it would entail.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, there was no doubt that the constitution of the British Museum was open to many objections which occasioned considerable inconvenience, but those objections, and that inconvenience, might be found in the origin of the institution. Our celebrated Museum had been originally the Museum of a virtuoso; Sir Hans Sloane collected manuscripts, dry insects, stuffed birds, old armour. Notwithstanding the efforts made and the resources at our command, the necessary consequence of the original idea was to be traced in our national collection at the present day. To that cause was to be attributed the disadvantages which had been pointed out. For a long time he had been of opinion that no satisfactory solution of the difficulties, which he thought every year increased, would be found except in the legitimate division of the great subjects which were collected in that building. Literature, Science, Art, all deserved a separate palace, and he was convinced that, sooner or later, the force of circumstances would render that division necessary. With regard to literature the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) had indulged in one of those eulogiums which were scarcely to be supported. Our collection of printed books and manuscripts was no doubt important and valuable, but in second-rate German capitals were to be found public libraries, not only more valuable with regard to the character of the works, but even more considerable with respect to their number. No one wished to depreciate the importance of our national library, but it should not for a moment be supposed we were in possession of a library which could not be improved in value, or increased in amount. If we did not possess such a library, at least we might aspire to it. Therefore, if this division ever took place, he very much doubted whether the present buildings would be too considerable for the printed books and manuscripts, with the medals and archaiological collections which he thought ought to accompany the books and manuscripts. By the recent purchase of land by the Royal Commission of 1851 an opportunity was now offered of erecting a temple for our collections of pictures and

1363
statues which would not be unworthy of this country. The appointment of Professor Owen to the scientific department of the Museum, was one which would be hailed with general approbation. The progress of scientific discoveries and the growing taste for scientific pursuits would render it absolutely necessary that all our scientific collections should be assembled together under one head. He should not, perhaps, have risen to address the Committee upon the present occasion, if he had not felt it his duty to express his great regret that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes) should have found it convenient, in commenting on the constitution of the Museum, to indulge in an attack on Mr. Panizzi, more especially as it turned out that the sum and substance of the charge which he had to make against that gentleman was, that he was a foreigner. Strange to say, the hon. Gentleman immediately followed up that grave accusation by a very elaborate argument to prove that he himself did not disapprove of foreigners being employed in Her Majesty's service, though not in all positions. A foreigner, according to the hon. Gentleman, might be second in command, but not Commander in Chief. No one denied, least of all the hon. Gentleman himself, who was a Member of the Commission which had so conclusively established the character of Mr. Panizzi as keeper of the printed books, that, for the space of some twenty or twenty-five years, that Gentleman had admirably discharged the duties of his office. But, said the hon. Gentleman, he ought not to have been made principal librarian, for that was an office which ought to be conferred on some literary Gentleman who was an Englishman. He could have understood the hon. Gentleman had he argued that only a literary man of native growth should be appointed to the office of keeper of the printed books. That was an office which required great literary knowledge. It required an acquaintance with the literature of all nations, and accomplishments which literary men only possessed. But the hon. Member himself admitted Mr. Panizzi's perfect fitness for that office, and that he had discharged its duties in such a way as to entitle him to universal approbation. It so happened that the office which he now held was one to which his mere literary character could not urge such claims as it could have urged upon the office which he had just relinquished. The office of
1364
principal librarian was not one which required literary qualifications only. It was an administrative office, requiring knowledge of character, energy, and firmness, and the possession of those qualities could only be ascertained by observation and by experience of the individual. Were they, then, to lay down a rule that a foreigner might be permitted to hold the office of keeper of printed books, but that, although he might be possessed of the requisite qualities in the opinion of those with whom the appointment lay, yet he should not hold the office of principal librarian because he did not happen to possess the single qualification of being an English literary man? So far from sharing the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, he had no hesitation in saying that, if the Trustees had not appointed Mr. Panizzi to the vacancy when it occurred, as the reward of his long and meritorious services, and of the intelligent qualities which he had displayed, they would have acted with injustice, they would have inflicted a discouragement on the public service, and they would have been no longer entitled to the commendation and confidence of that House.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, he hoped that some arrangement would be made to open the reading-room in the evening. He made this request, not on behalf of miscellaneous readers merely, but on behalf of a large class of meritorious young men who were students in the true sense of the word, who were pursuing knowledge in silence under circumstances of great difficulty, and who were ready to make any sacrifices to obtain the benefits which the library of the British Museum would afford them. Considering how many self-taught men had distinguished themselves in science and art in this country, it was of the highest importance to afford that privilege to the class whose claim he was advocating. He was convinced that all the difficulties which were raised against the proposition might be done away with by a little management. It was also very desirable that some inquiry should be made as to the reason of the great falling off which appeared to have recently taken place in the number of visitors to the Museum.
