HC Deb 22 July 1861 vol 164 cc1316-37

Order for Committee (Supply) read.

House in Committee.

Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.

(In the Committee.)

£75,414, British Museum.

MR. WALPOLE

This Vote is the difference between the sum granted on account and the sum constituting the whole amount of the Estimate asked for on the part of the trustees of the British Museum this year. The gross Estimate for this year—£100,414—will be found about £400 less than the total sum voted last year. There are several small increases and decreases upon the different heads included in this Estimate which I do not believe it necessary for me more particularly t notice; but there are two large items, the one of increase and the other of decrease, upon which I think I ought to make a few observations. The increase of amount to £3,300, under the head of salaries; the decrease to £2,700, on the Vote for special purchases. The increase of £3,300 arises in consequences of alterations made in the Museum, partly, I may say, by recommendations of this House, and partly in consequence of the retirement of the keeper of antiquities which, has led to the department being placed under three keepers instead of under one. The House may recollect that a strong pressure was put from different quarters upon the trustees of the Museum, about two years ago, to induce them to take into consideration the propriety of giving longer vacations to the clerks in the institution, and also propriety of giving them some increase of salary. The vacations were extended in the course of last year, and an increase in the salaries of the assistants will be made this year. In both of those respects—namely, vacations and salary, the asssistants of the Museum are now put more nearly on a footing with certain other departments of the State than they were before; and if the House wishes the same able gentlemen to fill the offices in this establishment who have hitherto filled them it cannot expect them to remain in the service of the trustees unless they receive salaries somewhat proportionate, not only to the labours they have to undergo, but proportionate also to the knowledge and the acquirements they are required to possess. Now, the great improvement effected is that the assistants are divided into two classes, an arrangements which affords quicker facilities for promotion than have heretofore existed. The only other observations I have to make on this increase is, that the Department of Anti- quities is now placed under three different gentlemen of great ability and high attainments. I may mention that Mr. Birch, whose reputation for a knowledge of Egyptian antiquities is not only European, but is unrivalled in Europe, will for the future be entirely employed in the charge of those antiquities. The keeper of the classical antiquities is a gentleman known probably to every hon. Member of this House for his energy and enterprise in excavating at Budruom the ruins of what was once one of the seven wonders of the world—the ancient Halicarnassus. Unfortunately, the specimens which he obtained remain under a glass shed, which is a discredit to the nation; but I hope that before I sit down I shall say enough to induce the Government to promise that some better accommodation shall be provided for these works of art. The other large item which I mentioned is a decrease of £2,700 for special purchases. Last year I had to ask for no less than £3,700 on that account. One of the purposes for which that sum was asked was the purchase of part of the collection of the late Lord Northwick, another was the purchase of one of the most valuable sets of manuscript which we have obtained of late years, belonging to the Duke of Laudersdale, and illustrating the history of the reign of Charles II., and the third, and most important, was the obtaining, at a cost of £2,000, of a most beautiful collection of minerals, which will, I believe, make the collection of mineralogy in the Museum always unequalled. This year we only ask for £1,000 for the purchase of some Oriental manuscripts, the property of Colonel Taylor, which I am told are valuable not merely on account of the quarter from which they come but because they contain materials for history with which we were previously unacquainted. [Mr. LAYARD: Hear, hear!] As the hon. Member cheers that statement, I presume that I am rightly informed. In accordance with the practice which has usually been adopted by those who have moved these Estimates, of informing the House of any events which have occurred in the previous twelvemonths, I ought to mention that we have during the past year lost two trustees—the Earl of Aberdeen and the Duke of Sutherland—but eminent as those Trustees were, their places have been filled by the election of a nobleman and a gentleman who will worthily occupy them—I allude to the Duke of Northumberland and Sir Thomas Phillips. The only other ob- servations which I will make have reference to the Reports of two Committees which were appointed last year to inquire—the one into the South Kensington Museum, and the other into the British Museum. The Report of the first-named Committee recommended that certain institutions in the Metropolis, including the British Museum, should be opened in the evening for the benefit of persons who are employed all day. The Trustees were most anxious that that should be done if possible, and seriously considered the practicability of carrying out the recommendation. I hope that the members of the Committee have read the valuable report prepared by that unfortunate gentleman, the late Mr. Braidwood, of the Fire Brigade— a man whose loss the country must seriously and sincerely deplore. The Trustees referred to Mr. Braidwood and the architect to consider whether it was possible to open the Museum in the evening consistently with the safety of the collections. Mr. Braidwood in his report, which contains most valuable information, pointed out that if the Museum was to be lighted with gas, with which alone it could be lighted so as properly to display its contents, these inconveniences would follow:— That it was a property of gas to dry everything within a room in which it was burning, especially the roof, the ceiling, and any timber which there might be in it, and that if a fire took place in a building so desiccated nothing could stop the progress of the flames; that the gas would materially injure the animal and vegetable collections; that it would greatly discolour the stones and marbles, and that that discolouration when once it had taken place could not easily be got rid of; and that if an explosion ever took place, against which absolute security could not be provided, it would be attended with most destructive consequences, to the risk of which such valuable collections as those contained in the British Museum ought not to be exposed. Upon this report the Trustees came to the conclusion that, however anxious they might be to give the benefit of these collections to the humbler classes, it was impossible to open the Museum at night. So much for the Report of the Committee on the South Kensington Museum. Another Committee was appointed to inquire into the British Museum itself. I think that the objects of my hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) in moving the appointment of that Committee were twofold—First, to ascertain whether it was necessary that the collections should be separated; and secondly, to discover whether accommodation could not be provided for the collections which are now in the Museum without such separation. After the Report of that Committee was made, it was the duty of the Trustees to consider what could be done to provide additional accommodation for the collections which are still undivided. They referred to the Government—as the sum to be voted for such a purpose must depend upon the Executive Government—to ascertain what is their opinion as to the propriety of separating the collections or keeping them together. The Government have not been able, and, considering the pressure which has been, put upon them this year, I am not surprised that they, have not been able, to give a specific answer to that question, but having regard to the collections which are now in the Museum, and to the valuable collection which has within the last three days arrived from the ancient Cyrene, I am sure that it will be impossible that such important and interesting works of art should be left under the glass shed and should not be exhibited, as the public have a right to demand that they should be. It is not for me to express my opinion upon this subject. It will be for the Government to say what they recommend should be done, in order that the Trustees may consider the question of providing additional space, with reference not merely to what they have to accommodate now, but also to what they may have to accommodate in the future. If any of the collections should be separated from the rest, of course, less accommodation will be required; if they should all be kept together the accommodation which will be required will be of very considerable extent. Of one thing, however, I am sure, and that is, that for collections so valuable as those in the British Museum the country will not grudge any reasonable sum that may be required. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by formally moving the Vote.

