Commons Sitting of 18 August 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1°. Militia Pay.

SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee read.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that he wished to call the attention of the House to the Return just made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as to the attendances at the meetings of the Board at which it was decided to augment the salary of the Dean of York, and complained of the paucity of information which it contained. The Returns showed that at one meeting of the Commissioners there were 13 clergymen to 4 laymen, and at another there were 17 to 4. The inference from this was, that the increase in the Dean of York's stipend had been entirely influenced by the clerical members. The Return did not show whether or not there had been a division on the question.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYobserved, that there was a considerable increase in the establishment of the Commission, and desired to know whether the Commissioners could increase their own establishment as they pleased, or whether any control was exercised in the matter by the Home Office or Treasury.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that to

1517
the best of his belief a Committee was appointed by the Treasury a short time ago to inquire into the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that Committee made a Report; but he could not undertake at the present moment to state precisely what authority the Treasury or the Home Office had over the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Commission. The expense was principally defrayed out of the Common Fund; but, if the question were repeated on Monday, he would answer it more positively. The other evening a question was raised as to the duties of the Ecclesiastical Commission in connection with the Church Building Act. He had had an interview with the Secretary of the Commission that morning, and was informed that those duties were very considerable, constituting a fourth part of their business, and were increasing instead of diminishing of late years. This estimate was very carefully made on an examination of the correspondence in the office. Their duties in that respect consisted, inter alia, in superintending the union of benefices; the formation of ecclesiastical districts; the conveyance of sites for parsonage-houses, churches, and burial-grounds; in ascertaining the cost of new churches and their materials, in order to obtain the drawback on timber; and arranging pew-rents and endowments, and substitute new churches for old ones.
MR. W. WILLIAMSremarked, that not any one of those duties had anything to do with church building.
MR. AYRTONasked, how many new churches had been built during the year under their superintendence?
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: I cannot say, without inquiry.
MR. WARNERobserved, that if the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. D. Griffith) had been in his place on the previous night, his single vote would have helped to turn the scale against the Ecclesiastical Commission, lie thought that as the House was going to break up, the question should be asked what was to be done with the Reform Bill next Session. The House had been elected expressly to deal with the question of reform, and hon. Members could not divest themselves of the responsibility of doing something in the case. They could not allow a Bill to be carried by pressure from without, for that would be, not reform but revolution; they could not leave the matter to the Government, for different Governments had made at-
1518
tempts and failed; and he, therefore, thought that the House should give some indication of. the course it was prepared to adopt on this question. It appeared to him that the only step that could be taken was to appoint a Select Committee to frame the outline, at any rate, of a Bill, to be afterwards filled up by the Government, and he hoped that the Government, during the recess, would turn their attention to this point.
House in Committee.
Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
The following Votes were agreed to:—

(1.) £15,000, Bounties on Slaves, &c.

(2.) £17,000, Lighthouses Abroad.

(3.) £4, 266, Orange River Territory.

(4.); £27.000, British Kaffraria.

MR. W. WILLIAMSobjected to taxing* the people of this country for any portion of the colony of the Cape of Good Hope, which was in a position to take care of itself.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEexplained that the Vote did not refer to the colony of the Cape of Good Hope, but to British Kaffraria. He admitted that there had been a considerable expenditure for some years, but it had been an expenditure conducted with the greatest success by Sir George Grey, who had averted for many years these Kafir wars which used to cost this country so much money. The present Vote had been gradually diminished, and next year it would be reduced to £15,000.
MR. CONINGHAMstated, that last year it was promised that this Vote should be reduced to £20,000.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he did not remember the promise.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYinquired, whether there were any outstanding expenses on account of the Kafir war?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEreplied, that there were certainly outstanding expenses, not on account of the old Kafir wars, but for expenditure in excess of the Parliamentary Vote during the last two years. That expenditure was incurred by Sir George Grey during the crisis which occurred in native affairs about two years ago, in consequence of an extraordinary outburst of fanaticism; and Sir George Grey, besides providing for that emergency, was able by his exertions to send to India a great number of troops at the time of the mutiny. To meet these exigencies, which Sir George Grey did with success, a certain expenditure was

1519
incurred in excess of the Parliamentary Vote, and when the amount was ascertained, application would be made to Parliament for the money.
Vote agreed to; as was also
(5.) £32,442, Treasury Chest.
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to fulfil the Engagements entered into by Her Majesty's Government with certain Submarine Telegraph Companies, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1861."
MR. AYRTONsaid, that there were three grants comprised in this Vote—one to the Mediterranean Extension, another to the Channel Islands, and a third to the Red Sea and Indian Telegraph. The three telegraphs had been laid down under contracts with the Government. In the case of the Mediterranean Extension and the Channel Islands, the contract provided that the Government should pay an annual sum on condition that the telegraphic wire was laid down and kept in efficient working order. But, in the case of the Red Sea Telegraph, it was different, and it was provided, in the first place, that the Red Sea and Indian Telegraph Company should for themselves enter into a contract with some responsible persons to lay down an efficient working telegraph from Egypt to India. With regard to the public engagement towards that Company, it was an engagement to pay a dividend of 4½ per cent for a period of fifty years. He now desired to know whether the Mediterranean Extension and the Channel Islands Telegraphs were in good working order, and also what steps were taken by the Red Sea Telegraph Company to enforce the fulfilment of the contract by the contractors.
MR. LAINGreplied, that the Mediterranean Extension Telegraph was not in complete working order. Both lines—that from Sardinia to Malta, the other from Malta to Corfu—had been laid down, and been worked successfully for some months, when an interruption occurred from causes not yet fully discovered. In consequence of that the guarantee for efficiency expired. But, looking to the importance of Malta, the Company were allowed to lay another line to Sicily, which gave a less perfect communication than before, but it had been adopted as a temporary measure till it could be seen whether the former communication could be resumed. He believed that the Channel Islands telegraph, after working for some
1520
time successfully, had also either wholly or partially failed. The arrangement which was made by the late Government with the Red Sea Telegraph Company, as it had turned out, had been a most unfortunate one. When the two first contracts were entered into, there was reason to believe that deep-sea telegraphs might be workee with perfect success but recent failures had rendered necessary an alteration in the terms of the contract with the Red Sea Company, and a guarantee had been given them irrespective of the success of the undertaking. He did not say that this was the best arrangement that could have been made; but the Government, being anxious to obtain a telegraphic communication with I India, had no alternative at the time. The public would not subscribe their capital without the guarantee. The Government had two official directors in the Company. [Mr. AYRTON: Who were they?] Mr. Anderson and Mr. Stephenson. Attempts were being made to restore the line. It was, undoubtedly, the duty of the Government to see that the companies carried out their contracts, and the Government would enforce all the legal remedies which they possessed against the directors if they did not keep the telegraphs in complete working order. Whether these matters would be affected by private arrangement, or would come before a Court of law, he could not at present state; but he would repeat that no legal remedy within the power of the Government would be omitted to compel the directors to do their duty in performing their contracts.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the Vote was expressed to be for the fulfilment of the engagements entered into with the submarine telegraph companies mentioned. The contracts under which those engagements were incurred were printed last year; and in the case of the Mediterranean Extension and the Channel Islands Companies the payment by the Government was made contingent on the performance of the contracts. But, as the contracts had not been performed, was it correct to ask for money "to fulfil the engagements" entered into? Those engagements no longer subsisted, and it seemed to him, therefore, that the first two items of £7,200 for the Mediterranean Extension and £1,800 for the Channel Islands telegraphs must necessarily be struck out of the Vote, or, otherwise, Parliament would be recognising the failure of the companies to perform their engagements, and would be giving