MR. BELLsaid, that Mr. Panizzi had some years ago proposed a plan for the purpose of opening the Museum in the evening, which was not then adopted; but the Trustees would, he doubted not, now take the subject into serious consideration.
MR. PELLATTsaid, he hoped that the Museum would be in future opened for five days in the week, a plan which had been carried out elsewhere with advantage.
MR. GRANVILLE VERNONsaid, he would suggest that it would be a wise economy to raise some building worthy of the nation, instead of adding to the present buildings bit by bit, especially as large accessions were expected to the Assyrian antiquities. He hoped the Museum would be considered not an "old curiosity shop," but an institution of real instruction, where everything was arranged in proper sequence and order.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call attention to the absence of all detail in the particulars of the Vote, especially as to salaries. He would also beg to add his request that greater facilities might be given to the public in the use of the Museum.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox), that the reading-room of the Museum should be opened in the evening, deserved very serious consideration. He did not know what objections might exist to such an arrangement, but if the hon. Gentleman's suggestion could be carried out without material inconvenience it should receive his (Lord J. Russell's) support. He fully agreed with the hon. Member, that there were many persons in nearly every class of life who might devote some portion of the evening to visiting such an institution. With regard to the allusions that had been made to the government of the Museum, he might observe that there was generally a very full attendance of Trustees, who not merely consulted with the principal librarian, but, if questions arose with reference to particular departments, called upon the heads of those departments for explanations or information. He did not think it would be possible to have men of higher literary distinction than Mr. Macaulay, or of greater aptitude for business than the Duke of Somerset, to aid the trustees in the discharge of their duties. It had been said that the Museum embraced too many subjects, and he agreed that it might be desirable to provide accommodation elsewhere for some departments at present connected with the institution. The Museum partook both of a literary and scientific character, and included a collection of natural history, which Professor Owen had declared was equal to any collection of a similar description
1366
in the world. There was a collection of ancient art, and also of what was called in the Act of Parliament "modern antiquity," which came down to a certain time, but did not extend to modern works. He entertained some doubt whether the building as it now existed, or even with any alterations which could be effected, was the most convenient place that could be provided for the exhibition of ancient works of art; but that was an important question which well deserved the consideration of the Government. He did not know whether any intention existed of building a new and spacious national gallery, but if that idea were entertained he thought it was a matter for consideration whether the specimens of ancient art now contained in the British Museum might not be exhibited to greater advantage in such an institution. With respect to the criticisms that had been made upon the architecture of the Museum, the Trustees could not be fairly blamed for any defects it might exhibit. He might remind the Committee that, although many public edifices had been erected in this country by various architects, none of them, he believed, could be regarded as distinguished examples of architectural taste and skill; and he heard that it was intended to convert the National Gallery—which had been built upon a remarkably fine site and at great expense—into a hotel. He had no doubt that great improvements might be effected with regard to the management of the Museum, and he was sure the suggestions which had been made would be carefully considered by the Trustees. He had no doubt that the falling-off in the number of visitors to which the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes) had referred was attributable, to some extent, to the number of other institutions which had been established for the exhibition of specimens of natural history and works of art, and which diverted the attention of the public from the National Museum. He regretted that the hon. Gentleman had deemed it his duty to object to the appointment of Mr. Panizzi on the ground that he was a foreigner. He really thought that we had become more liberal than that. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the office of principal librarian ought to be a retirement for some literary man. There was a time when Prior and Congreve, Addison and Steele, were employed under the Administration. Some of these men had qualifications for business; others had

1367
offices in the Excise and Customs, because they were eminent in literature; but now we should not be satisfied if a Gentleman were appointed a Commissioner of Excise because he was an excellent poet. Such things used to be done in former times, but they were not done now. He thought that the appointment of Mr. Panizzi had been fully vindicated by Mr. Speaker, and he trusted that there would be no further opposition to the Vote.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he flattered himself that the discussion he had raised had not been without some benefit, although, if the principle advocated in some quarters were carried out, no objection could be taken to the highest posts in the Administration being held by gentlemen who had distinguished themselves in the cause of representative government in other countries. He had brought forward the case of Mr. Panizzi solely upon public grounds, and he could not say that his opinion had been in any degree changed by what had taken place in the course of the present discussion. He willingly admitted the high qualifications of Mr. Panizzi, but he still maintained that, in the rarity of offices which public opinion allowed to be filled by literary men of practical ability, it was not right that the post of chief librarian in the British Museum should be given to a foreigner. At the same time, he should be glad to hear that the appointment was confirmed by public opinion and justified by the conduct of Mr. Panizzi himself.