1521
currency to the notion that the public had given an absolute guarantee. If the Secretary to the Treasury chose to bring forward a supplemental estimate, explaining the nature of the new engagements, the Committee would of course consider it, but as yet the proposal of the Government was not borne out by the facts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had on the previous day delivered an indignant philippic against the House of Commons for their sins of omission and commission with regard to the public expenditure, and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman was now present to see that the House was anxious to set these matters right. With respect to the contract with the Red Sea and India Company, the late Government, perhaps, hardly deserved all the obloquy which had been cast upon them. Without an absolute guarantee no telegraph would have been laid down; but, on the other hand, this only proved that every person who could form an intelligent opinion on the subject declined to embark his money in such an undertaking. Of course, when the Government came forward with their guarantee plenty of people were found willing to enjoy the profit and the jobbing without any risk. There was certainly this redeeming feature in the contract—namely, that it was not to take effect unless the company could find responsible persons to lay down the telegraph and deliver it over in efficient working order. It appeared that two Treasury clerks, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Stephenson, had been appointed directors to see that the engagements were carried out and to protect the 'public. At that time it had not been shown that a long wire could be laid down with success to maintain an ocean communication, and even now this scientific question had not been determined. Under such circumstances proper persons should have been appointed to protect the public interests, and not two Treasury clerks, who appeared to allow anything to be done as an execution of the contract; the result being that there was now no wire in efficient working order. He moved the omission of the first two items from the Vote.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was responsible for the first contract in the Vote as it was entered into when he was at the Treasury, but he trusted the Committee would recollect that there were great difficulties inherent in this question of submarine telegraphs. During the Indian mutiny a strong desire was felt for tele-
1522
graphic communication with India, and the Government were charged with supineness in not listening to the proposals made to them. Some persons urged that the Government should lay down the line themselves, and that they should come to this House for a large Vote of money, taking the line by sea to Gibraltar, Malta, Alexandria, and so by the Red Sea to India, which would have cost £500,000 or more. The uncertainties attending a line which passed through other States induced them to entertain a submarine project, but looking also to the uncertainties which existed respecting the mechanical means of forming such a communication the Government came to the conclusion that it was undesirable themselves to carry such a project into execution, and that it was better to leave it to private enterprise. They wished to contract with a company to pay a certain rate for a certain number of years for all Government messages. Those terms, however, were not thought sufficiently favourable, and no company could be formed on such a basis. An arrangement was then made with the Mediterranean Company, there being a line from Genoa to Cagliari, to extend it from Cagliari to Malta and Corfu, the agreement being that the Government would guarantee them a certain amount as long as the line was in good working order. These were on the whole reasonable terms, it being admitted that to make such a communication was a very desirable object. The late Government continued that arrangement and made the bargain for carrying on the line to India which had been referred to. Though, perhaps, not a very advantageous arrangement, it had been condemned with more severity than it deserved, when the Committee bore in mind the paramount object of establishing telegraphic communication with India. The hon. Gentleman had moved that the two first items should be disallowed. Perhaps, upon a literal construction of the contracts, it was competent to the Committee to put an end to the Vote; but the Mediterranean Company had carried a line from Malta to Sicily, joining with the Italian lines. The communication thus established with Malta seemed to him to be practically as good as that by way of Cagliari, and in some respects it was better, for whereas, from Malta to Cagliari, the distance was some 200 miles, Sicily was only about 70 miles distant, so that the submarine wire being less long the communication with Malta was less

1523
uncertain. He therefore thought that the Treasury were fully justified in making a provisional arrangement for six months, the promised subsidy being conditional on the maintenance of the line in efficient working order. He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would not refuse their sanction to the first Vote. As to the Channel Islands, it was true that the communication had been interrupted, but if restored the payment by the Government would become due, and it was of great importance that telegraphic communication should be kept up with these places. Nothing could be more obscure than the causes which prevented the working of those lines. It was at first supposed that the exclusive difficulty consisted in laying down the wires, and that when once at the bottom of the sea the wires were safe from all further damage. It now appeared, however, that they were subjected to some unknown influence when laid down which interrupted the working; and under such circumstances it was only right that Parliament should deal in an equitable spirit with the companies, and not by a sudden vote decline to give them further countenance or assistance.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, the question before the Committee was, whether the contracts had been fulfilled, and whether they were called on to pay for contracts which had not been fulfilled. The House had been taunted for forcing expenses on the Government; but in that instance the Government were forcing expenditure on the House of Commons. If he understood the matter, the Committee was called on to pay money for a contract which had not been performed. It was said the arrangement was that we should be independent of foreign powers; but now it appeared that the telegraph had to go through Naples. This Session there bad been great extravagance, and if there should be, as would be probably the case, a bad harvest, the people would next year say, "Why you spent last Session upwards of £76,000,000 of the public money." These Estimates ought to be cut down, for small amounts were the foundation of large savings.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he agreed that by close attention to small items was the foundation of a wise economy to be laid. But the hon. Gentleman intimated that the Government were forcing this particular expenditure upon the Committee. Was that a just charge?
1524
[Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: I referred to other items.] He did not know what these were, but in this particular instance he believed the Government had acted in a manner which the Committee would approve. Did the hon. Member think that when the line from Malta to Corfu and to Cagliari failed the Government would have been justified in leaving the country entirely without telegraphic communication with Malta? To that opinion the hon Member had committed himself. The Government satisfied themselves that it was undesirable for them to attempt to carry out the undertaking. They were reluctant to pledge the public to one farthing of permanent expenditure. But it would not have been right to leave the country without communication, however imperfect, with Malta. The Vote would not pledge the Committee to an engagement for a long term of years; it was a mere provisional arrangement which did not annul the old contract, and the contract would be revived when the communication was restored. With regard to the Red Sea Telegraph, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton), in alluding to the employment of "two Treasury clerks" for the protection of the public interest, had succeeded in conveying a false impression by means of language which was perfectly accurate. No doubt, Mr. Anderson and Mr. Stephenson were Treasury clerks, but that conveyed an inadequate notion of their standing and ability. In responsibility, in knowledge, and in experience they were officers of the very first class, and two better men could not be found in the civil service of the country.
MR. WHITEsaid that, had the Government not availed themselves of this alternative line when the Cagliari and Malta line closed, there would have been great dissatisfaction in the City among those connected with the East. It was very hard, when the Government had done all they could to maintain the communication with the East, that they should incur nothing but obloquy.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that on the understanding that the new arrangement was only temporary, and that if it did not work the money would not be paid, he thought it a sensible proceeding, and therefore he would not oppose the Vote. The question was well considered by the Packet and Telegraph Committee, and they felt that the contracts for telegraphs to Alexandria were not prudential arrangements. The mischief with regard to the

1525
Re Sea telegraph was that the Bill was allowed to be carried through the House as a private Bill. This House knew nothing of the guarantee till the Bill came from the Lords, when, having read the Bill, he himself drew attention to the point; but the House refused to interfere with the guarantee, on the ground that the Bill had gone through all its stages except the very last. But the Committee on packets and telegraphs had recommended that in future no guarantees of public money should be made in private Bills. He hoped the Government would save something out of the wreck. He quite agreed that both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Stephenson were first-rate men, and that they were placed on the direction to guard the public interests. He wished to ask what amount of capital had been paid up, for on that amount only would the Government be bound to pay the guarantee interest of 4½ per cent.
MR. LAINGwas understood to say that the whole capital of £800,000 had been paid.
MR. SPOONERwould like to know whether the whole of the sum guaranteed by Government for the formation of the Red Sea and Indian Telegraph had been spent, and if not, whether Government could not prevent further expenditure. He (Mr. Spooner) understood that the original scheme had entirely failed, and that an altered one was adopted; is he to understand that if the substituted scheme fails the guarantee for such substituted scheme would fail also? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Just so.] Then he (Mr. Spooner) entirely approved of what the Government had done. The communication with India by telegraph was a matter of such great national importance that the ministers would have been greatly blamed, and justly so, if they had not exerted themselves to the utmost to procure such communication.
MR. GREGSONsaid, it was quite impossible to find persons who would undertake the formation of these telegraphs without the guarantee of the Government. All the capital had been paid up on the £20 shares, and their market value was now something less than that sum.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment, considering the new footing on which the Vote now appeared to be placed. It should be remembered, however, that the Committee had been asked to Vote a sum of money upon a contract submitted last year, whereas
1526
now it appeared that the money was required in conformity with a contract not laid before Parliament. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. White) had spoken on this question as the organ of the City interest; but, considering the extent to which that hon. Member had undertaken to defend the British Constitution, he surely ought to be rather more careful how the public money was expended. It was often found, however, that hon. Gentlemen who on the platform were very voluble and clamorous forgot all public considerations when their own interest was concerned, and could not tolerate discussion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that no new contract had been entered into, as the hon. Member seemed to suppose. The arrangement made was merely a provisional modification of the old contract, which could be sufficiently explained in the course of conversation, and hardly required to be set forth in the Estimates.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he understood that the £7,200 was only payable while the telegraph worked.
MR. LAING: Only as long as the communication is kept open.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he would then ask for an explanation of the £1,800 for the Channel Islands contract. The Committee had been informed that the telegraph was not in working order.
MR. LAINGsaid, the telegraph was a case almost of suspended animation, but it might be resuscitated at any moment. No part of the money would be paid till the telegraph worked.
Motion made, and Question,
"That the item of £7,200, for the Mediterranean Extension, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
Put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
The following Votes were then agreed to:—
(7.) £7,000, Niger Expedition.
(8.) £11,500, Zambesi Expedition.
(9.) £2,000, Corn Returns.
(10.) £2,060, Registration of Joint Stock Companies.
(11.) £1,703. Registration of Designs.
(12.) £17,850, Revising Barristers.
(13.) £2,500, Inspection of Burial Grounds.
SIR GEORGE LEWISexplained that, under certain Acts of Parliament, the Government were directed to close burial-grounds, and also to interdict interments

1527
within churches; and in order to carry out the provisions of these Acts two inspectors were appointed, and their expenses constituted the sum mentioned in the Vote before the Committee.
MR. EDWIN JAMESasked when these two gentlemen were appointed to perform these melancholy duties, as no other statement in reference to the Vote had been made to the Committee than that which they had just heard.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the inspectors were appointed in 1855.
Vote agreed to.
(14.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to Her Majesty, towards the formation of the Gallery of Portraits of the most Eminent Persons In British History, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1861."
MR. SPOONERmoved the rejection of the Vote, and he looked with confidence for the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He (the right hon. Gentleman) could not oppose the rejection of this Vole on the ground on which he opposed the rejection of the Vote for the British Museum, namely, that it was a great national institution, and, therefore, ought to be nationally supported. He (Mr. Spooner) totally disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman even as to that Vote, but he would not enter into that question as the House had decided, and he bowed to that decision, but how could the British Historical Portrait Gallery be considered a national institution?
The second report of the trustees clearly demonstrated that they did not seek to promote art or science by the pictures they collected, for they say that they look to the celebrity of the person represented rather than to the merits of the artists. They will attempt to estimate that celebrity without any bias to any political or religious party. Nor will they consider great faults and errors—though admitted on all sides—as any sufficient ground for excluding any portrait which may be valuable as illustrating the civil, ecclesiastical or literary history of the country. It is clear, then, that art cannot be improved nor morality promoted by such a collection of portraits. The right hon. Gentleman had just told them that large sums were made up of small ones. Let him practically carry out that view with regard to that Vote, Last year the House of Com-
1528
mons voted £2,000 for a picture of themselves, and presented it to this Gallery, which, because there was no room large enough to receive it in the gallery, it still remains in one of the Committee Rooms of that House. He (Mr. Spooner) opposed that Vote, and divided the Commistee upon it; and it was only carried by the casting vote of the Chairman. Such a collection of pictures was absurd and ridiculous beyond conception, and he would warn the right hon. Gentleman that if he permitted this Vote to pass he would soon be called upon for a much larger Vote, in order to provide a building for this uncalled-for and worse than useless exhibition.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, they were already [paying a large rent for a building.
MR. SPOONER: Just so; and that clearly showed that the Government would have to provide a building for these pictures. He moved that the sum be struck out.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he divided against the proposal last year on the ground that the multiplication of these galleries was altogether bad. He had thought there should be only one National Gallery, and he had not altered his opinion. This Historical Portrait Gallery was only another illustration of what a great orator said the other day in describing the departments of art, science, and antiquities—that "they were marked by indecision, inefficiency, vacillation, costliness, extravagance, meanness, and all the conflicting vices that could be enumerated." He believed that statement to be perfectly true. Although there was a paid director attached to the National Gallery he knew that some prints were bought at an auction for £40, and shortly afterwards sold to the nation for £400. However, in the present state of the House it would be useless to divide on the Vote.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, the collection contained a portrait of Nell Gwynne; but one looked in vain for a statue of Cromwell.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHSremarked, that there were also portraits of the Duchess of Portsmouth and other people of that kind.
SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEsupported the Vote, as the object was a national one.
MR. TITEsaid, be thought the money asked for would be well employed.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he ob-