Vote agreed to.
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding £18,626, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the General Board of Health, to the 31st day of March, 1857."
MR. MICHELLsaid, he could not allow this Vote to pass without protesting against it. He objected to it on the ground that the Board did far more harm than good. It had introduced disease into Croydon, Sandgate, Lewisham, and every other place with which it had meddled, and he believed was kept up merely for the sake of the fat salaries connected with it. The Board of Health, which was first established as a temporary Board, was now rendered permanent; and the expenses, which in 1852 were only £1,355, had been increased to the enormous sum of £18,000 a year—which, with £1,300 granted as pensions since the establishment
1368
of the Board, amounted to £19,300. He should like very much to know what those pensions were for. But independent of the expense, the Board was of the most mischievous character to the country at large. He objected more particularly to the large salaries given under the Act. The medical officer received £1,500 a year. The Estimates of the civil service were increasing in an almost incredible degree; and considering that the Board of Health had become a greater nuisance than the nuisances it was intended to remedy—that it had introduced dissatisfaction into every town into which it had been introduced, of which he could name numerous instances, he should move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £6,266, the amount which had already been expended.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding £6,266, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the General Board of Health, to the 31st day of March, 1857."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he also thought that the salary of the medical officer was too high. When the person who held the office was the medical officer of the City of London, his salary was something like £500. The salaries of the medical officer of the principal metropolitan parishes, who had most extensive duties to perform, ranged from £400 to £500.
MR. MILESsaid, he thought that the appointment of such an officer was a necessary one, but he certainly considered that £1,200 a year, which would be the amount the medical gentleman in question appeared to be receiving before he was appointed, was sufficient.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that, in the unavoidable absence of the President of the Board of Health, he would beg to state that when Mr. Simon was the medical officer of the City of London, his salary was £800, in addition to which he was able to obtain £400 from private practice; he therefore considered £1,500 was not too much for a person of such ability and eminence.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he thought that some explanation ought to be given as to what were the duties of the medical officer.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, that if they compared the salary of the medical officer of the Board of Health with that of County Court Judges, Charity and Ecclesiastical

1369
Commissioners, it would appear enormously high.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he wished to call attention to the great number of subordinates in the department, including four superior officers and five clerks, at an expense in the aggregate of £5,000 a year. He thought the whole subject of these salaries ought to be investigated.
MR. BARROWsaid, he thought that the Board of Health was altogether unnecessary: he wished to know what the duties of the two travelling inspectors were?
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that it was quite a mistake to suppose that the medical officer of the Board of Health had nothing to do. There were constant applications from all parts of the kingdom, which he had to consider, besides a great variety of other duties. The advantage of having a medical officer to refer to was strongly felt on the occasion of the outbreak of cholera in St. Martin's parish.
MR. BELLEWsaid, he would suggest that the Motion should be postponed until the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Health (Mr. Cowper) was able to attend the House. At present the information given upon the point was very unsatisfactory.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he would beg to inquire whether on this Board, an institution of modern date, there were any superannuations. He thought that the salary paid to Mr. Simon was too large: in St. George's parish they had selected a most eminent medical man, out of thirty candidates, at a salary of £250 a year. He must also contend that the President of the Board of Health was paid too much, the secretary too much, the medical officer too much, the only persons who were not paid enough being the clerks, who really did the work.
MR. WILSONsaid, he wished to explain that Mr. Simon, at the time of his appointment, was in the receipt of £800 a year from the city of London, and his private practice was then worth £400 a year, and was gradually increasing; so that he did not think that £1,500 a year was too high a salary to give to that gentleman. The advice of the medical officer was necessary to the Board of Health in such questions as those relating to quarantine, vaccination, the closing of cemeteries, and a variety of questions of that nature.
MR. BOWYERsaid, he could bear testimony to the zeal with which Mr. Simon
1370
had discharged his public duties. Many of his friends thought he acted very foolishly in retaining his appointment in the City, and advised him to throw himself upon his private practice, in which he must have rapidly risen to eminence. On acount of his eminent ability he was offered a Government appointment with a fair salary, and he accepted it.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he wanted to know how it happened that the expense for the year 1854–5 which amounted to about £5,000, had not been investigated in a former year? He understood that the money was not paid till April, 1855. If so, out of what moneys were the expenses paid? Was it out of the money voted for 1855–6? If so, that showed that a check upon those payments was not sufficiently accurate. There was another point to which he wished to advert. Here was a Vote of £6,000 required in advance on account of Civil Contingencies. He had no objection to these advances in a small way; but when they voted £100,000 for Civil Contingencies, and it was found that they had got, besides, this Vote of £6,000, it was quite clear that a larger sum for Civil Contingencies was really voted than appeared in the Estimates. Their own Chairman had stated in his Report that there was not a sufficient check upon these Civil Service Votes. Here was a case in point, which showed that the Committee ought not to rest where they were, but that they ought to look into the state of their accounts.
MR. WILSONsaid, the difficulty which his right hon. Friend had started was easily explained. The Vote of £100,000 for Civil Contingencies was for the purpose of providing for unforeseen charges. Here was an unforeseen charge. A great epidemic broke out, which made it necessary for Government to call in the aid of medical men. Parliament was not sitting. The Civil Contingencies were the only fund to be applied to in a case of that sort. The money thus advanced was repaid by a Vote of Parliament, but the sums issued were never presented in the Estimates of the Civil Contingencies of the following year. It was a final payment.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, the case against this mode of keeping the accounts was this:—the House of Commons Voted £100,000 for Civil Contingencies. There was a balance at the Exchequer of £10,000; therefore, according to the

1371
notion of Parliament, there was £110,000 for Civil Contingencies. But that was not quite all; because here was £6,000 voted to repay Civil Contingencies, and in several instances money was voted to repay Civil Contingencies. This was not a small sum; it was a considerable amount, which for two years had been owing to Civil Contingencies.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the explanation of his hon. Friend (Mr. Wilson) was perfectly intelligible; if the same sum appeared both in the Civil Contingencies and in the Estimate, it would be charged twice to the nation. It was necessary the items should appear under their different heads, and, therefore, sums paid out of Civil Contingencies were charged to repay Civil Contingencies under the heads to which they belonged.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the Committee ought to feel greatly obliged to the right hon. Member for Portsmouth for bringing this matter forward. Why there should be this circuitous course no one had explained. It seemed that out of the Civil Contingency Fund contingencies were not paid, but merely advanced, and repaid by Votes. Why should not such unexpected expenses as might properly be considered "Contingencies," be paid at once, out and out, from the Civil Contingency Fund? That surely would be the most simple course; and then the expenses in question would appear properly on the Civil Contingency Fund account. The expenses of medical inspection on occasion or epidemics were strictly contingent, and might properly be paid at once out of the Civil Contingency Fund. There had been no explanation why these expenses had not been brought before the House last year. Delay prevented their being fully understood; and the items of the present Vote were by no means properly stated in the Estimate.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, he was anxious to know whether Mr. Bazalgette, whose scheme had been reported against by the Medical Board of Health, had been appointed chief engineer of the Board of Works, and whether the inspectors were likely to come into collision with Mr. Bazalgette.
MR. WILSONsaid, in replying to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) he would beg to state, that Civil Contingencies were in the nature of a banker's account for the purpose of supporting a balance from which all
1372
advances were made, which were not provided by Parliament at the time required. If all the sums paid out of Civil Contingent cies appeared under that head, it would be impossible ever to contrast the expenditure in any department, because part of the charges of that department might be found under Civil Contingencies. For the convenience of comparing the expenditure in every department, each sum was brought under the different, heads and voted to repay the Civil Contingencies. This establishment was appointed in the autumn of 1854; they were not paid until April, 1855. After the Estimates were printed they were paid out of Civil Contingencies, and the amount would now be repaid to Civil Contingencies. Of course, if the Government could have brought the sum under Vote at an earlier period, it would have been their duty to do so. If the sums paid out of Civil Contingencies remained definitely under that head, they would want £250,000 instead of £100,000 for the purpose. All these repayments went to supply the fund and lessened the amount demanded for Civil Contingencies. In reply to the question of the noble Lord (Lord Lovaine), he must inform him that the Government had nothing to do with the appointment to which he had referred.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he thought the hon. Secretary for the Treasury had given a rather lax construction of these Civil Contingencies, when he likened them to a banking account. The heads of departments, if they understood that the Civil Contingencies were a bank from which they could draw whatever they spent over the Estimate which Parliament had voted for them, would, of course, have no hesitation in coming to it, but if they found a difficulty in getting money he apprehended that they would look twice before they exceeded their Estimate.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know if there had been any superannuations under the new Act?