1529
jected to the Vote on account of the management. There were two sets of gentlemen buying pictures—one for the National Gallery, the other for the British Historical Portrait Gallery. Why should Lord Stanhope ride his hobby, and make the nation pay for it? Why not place the whole under one supervision, that of the National Gallery? He objected strongly to this double and dilettante Committee.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the Committees felt that the objections raised by the hon. Member for Warwickshire were untenable, and that portraits of historical characters did possess a national interest. It was true that the public might sometimes pay rather higher for pictures, because the mere fact of the nation being in the market as a purchaser would naturally tend to raise prices; but then, on the other hand, many valuable presents had been and would be received, so that upon the whole the public would not he much of a loser. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coning-ham) and the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne), had urged that an account of the prices paid for pictures should be laid before Parliament, and to that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) saw no objection. As to the consolidation of the establishments of the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery, that was a question that might be properly entertained, but at the same time he thought the same agents could not be intrusted to advise the Government upon the purchase of pictures as works of art, and upon portraits of historical character.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he entertained a wholly different opinion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that notwithstanding the high authority of the hon. Member, he still believed that neither Sir Charles Eastlake nor any other director of the National Gallery could undertake the duty of selecting historical portraits in addition to his other duties. The identification of portraits, not with reference to their merits as works of art, but their value as real portraits, required an amount of historical knowledge and ability to trace the identity of features which was not possessed by all men, and which it took a lifetime to acquire.
MR. CONINGHAMmaintained that the study of art necessarily led to that general knowledge of history and modes of in-
1530
vestigation which would qualify any person to be intrusted with the purchase of portraits. Did Mr. Scharfe possess any peculiar qualification which the Director of the National Gallery did not possess?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was responsible for the nomination of the trustees and for placing the gallery under a separate administration, and contended that different qualifications were required to enable a man to decide upon the works of the Italian masters and the authenticity of historical portraits. Lord Macaulay was one of the trustees, and no one could dispute the propriety of placing his name on the list of trustees of a National Portrait Gallery, hut yet he had never paid any particular attention to art.
Question put,
The Committee divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 8: Majority 29.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes.
(15.) £1,000, Boundaries of Counties, &c. (Ireland).
(16.) £3,150, Agricultural Statistics (Ireland).
(17.) £10,000, New Courts of Law, &c. (Dublin).
(18.) £669, Pitcairn's Islanders.
(19.) £5,260, Caledonian and Crinan Canals.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: It is £2,000 in the Estimates.
MR. LAINGexplained that there was a Supplemental Estimate to meet the expenses of an award for damages sustained by a neighbouring landowner, and for repairs of the canal, which had proved to be more costly than was anticipated. A Bill had passed through Parliament enabling the Caledonian Canal Company to raise their tolls, which would, it was believed, have the effect of making the undertaking self-supporting.
Vote agreed to.
(20.) £1,914, Wellington Testimonial in Phoenix Park, &c.
MR. LAINGexplained, that it was not a Vote of money, but simply a matter of account, the gun-metal being furnished by the War Department.
Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes.
(21.) £1,680, Fiji Islands.
(22.) £2,500, Drawings by Old Masters.
(23.) £5,000, Dublin National Gallery.
(24.) £5,000, Industrial Museum, Edinburgh.
(25.) £2,660, Guard Room, Windsor Castle.
Vote agreed to.
(26.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £15,000, be granted to Her Majesty, for the purpose of increasing the accommodation for Painting and Sculpture in the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square, in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1861."
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that in accordance with notice previously given, he rose to move the rejection of the Vote. The question had acquired increased importance since the observations made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government on Tuesday last, and he thought the subject was one that ought to have been mooted at a time when there was a fuller attendance of hon. Members. A few nights since the right hon. Member for North Staffordshire intended to call the attention of the House to the plans of Captain Fowke for extending the National Gallery, but he was requested by the President of the Board of Works to postpone his Motion until the consideration of Class 7 of the Estimates. The statement of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, however, seemed to be at variance with what was looked upon as a compact with respect to the National Gallery. His right hon. Friend, having left town, had re quested him (Lord Henry Lennox) to give notice of a Motion upon the subject. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Works, when appealed to upon the subject of the Vote, gave a pleasant offhand answer that the money was wanted to provide room for pictures that might be bought during the recess. That reply appeared to him (Lord Henry Lennox) to be unsatisfactory, as he thought it was improbable that £15,000 should be voted for the re-arrangement of a part of the National Gallery, which, if faith was kept with the public, would be useless next year. The noble Lord at the head of the Government on Tuesday night stated that the Vote was to make space available for such pictures as might be purchased within the next eight or ten years, and to provide accommodation for the statuary exhibited by the Royal Academy. It was quite true that the hall in Trafalgar Square was unfit for the exhibition of works of sculpture, but he (Lord Henry Lennox) maintained that, after all that had taken place upon the subject, it was the Royal Academy, with its ample funds, which ought to find proper
1532
accommodation for the exhibition of their pictures and their statues. For many years those interested in art had urged upon Parliament that the junction of the National Gallery and the Royal Academy was an unholy union. In 1848 the feeling was so strong that a Committee was appointed to inquire into the proper site, and they reported in favour of retaining the present site and getting rid of the Royal Academy. Nothing, however, was done, and in 1852 another Committee was appointed, who confirmed the Report of the former Committee. In 1857 a Royal Commission was resorted to, but, instead of differing from the Committees, as was perhaps expected, the Commissioners arrived at the same conclusions as the Committees had done. Successive Governments had endorsed those Reports, and in February last year the right hon. Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli), then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that—
"The House will recollect that last Session, wearied by the continued unsettlement of the question, and having no confidence that any further inquiry by Select Committees or Royal Commissions would produce a very satisfactory result, there seemed to be a general feeling that the Government should attempt to cut the Gordian knot, and bring the question of the National Gallery to a final settlement. I undertook, on the part of the Government, in deference to the feeling of the House, to obtain that result if possible, and I have the pleasure of informing the House that I have succeeded in accomplishing that which appeared to be the general wish of the country. The whole of the building in Trafalgar Square will speedily be entirely devoted to the National Gallery."—[3 Hansard, cliii., 182.]
He (Lord Henry Lennox) implored the Government to pause before pressing this Vote, which implied the continuance of the Royal Academy in Trafalgar Square for at least another eight or ten years, according to the statement of the noble Lord. When the Earl of Derby's Government offered a subsidy to the Royal Academy in order to induce them to retire, they said, "No; we thank you for past favours, but we are rich, and will build a place for ourselves." They, however, accepted a part of the site of Burlington Gardens. The House fully expected that an early period of the following Session notice to quit would have been given to the Royal Academy, and that there would at last be a national collection in a national gallery. He proposed to move the omission of the Vote of £15,000 for alterations in the National Gallery; but it was not a question to be decided in such a phantom of a House