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that when the new Board of Health was formed a retiring pension of £1,000 a year was given to Mr. Chadwick, and subsequently Dr. Southwood Smith had an allowance of £300 a year granted to him.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he wished the Committee to contrast the treatment of Dr. Southwood Smith with that experienced by Dr. Barlow, who, after serving the public thirty-two years in connection with the Board of Health in Ireland,

1373
was obliged to retire without any superannuation, on the ground that he had not contributed by deductions to the superannuation fund.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he could not see what duties the medical officer of the Board could have to perform, as every parish in the metropolis had its own medical officer.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, the duties of that officer lay not in the metropolis, but all over the country.
MR. BARROWsaid, that he would take the earliest opportunity of moving for a return of the number of journeys made by the medical officer of the Board of Health during the last twelve months.
MR. MICHELLsaid, he thought the money paid to this officer was entirely thrown away, and, for his own part, he would like to see the Board abolished altogether.
MR. W. MILESsaid, that as the medical visitors in lunacy received only £500 a year each, he thought £1,500 a year was an exorbitant salary for the medical officer of the Board of Health.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he would beg to ask whether any hon. Gentleman could say that this medical officer had visited country districts? for, as it was admitted that his services were not needed in the metropolis, unless he had benefited the country he (Mr. Blackburn) could not understand how the Government could persist in pressing the Vote.
MR. WILSONsaid, the medical officer of the Board of Health had, as he had previously stated, many important duties to discharge. He was consulted upon a great number of subjects, and especially, on the application of local boards, with reference to epidemics which broke out in particular districts. Suppose an epidemic were to break out again in London, if no provision of this kind were made the Board of Health would be blamed for their negligence; but the fact was, that when such visitations had passed away their danger was forgotten, and no precautions were thought necessary to prevent their recurrence. His right hon. Friend (Sir B. Hall) had deservedly received great credit for the duties which he had formerly performed in connection with the Board of Health, and that right hon. Gentleman had stated to the Treasury last August that the services of a medical officer of the highest character could not be obtained for lower remuneration than was proposed
1374
by this Vote. Considering the important duties which devolved upon that officer, he (Mr. Wilson) thought the amount of his salary was a matter of secondary consideration.
CAPTAIN DUNCOMBEsaid, that in the district in which he resided one-fourth of the population was last year suffering from small-pox. An application was made to the Board of Health for assistance, but the answer was, that they could give none, and that the local authorities must do the best they could.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. MILESsaid, he should move the reduction of the Vote by £300.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding £18,326, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the General Board of Health, to the 31st day of March, 1857."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 154: Majority 91.
Original Question put, and agreed to.

FIRE INSURANCES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it was intended to supply a defect in the existing law. By the existing law the duty of 3s. per cent per annum on fire insurances was only chargeable where the insurance was effected by a head office established in this country. Now, it was obvious, that companies established in England could not compete with foreign houses having agencies over here, unless both were placed upon the same footing, and made liable to the same duty. The purpose of the Bill, therefore, was to effect that object.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. WILKINSONsaid, he believed that the Bill would have the effect of driving a very lucrative business from the country, and that it would be impossible to prevent foreign companies having agencies in England; he must therefore oppose the further progress of the measure. The only mode of meeting the difficulty was, for the right hon. Gentleman to reduce the duty upon fire insurances, so as to place all companies, foreign and domestic, upon the same footing. He should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
MR. HANKEYseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he greatly feared that the result of the measure would be that described by the hon. Gentleman who now proposed its rejection. We invited France to freedom of trade and free communication with this country, and yet the moment anything arose that offered an advantage to France the Government interfered with a Bill of this kind. He believed the Bill would be entirely inoperative. They might object to having accredited agents in this country, but they could not prevent communication by letter, and therefore they would only drive away the insurance business from this country. The duty had for a long time been liable to strong objections, and, in his opinion, the Bill would be inoperative.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not, at that late hour—a quarter past twelve—proceed with a measure which was regarded with very strong feelings of disapproval by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, as being a step in a wrong direction. In his opinion, the question which that House ought to consider was, the propriety of reducing the duty upon all insurances, a step which would, he believed, ultimately tend to increase and not reduce the revenue.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must deny having introduced the Bill without full consideration. Some time ago a deputation of gentlemen connected with insurances offices had waited upon him, and had represented to him that they were exposed to great danger from an agency which had been opened in London for a foreign office, and they begged him to lose no time in bringing in a Bill for their protection. He had upon that occasion stated that he would not introduce a measure until he was satisfied that the danger which they apprehended was real, and not imaginary. The result of his inquiries had been, that the danger apprehended was not an imaginary one, and he had consequently introduced the present Bill, although certainly not without incurring the reproach of supineness
1376
for not having brought it in at an earlier period, and he believed that the Bill would have the effect of protecting English companies. There had never been any law against persons insuring in foreign offices, but it had been found, hitherto, that notwithstanding the facility of communication and the ease with which insurances might be effected in Paris, in Amsterdam, or in Hamburgh, from the fear of encountering foreign litigation, and from a dislike to transacting business through foreign agents and foreign lawyers, and in a foreign language, few insurances had been effected in foreign offices, although a higher rate of premium was charged upon insurances in this country. As to reducing the duty, he could only repeat what he had said on a former occasion, that all taxes were liable to objection, and a plausible objection might, with little ingenuity, be raised against every tax. Looking upon the question as a matter of revenue, the tax in the year 1855 had produced in England alone £1,282,000, and at present the country was not in a condition to be able to part with so large a source of revenue. When this duty was first imposed in the year 1782, it was fixed at the rate of 1s. 6d. per cent, and in the year 1792 it produced £138,000. It was then raised to 2s., and the amount of the tax had still gradually increased, and after being raised to 2s. 6d. it was ultimately fixed at 3s. Now, during the whole period the amount of the tax had gone on increasing until, in England alone, in the year 1855, it amounted to £1,282,000. It was now proposed to lower the duty to 1s. per cent. which would be 6d. less than the original duty. Now, in 1833, in consequence of the number of incendiary fires, farming stock was exempted. He would assume that exemption removed, and the utmost revenue that could be reckoned upon would be about one-half, or £600,000. The whole general property now insured was £870,876,000, and farming stock, not paying duty, £64,812,000. The speculation about the increase of insurances was so very uncertain that no cautious person would build upon it at such a time as the present. The arguments which seemed to prevail with the hon. Gentleman who last addressed them might be very sound when they had an opportunity of considering the appropriation of a surplus revenue. He confessed that he had not himself looked at the subject in that point of view. It involved a revenue of nearly

1377
£1,300,000, to which, hitherto, no serious objection had been made. Under the circumstances, he therefore hoped the House would consent to let the Bill be read a second time, and the question of a reduction of duty might be deferred to another occasion.
MR. HENLEYsaid, no doubt the loss of that amount of revenue was a serious consideration. The right hon. Gentleman would not, he supposed, deal with the agency of any company established in London unless it were doing a good business. The Bill appeared to him to be so much waste paper; he could not conceive anything more inoperative. An agent might be appointed whom the Bill could not touch. They might carry on their business under the provisions of the Bill, and the Bill would only serve to lose to the right hon. Gentleman his revenue, and to give endless worry to the public. The information as to the way in which these insurances were to be done would spread, and the only way to meet the difficulty would be to lower the duty. People were not fond of going abroad, and until they lost a great deal—something like double the amount, which was the case at present—they would rather effect their insurances at home.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Bill seemed to him calculated to do all that the Legislature could do on the subject. It effectually operated on insurance offices connected with foreign establishments in this country; but as to putting down insurance offices abroad, that was impossible. He had fully considered all the questions connected with the subject, and he still thought that the Bill would effect the object desired.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought the subject was one which required further consideration. The prudence against which that tax was directed ought to be encouraged rather than discouraged. He was sure that if a great reduction were effected in the duty on insurances the full amount of the tax would be received in the space of not very many years. In conclusion, he should move that the debate be adjourned.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he believed that discussion would serve to make known to many people in this country a fact which they did not know before, namely, that they could effect their insurances at a great saving in France. The
1378
Bill could not, he believed, settle the question which it involved. He confessed he entertained a strong expectation that, now that peace had returned, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would imitate the bold policy of his immediate predecessor (Mr. Gladstone) and of the late Sir Robert Peel, and would remit many obnoxious taxes, however difficult it might be for him to find substitutes for them. He (Mr. M. Gibson) considered that it was not the business of independent Members of the House to point out those substitutes to the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, as the subject manifestly required more consideration than they could bestow upon it at that moment.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he was quite prepared to support the Bill. He had felt much pleasure in hearing the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that evening advocate the principle that it was the duty of the Government of this country to protect British capital against foreign competition. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would persevere in the course on which he had entered, and that in his approaching Budget his recantation of his former doctrines would be frankly carried out.