1533
as the present, and if he did not now press his Motion to a division, he should certainly do so upon the Report of Supply. If, however, the weight of the Government should succeed, at the present period of the Session, in carrying the Vote through the House, he gave notice that early in the next Session he should move an Address to the Crown, or propose some other Motion, with the view of obtaining the fulfilment of the pledges which successive Governments had given, and in favour of which successive Committees had reported. The noble Lord concluded by moving the rejection of the Vote.
MR. COWPERsaid, that the noble Lord entirely misunderstood the purpose of the Vote. It was now twelve years since the question was mooted, as to how proper accommodation should be found for the pictures of the National Gallery. First of all, disputes arose as to whether or not the pictures should be removed out of the smoke and dust of London. That question had become of less importance by the use of glass placed over the pictures, and the general opinion now was that it was not necessary to remove them. The question to be settled was, which site was the best. Some people wished the present National Gallery to be enlarged; others thought that the site of Burlington House afforded a better opportunity for constructing a large and handsome building, in a proper style of architecture, worthy of the object and of the age. Again, it had been considered by others that the British Museum might, with certain alterations, be made conducive to a gallery for pictures. In the last year some preliminary steps were taken to remove the Royal Academy to the Burlington site, where the Royal Academy were willing to incur the expense of building a gallery of their own. But then arose doubts as to the best arrangement to be made for the British Museum, the trustees having determined that it was desirable to remove the natural history collection to another site, and under these circumstances until it was ascertained what was to be done with respect to building a museum, it would have been premature for the Government to dispose of the site of Burlington House. This year had passed away without any decision being come to on the point where the pictures of the National Gallery should ultimately be placed; and though the Government were disposed to deal with this subject as soon as it was ripe for decision,
1534
yet he thought that it was clear that some years must elapse before a gallery could he built in which the pictures could all be collected together, and this temporary and transition state must be endured some two, three, or five years longer, before a final and satisfactory arrangement could be made. Then, what he had to consider when the estimate was formed was how to provide for the increase in the pictures of the ancient masters until either the National Gallery building was entirely given up to the national collection of pictures, or until some other arrangement was made. He thought the first thing to be done was to render the existing space in that building available. He did not think that the Committee would desire to see temporary buildings erected elsewhere for the reception of pictures to be added to the collection. At the present moment all the available space in the National Gallery was made use of. Not only were the walls covered with paintings, but screens were placed in the centre of the largest room to receive pictures, and he did not think that any more available space remained in that portion of the National Gallery. He considered, then, what was best to be done now, in order to render the building more available for the desired object, without interfering with what might be the future destination of the building. The large central hall, 100 feet by 50, was useless now for any purpose; it did not afford space for pictures, nor was it a handsome entrance. At present the building was divided into two parts by this central hall, and a person could not pass from one part to the other on the same level. Therefore, whatever might be the ultimate destination of the building, the first thing to be done would be to cover over the vacant space in the centre, so that visitors might be enabled to pass from one end of the building to the other on the same floor; and he thought it was desirable to do a portion of that work at once. What he proposed was to continue the floor of the galleries across the centre hall, which would provide a saloon of 75 feet by 40, and 35 feet high; and he asked the House to vote the money for the purpose of making this interior alteration without altering the external walls. In addition, another large room would be formed out of the lower portion of the central hall on the ground-floor, which, including the space occupied by the Royal Academy for sculptures, would be made into one large room, con-

1535
taining very nearly the same superficial area (3,000 feet) as the other floor; and for the present this would be appropriated to the Royal Academy for their sculptures. If he asked for a Vote for purposes interfering with the final destination of the building he thought the noble Lord would have reason to complain; but the proposed arrangement did not interfere with any future decision that might be come to with respect to the building. It would only be a step towards making the building useful for one uniform purpose, whether it was retained as a National Gallery or was handed over to the Royal Academy. Other alterations had been suggested for the enlargement of the building by taking in the barracks and St. Martin's Workhouse, which might be got without much expense, as the parochial authorities were willing to give it up, provided that the Government supplied them with another workhouse in the suburbs; and the proposal now made would not interfere with any enlargement that might hereafter be thought desirable.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he conceived that what remained of the House at the present moment should feel indebted to the noble Lord for his very clear and lucid statement; and he thought the noble Lord, after the answer just given, could hardly avoid dividing the Committee. It seemed to be intimated that after the proposed alterations in connection with the central hall were completed, other alterations would be made. The noble Lord objected to laying out money on piecemeal alterations, and proposed that the House should wait until one great architectural design was prepared, and then there would be a better chance of spending the money economically and efficiently. The right hon. Gentleman replied, that before that could be effected some three or more years must elapse; but, after all, there seemed to be a hankering after Kensington. He should feel bound to support the noble Lord, who had taken great pains to get up his case, and had put it before the Committee very clearly. He could not say the same of the statement made by his right hon. Friend, whose explanation of how the building was to be lighted, for instance, was not very satisfactory. It seemed that St. Martin's workhouse was to be bought, and a new one erected—perhaps near the "Brompton boilers." The Committee had no plan of the proposed alterations; and he thought it would not
1536
become them, at the fag-end of the Session, to embark in any such expenditure.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, the Government proposed to do either too little or too much; and he would urge them to postpone the Vote until next year. He hoped this suggestion would have the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had pronounced so emphatic a condemnation on the whole system of Estimates and Expenditure. The Vote before them was not a Vote involving mere trifling alterations in the gallery: it was really the turning point in the great question whether the vast expenditure on our art collections was to be productive of substantial benefit to the community, or was to be frittered away and jobbed away without any corresponding results. The subject of art was a peculiar one. Of old art used to be identified with religion; now it had become subordinate to science; and was made to minister to the luxury and convenience of society, instead of being intimately connected with any great principle. In order that our art expenditure should rest on a sound foundation, it was necessary that there should be unity, uniformity, and responsibility in its administration; and unless these conditions were observed, he should recommend the Committee to resist any further grants in this direction. The building in Trafalgar Square cost the nation £100,000. It was thought at first that one-half of it would suffice for national purposes, and the Royal Academy was allowed to share the building; Mr. Spring Rice declaring that, though it was allowed the use of the rooms, the property in the rooms rested with the public, and should be resumed by the public when the rooms were required. That time had long since arrived. Owing to want of space bequests had been refused, works of art could not be received, which would otherwise be eligible; and, as the whole building was required for the public service, the Academy ought to be removed. If, indeed, it could be shown that the Royal Academy had conduced to the cultivation of the arts, he should not object to its continuance in the square; but, instead of cultivating high art in its true sense, it had merely ministered to the caprices of fashion; at one moment lauding the insane absurdities of Turner in his later years, and then encouraging the crotchets of the pre-Raphaelites, and setting them up as an example worthy of imitation. The annual exhibitions were not the means of cultivating or improving

1537
the taste; for we had the authority of Sir Joshua Reynolds for saying that those who 6et up the moderns as worthy of imitation, only misled the public. Had the Academy ever turned out a great artist? As a drawing school it might have been of some service; hut that was all. So far from cultivating, it had injured the public taste; and its removal from Trafalgar Square would thus be a public service. At that period of the Session there could be no fair test of the opinion of the House; and he therefore urged the noble Lord not to commit them to any premature decision on this question. The alterations proposed were only calculated to provide for the requirements of the Royal Academy; they would not convert the building into one suited for the exhibition of pictures; and he thought the public money might be far better expended than in serving the purposes of a narrow clique.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he thought the hon. Member's art essay was rather more fitted for the lecture-room than the House of Commons. But he certainly looked with consternation at the expenditure in which the right hon. Gentleman wished them to embark. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to revel in all these costly alterations, throwing down this building and erecting that, careless of the cost to the public—
"Diruit, ædificat, mutat quadrata rotundis."
He talked of buying the workhouse, but had any architect given him an estimate of the probable expense of purchasing that building, which occupied one of the most costly sites in London? In the absence of any plan the Government ought not to press the Vote.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he entirely agreed with his hon. and learned Friend. The right hon. Gentleman talked of constructing a great central hall, making a facade, and buying the workhouse. He complained that no plan or estimate had been furnished so that the Committee might know precisely the expenditure in which they would be involved.
MR. COWPERsaid, he had been misunderstood. What he had meant to say was that the expenditure which he proposed would not necessarily interfere with any future enlargement or adaptation of the buildings; but he never thought of proposing such an enlargement. On the contrary, he believed that his plan of rendering available the great central hall obviated the necessity of any present en-
1538
largement. The expenditure of £15,000 was the substitute for enlargement, and not the preface to it. He did not mean to buy the workhouse and build a new facade. He only said that while certain persons wanted to build there a place for all the pictures belonging to the nation, ancient and modern, including those at Kensington, the Vote he was proposing, so far from leading to further expenditure, would render it unnecessary for, perhaps, the next ten years.
MR. P. O'BRIENthanked the noble Lord for calling attention to the Vote, for he believed the sum of £15,000 now asked for would be only to make a patchwork building of the National Gallery. He thought the building a disgrace to the country, and he, in common with others, was prepared to vote a larger sum for a building worthy of the country. He felt ashamed, on meeting a foreigner, at being taunted with our disregard of art. They pointed to our National Gallery, and characterized it most fitly as a barrack. We really had no place for the exhibition of sculpture. When they went to Munich, Turin, Dresden, Florence, Paris, or Rome, they were astonished at the manner in which art in Britain was looked after. He would call upon the Government to bring forward a scheme which would be a credit to the British nation, and which would relieve the country from the artistic disgrace under which it at present laboured. He was of opinion that the Vote should be rejected, as it was brought forward with a view of supporting the Royal Academy in the National Gallery building.
MR. SPOONERsupported the Amendment, and chiefly in consequence of the speech of the First Commissioner of Works. The noble Lord had told us that it was impossible for the National Gallery to remain long in its present state, and that the £15,000 now asked would not in any way interfere with an alteration which he foreshadowed. Now, if we vote the £15,000 with the knowledge of the fact that the noble Lord had stated an alteration was inevitable, and that possibly it might be the alteration suggested by the noble Lord, we should give a sanction to such alteration. He protested against more public money being laid out on the National Gallery, and, therefore, objected to the proposed Vote.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he was quite at a loss to understand upon what principle hon. Gentlemen objected

1539
to this Vote, but certainly those objections which had been stated were of the most contradictory and opposite character. He did not refer to the noble Lord who had put forth his objections with great ability, and in a manner very creditable to himself. Another hon. Gentleman, however, had objected to the Vote because, he said, it would involve great expense, but other hon. Members based their objections to the Vote upon the ground of its inadequacy, and they wished for a larger expenditure. They objected to mere patchwork, and wanted a grand and noble plan—one which would be worthy of the country and would involve a large sum of money. The Vote was proposed by the Government on the ground of economy. He utterly denied that the Vote would involve other and consequential expenditure; even assuming that which some hon. Members assumed, that the Royal Academy and the National Gallery could not permanently remain under the same roof. That connection was not desirable, and was merely accidental in its origin. Every one knew that the Royal Academy formerly had apartments in Somerset House. Those apartments were required by the public service, and it was thought that a portion of the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square, not being at the time required for the purposes of the national collection, might be for a time offered to the Royal Academy for their exhibitions. It was found now that the growing wants of the National Gallery precluded a permanent continuance of that union, and the only consideration was to what place the Royal Academy should go, and upon what site a new building should be erected. But that was a matter that involved much time in carrying out any decision which might be come to. There had been a question mooted whether the National Gallery should remain where it now was, or whether, in accordance with the suggestions, not of his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, hut of the Commissioners, the barracks and the workhouse behind should he added, the present gallery pulled down, and a new building erected upon a larger scale and at an immense expense. In the case of the Royal Academy having to move elsewhere, it had been supposed that a portion of Burlington House and garden should should be allotted to the Academy. Much had been said about that plan, which would, he believed, require Legislative sanction before handing over the fee simple
1540
of ground belonging to the public, and it could not be expected that the Royal Academy would lay out their money upon a site which did not belong to them. But, supposing that all settled, there was another consideration to he borne in mind, because it was only a portion of the ground at Burlington House that it had ever been proposed to give to the Royal Academy. The remainder of the ground would be appropriated to buildings for public purposes, and any building which the Royal Academy might erect upon their portion of the ground must be a building forming a part of one large plan, the remainder of the buildings completing that plan being devoted to quite different purposes. There was at present this difficulty:—There was the national collection of pictures, which was growing every year, and for which we had not room in the present building. The Royal Academy had been permitted for years to occupy a portion of that building, and could not he turned into the street immediately. We must wait until the Royal Academy had erected another building, as they were willing to do. Hon. Gentlemen had talked about the Royal Academy as though it were an enemy which was causing much mischief. It was a matter very much in dispute whether an academy for the purposes of art was not useful to art. That was a question of theory which could not be decided by prompt execution upon an institution which had existed for a length of time, and which many persons believed had been highly conducive to the encouragement and progress of art in this country. What, after all, was the principle upon which the country was required to spend money for collections of pictures? It was not simply for the gratification of those who took pleasure in going to see them, but he apprehended that it was for the public advantage that art should be cultivated in the country. It was for that reason that we bought the best pictures, for 99 out of every 100 persons who visited the collection were quite unable to distinguish an original from a copy. We procured the best pictures of the best masters in order that artists by studying those models might perfect themselves, and thus obtain for their country that standing among nations which belonged to any country where genius was developed in any art. The main object, he repeated, of forming a National Gallery was to promote the cultivation of art in this country; but he also was of

1541
opinion that the Royal Academy had contributed to that end because, in the first place, it gave instruction to young artists, and, next, it afforded to those who had attained sufficient skill a means of showing to the public the works they had been able to accomplish. For a certain number of years—small, he trusted—the National Gallery and the Royal Academy must be continued under the same roof. It was said the Government ought to propose a grand scheme, but grand schemes were attended with great expense, and it was rather strange that hon. Gentlemen who objected to the expenditure of small sums for particular purposes should be so ready to ca]l upon the Government to propose an immense Vote, which must excite much discussion and difference of opinion. He would impress upon the Committee that the Vote now proposed would effect a useful purpose for the present; it was a proposition which would neither entail great future expenditure nor preclude any arrangement which Parliament might think fit to make in following years. The Government assumed that the building in Trafalgar Square was to he given up to the National Gallery, and that that building, if so given up now, would suffice for some years for all the pictures belonging to the nation. But would that building be available at present? It was utterly unsuited for that purpose. There was a suite of rooms at one end, and a suite of rooms at the other end, and between them was a gulf or chasm, in order to cross which persons must descend a flight of stairs on one side, and ascend another flight on the opposite side. If the Royal Academy were to retire the next day, it would be impossible to remain with so inconvenient a building. They proposed, therefore, to adopt the simplest possible course—to deck over the middle gulf and make an even floor upon the upper story, which for the present would afford sufficient space for the exhibition of the National pictures, and, when the Royal Academy should be otherwise provided for, would make the building more adapted for the purposes of a National collection, and for years to come would avoid the necessity for the large plan and great expenditure which had been suggested. In the meanwhile the plan would accomplish another purpose. Hitherto, with all the attention that had been paid to the cultivation of art, that attention had been chiefly directed to painting, but they had now sculptors of great genius, men
1542
who were worthy rivals of the greatest artists of modern times, but who had no opportunity of displaying to the public the products of their genius. Those works were now placed in a cellar which he had never entered without feeling thoroughly ashamed. It was disgraceful to the country that a number of artists whose works excited the admiration of the world should not have the means of showing their fellow-countrymen what they were doing. In combination with the upper deck, which would give a room seventy-five feet by thirty for the exhibition of pictures belonging to the public, it was proposed, by lowering a few feet the floor of the central hall, to obtain a large space in which sculpture might be decently exhibited. That was an object which those who did not think that art was confined to painting would admit to be a great improvement, and it was one that could be obtained at a small cost. The cost would be only £15,000, and yet the Committee were invited to reject the Vote, and to wait until a grand scheme was propounded, upon which they could expend £800,000 or £900,000. If they agreed to vote the proposed moderate sum, the building might be placed in a condition Jess discreditable to the nation to which it belonged, and might be made to afford means for exhibiting the pictures. As an annual sum was placed at the disposal of the Government for the purchase of pictures, it would be the height of absurdity to refuse the means for exhibiting them. At present the pictures already possessed could not be exhibited properly, and some were placed on temporary screens and some in cellars. There were persons willing to add by presents to the public collection, and yet it was now proposed to refuse the moderate sum of £15,000 to provide for several years to come the means of showing the pictures which the nation already had and was likely to have. He never in the whole course of his life heard an objection the grounds of which it was more difficult to comprehend. The Vote was necessary to economize the public money. It was often said that the House of Commons drove the Government into large expenditure, and the present debate was a most striking illustration of that observation; for the only conclusion he could arrive at was that hon. Members objected to the Vote because it was so small; and that, provided the Government brought forward some great plan involving the expenditure of some