MR. TITEsaid, he was in possession of a few facts bearing upon the question, which he was anxious to state to the House. He found that the French company lately established in London charged 2s. for insurances in this country, while in France they charged only half a franc, or rather less than 5d., for insurances of the same amount. The diminished charge which they imposed in their own country was owing to the fact that there what was called the "average clause" was universally adopted. Under that clause a person effecting an insurance policy only got, in case of an accident, a sum proportioned to the value which his insurance bore to the whole of the property; so that if a man insured for £3,000 a property worth £9,000, and if that property was damaged to the extent of £1,000, he did not receive the whole of that sum, but merely one-third of the amount. The insurances were thus much more cheaply effected in France than in this country, and the practice of insuring was in consequence much more extensively adopted. The value of the whole of the property insured in England amounted to little more than

1379
£900,000,000; the value of the property insured in France, a much less wealthy country, amounted to £1,500,000,000. He should be glad to get rid of the tax altogether; but he doubted whether the money raised under it could, for the present, be spared. He believed that if the "average clause" were introduced into England, and if the duty were reduced to 1s., we should be able to derive as large a revenue from that source as that which we at present received.
SIR SAMUEL BIGNOLDsaid, it was the opinion of the principal insurance offices in this country that this measure would operate both as a protection to the revenue and to the interests of the British companies. The remission of the tax in regard to agricultural produce had led to a very large increase in the amount of property of that description insured; and if the present tax were reduced to 1s. it would require £2,700,000,000 of property, instead of £900,000,000, to be insured to sustain the revenue at its present point.
MR. WILSONsaid, he did not think the question of free trade was in any way involved in the proposed measure. If a malt tax were imposed in this country there would surely be no violation of the principle of free trade or of any principle of common sense in declaring that, although people might obtain malt duty free in France, Frenchmen should not therefore be allowed to sell malt duty free in England. But that was a case precisely analogous to the present. It was true that Englishmen might go abroad for the purpose of effecting insurances, but they rarely availed themselves of that power, because they felt that there were special advantages in their insuring at home. They had here greater facilities for legally recovering claims, and they had a greater certainty that the companies with which they transacted their business were perfectly solvent. But it did not follow that because we could not impose a tax on foreign insurance companies when they remained abroad, we should not, therefore, impose a tax upon them when they came to transact business in this country. If the Bill was thrown out, they would not effect the point in issue. They only permitted a French office to come to this country, and establish an office in Regent Street, in Cornhill, in Manchester, or in Birmingham, to compete unfairly with English offices.
MR. E. BALLsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Wilson) had propounded such a sound doctrine that he should give him his support.
MR. VANCEsaid, he must deny that the case of malt made in France was a parallel case. Insurances could be effected by letter. Sea insurances abroad did not prevail to any great extent, because the English duty had been reduced.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he did not approve of the adjournment of the debate. He did not think that the Bill would, as asserted, serve as an advertisement to show the advantages of French insurance over English insurance. But if this were the case, the danger might be obviated by making such a reduction in the property tax with respect to property insured as would meet the exigencies of the case.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would not take the credit or blame, as it might be, of having proposed this Bill in ignorance. The question had been fully considered, and his impression was, that the Bill would be as operative as could be expected. He believed it would be as effective for its purposes as other measures of a similar nature usually were. The object was to remedy a defect in the law, as he had already stated. The question had no reference to the amount of the duty. If the duty were reduced to a shilling, his proposition still would be to pass this Bill. There was at present an unjust differential duty against English insurance companies, and this the proposed Bill sought to remedy. If, however, the House thought they were not in a position to come to a satisfactory decision he had no objection to adjourn the debate; but in so doing he must say he had heard nothing to shake his confidence in the Bill, which he believed to be a proper measure and adequate for its purpose.
Debate adjourned till Friday.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Thursday.