1543
£100,000, then the House would be ready to vote the money. What the Government now proposed was an economical arrangement, affording additional opportunities for displaying the nation's property in pictures, and, instead of being open to objection on the ground of economy, was deserving approval on that score.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the noble Lord had endeavoured to frighten the Committee into the Vote by the mention of the workhouse and the barracks, and appeared to have forgotten that it was the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works who first dangled them before the eyes of the Committee. Therefore it was not unnatural that the Committee should take alarm, and suppose that under the cover of this Vote some scheme, of which they knew nothing, was in contemplation. The First Commissioner of Works stated that after the expenditure of the sum of £15,000 the building would be in a convenient condition either for the National Gallery or the Royal Academy; hut there lay the whole question, for there was a great feeling in favour of keeping the National Gallery where it was. Under these circumstances, he did not wish to see money frittered away in making temporary alterations, which might prejudice the decision on the ultimate destination of the building. This demand for £15,000 to bridge over the great central hall, for the purpose of providing room for the pictures and also a sculpture room for the Royal Academy made it seem as if the Government meant that the national collection and the Royal Academy should both remain in the same building permanently. He thought it not unnatural that those who disapproved the waste of public money upon what they conceived to he a temporary arrangement should object to the present Vote, as well as those who considered that a larger plan should be brought forward.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the noble Viscount had enlarged on every topic connected with the subject, except the one brought under his consideration by the noble Lord who introduced the Amendment, and then, with a humility which was surprising, he declared himself unable to comprehend the simple proposition which was understood by every one else, and which was this—that the Government of the Earl of Derby, after the sittings of Committees and Commissions with the general assent of the House, of a large majority of the House, and the general assent of public opinion, announced
1544
it as the definite determination of the Government that the Royal Academy was to be forthwith removed from the National Gallery, and that the whole place was to be made available for the exhibition of the national collection of pictures. Nay more than that, a distinct site was indicated as one that was to be offered to the Royal Academy; and further, the Royal Academy was stated to be ready to accept it and erect on it a building at its own expense and for its own benefit. Why then had not the Government carried out that arrangement made a year and a half ago? The noble Lord said it took time to make arrangements; but he had had a year and a half and he had done nothing. The reason was that it was not the intention of the Government to carry it out, but it was their intention to avoid it and carry out other arrangements which he would not bring before the House. The question for the Government to answer was, "Do you mean to expend this money simply to carry out a plan for the appropriation of the National Gallery for the national pictures? And do you intend to carry out the arrangement, and that forthwith, for the removal of the Royal Academy?" The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works had said that the money was not to be spent to carry out a definite plan for the National Gallery, but to fit the gallery for the double purpose at present of the National Gallery and the Royal Academy, and that some years hence he would come for another Vote to make further alterations, and appropriate the building to its destination.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreplied, that the plan proposed was calculated to make the present building more suitable than at present for the permanent reception of the national collection. Certainly one part of the arrangement was to render it for a time more suitable for the reception of works of sculpture; and so far it served for the accommodation of the Royal Academy; but there was nothing in the plan which would not render the building permanently useful for the reception of the national collection. With regard to the modern collection of pictures at Kensington, he should observe that it was given by Mr. Sheepshanks to the nation on the express condition that it should be exhibited on that spot, and consequently there must be a building for it there. Ultimately it might be possible that the building in Trafalgar Square might be capable

1545
of receiving, not only the paintings of the old masters, but even those of modern artists. His own opinion was that it was very desirable to go on with that building as long as possible, and not embark in those large schemes, recommended, not by his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, but by the Royal Commission. If the alterations now proposed were made in the building, and if the arrangements were carried into effect for transferring the Royal Academy to Burlington House, the present National Gallery would be amply sufficient to contain all the national collections for many years to come. With regard to Burlington House, it was easy to say that the late Government approved of the plan of giving the Royal Academy a site in the gardens, and that there was nothing to do but to let them build; but it must be remembered that the building would not occupy the whole of that space; and they could not be permitted to put down their building just where they liked. That building must be part of a plan embracing other buildings to be erected for Government purposes, and therefore till it was settled what that plan was to be the Royal Academy could not commence their building. It was a matter requiring a great deal of consideration what the style of so large a mass of buildings should he; and then again there was the consideration of the question of expense.
LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that as the Committee had been for some time discussing the question he would not inconvenience the Government, who were anxious to finish Supply to-night, by making any prolonged observations in reply. His task indeed was comparatively easy, for, in fact, the only objector to his Motion was the noble Lord, who, in an elaborate speech, had fought every imaginable difficulty save the one which he had presented to the Committee. In answer to what had fallen from the noble Lord, he wished to say that he had never dreamt of saying anything against the Royal Academy. That institution was very well in its proper place, but he did not think it was in its proper place at present. He could not accede to the request urged in such cajoling terms by the noble Lord, and it would therefore he his duty to divide the Committee.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he had always felt the utter want of accommodation for art and artists in this country, but the manner of providing that accommodation
1546
was another question. There was no plan before the Committee, and the circumstances connected with the Vote were so unsatisfactory that he should feel compelled to oppose it.
Question put,
The Committee divided; Ayes 31; Noes 23; Majority 8.
Vote agreed to.
(27.) £10,000, Temporary Foreign Office,
MR. MONSELLasked how it was intended to spend the money?
MR. COWPERsaid, it was proposed to make use of Pembroke House and the office of the Comptroller of the Exchequer, and to purchase a house belonging to the Earl of Malmesbury, which would provide a communication between those two offices. There would thus be three houses for the temporary accommodation of the Foreign Office, and they would hereafter form permanent accommodation for some other department when they were vacated by the Foreign Office. A portion of the Vote, £2,500, was to defray the cost of removing, and furniture must also be provided for these houses.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYasked, whether the Vote included the purchase of Lord Malmesbury's house?
MR. COWPERsaid it did.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—
(28.) £18,000, Site of proposed Foreign Office.
(29.) £38,170, New Westminster Bridge.
(30.) £80,000, Westminster Bridge Approaches.
(31.) £1,500, Carisbrook Castle.
(32.) £87,000, Rangoon Telegraph.
(33.) £1,000, Professor Hansen's Lunar Tables.
(34.) £5,000, Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland).
(35.) £6,300, North American Exploring Expedition.
(36.) £7,000, Franklin Expedition and Monument.
MR. CONINGHAMexpressed his gratification at the grant. Sir Leopold M'Clintock had prosecuted the search in such a way as to deserve all the honours he had received; and he was sure that in erecting a monument to the memory of Franklin and his unfortunate, companions, the noble Lord was carrying out the wishes of the whole country.
MR. EDWIN JAMESasked where the monument was to be erected?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, in reply, that the question of the monument to be erected to the memory of Sir John Franklin had not been decided. It was intended to consult the widow of Sir John Franklin on the subject.
Vote agreed to; as were also
(37.) £75,000, Civil Contingencies,
(38.) £35,000, Rates for Government Property.
(39.) £17,000, Kensington Museum.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped that the Government would not persist in pressing this Vote. The Report of a Committee had recently been presented, but the evidence had not yet been laid before the House. It was one of those cases in which Government led the way in expenditure and in extravagance, and then afterwards perhaps they would say that the House had forced them into it. From small beginnings the Vote had crept up to its present amount, the establishment keeping pace with the building, and the building with the establishment; and if the sum then asked were voted, no doubt the foundation would be laid for another and a larger demand upon the public purse. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whoever he might be, would no doubt say, "You should pot have voted any money two or three years ago, and then you would not have been called upon for this Vote." He would therefore ask the Government to postpone the Vote until next Session, in order that it might be considered in connection with the appropriation of the magnificent site at Burlington House, and with the location of our national collections generally.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that the Vote before the Committee was only part of a colossal scheme of expenditure. He had spoken that day with a gentleman who was told by a friend of his that he had seen the actual plan, proposing acres of bricks and mortar. The tendency to increase the expenditure at Kensington, the mode in which the officials were paid, and the secret influence which seemed at work in bringing about all these results could only be explained on the hypothesis contained in a pamphlet which was before him:—
"The Indian arrangement was made in deference to Lord Derby's views and in opposition to the rest of the Cabinet, Lord Derby yielding to an influence which is irresistible in the councils of the Queen."
1548
That influence, he believed, was now operating adversely to the public interest. The museum was a local museum, and, if continued, others would be made in other parts of the Metropolis, and a great expense would fall upon the country.
MR. LOWEsaid, he could not hold out any hope that the Government would not persevere with the Vote. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had objected to the constitution of the Committee, but upon that point he (Mr. Lowe) would cite the authority of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), who had a great dislike to the Kensington Museum, but who had expressed his gratification at the very fair selection of hon. Members to serve on the Committee. That Committee so fairly chosen, had examined the subject and had made a Report. Upon that Report the Government proposed to act. Five years ago a house was erected for another purpose—an iron building, which was an experiment, and could not be said to have been a bad one, as it only cost £15,000, which amount it had saved in rent for housing the collection. But the building was not fit for delicate works of art. It could not be made water tight nor air tight, and the temperature varied greatly. The object of the Vote was to place the collection in a building more suitable for its reception, and he would state a few figures upon the subject. The Kensington Museum had cost altogether £167,000—£60,000 for the purchase of the land; about £50,000 for the purchase of the collection; and £50,000 had been spent in building, including the iron building now there. What had the country got for that money? The annual cost, separated as well as could be from the science and art department, was about £7,000, and for that money the country had received in loans and gifts property of the value of £450,000, Mr. Sheepshanks' collection of pictures alone was valued at £53,000, and another collection, valued at between £3,000 and £4,000, had just been received, and more was promised at the death of the lady who was the donor in that case. Thus, in paintings alone, the nation had received £60,000 already. The Museum was visited by 500,000 persons annually, and the Committee reported that it was beneficial to the public and deserving of further support. Under those circumstances, he thought the Government were warranted in asking the Committee to afford the means for placing the collections in a build-

1549
ing where they would be safe from injury. It was proposed to add to the present building, so as to form a quadrangle, across the middle of which a wall would be run dividing the space into two courts of 110 feet square and 100 feet and 120 respectively. Those squares would be covered with glass—one with two semicircular roofs and the other with a glass dome, thus affording a large extent of space perfectly air and water tight. That could all be done for the small cost of £17,000, according to the estimate of the architect, of whom he was bound to say that he had the happy faculty of not exceeding, in the works he had already executed, the estimates he had previously made. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would assent to the Vote. If they were to have a museum to a great extent supported by loans of articles of great value from Her Majesty and others, it was a duty to protect those articles from injury, and it was no answer to declaim against museums in general. The museum existed, it afforded great advantages to thousands, and the question was whether the cheap means of enlarging it proposed, should be adopted.
MR. EDWIN JAMESasked whether, as one of the conditions upon which Mr. Sheepshanks made his gift to the nation was that it should be accessible to the pub-lie on Sunday, any steps had been taken to comply with that condition.
MR. LOWEsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that there was any such condition made by Mr. Sheepshanks. It was true that that gentleman had expressed a desire that the pictures should be exhibited on Sundays, but, it having been pointed out that that wish could not be complied with, he had assented to the present arrangement. There was a letter from Mr. Sheepshanks, in which he had expressed the wish, but a formal deed had since been signed, in which there was no condition of the kind referred to.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought it was not unnatural that hon. Members should complain that the evidence taken before the Committee had not been printed. He thought, however, that, considering the Committee which had been impartially selected had unanimously recommended that this money should he laid out, and also considering the state of the Session, it would not be reasonable to postpone the Vote upon that ground.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he would not divide the Committee, as the Government had a majority upon which they could rely. He should leave the responsibility for the Vote with the Government.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he had not been placed upon the Committee, but he had been told that he might produce witnesses to substantiate his charges. He replied that it was no business of his to do so. Mr. Scott had mentioned his case to him, and he (Mr. Coningham) advised that gentleman to lay it before the Committee. The photographic department seemed to be a family concern, as he was informed that the photographer was a son-in-law of Mr. Cole. It was highly objectionable that a public department should indulge in puffing advertisements.
Vote agreed to.
(40.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £80,117, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Erecting, Repairing, and Maintaining the several Public Buildings in the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
MR. HENNESSYasked whether a model school for Cork was included in the Estimate.
MR. CARDWELL: It is; £2,000.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was going to spend money in Cork which the people of that city objected to receive.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that Cork was the second city of importance in Ireland, and it was thought right to erect a model school there, as had been done in other places. A memorial in favour of a model school had been signed by the Lord Lieutenant of the county, by the Sheriff of the county, the Protestant Bishop, the Mayor, and one of the Members for Cork, and many others. It was true that the Mayor of Cork had since withdrawn his name.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he could prove that half the Roman Catholic signatures were those of persons connected with the College.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he should move the omission of the item.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the item of £2,000 he omitted from the proposed Vote."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 3; Noes 40: Majority 37.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday.

SUPPLY.—REPORT.
MR. MASSEYbrought up the Report of the Committee on Supply.
Resolutions reported.
Resolutions agreed to.
House adjourned at half after Five o'clock till Monday.