MR. GREGORY

said, he had hoped that at the commencement of the Session some announcement would have been made by the Government upon the subject of enlarging and rearranging the British Museum. The state of congestion in which that establishment found itself was apparent to every one. He was aware of the pressure upon the financial resources of the Government, and he had such an objection to shreds and patchwork, that he would prefer allowing matters to remain as at present rather than to adopt any temporary expedient that would not be creditable hereafter. Rather than see another sculpture den he would prefer to see the present conservatory round the portico of the Museum, ugly and unsightly as it was, continued and extended, and he sincerely hoped that no plan for removing the grand staircase, and constructing two rooms of sculpture, which must be badly lighted and unfit for the purpose, would be adopted by the Trustees. Next year he hoped the Chancellor for the Exchequer might be able to adopt the suggestion made by the Committee which sat last year, and of which he (Mr. Gregory) was the Chairman—namely, to buy up the block of houses around the Museum. That would not only be a good investment, but it would enable the Government to lay down a plan admitting of gradual enlargement, and at the same time carrying out the system of rearrangement which was urged upon the Committee by all the witnesses—a systematic chronological arrangement of the statues. An hon. Friend near him, whom all received as a high authority in all matters pertaining to art—the hon. Member for Lambeth—he begged pardon, for Southwark (Mr. Layard)—that hon. Gentleman recommended a sculpture hall, but if this were found too difficult or too expensive to obtain, then lateral galleries. He (Mr. Gregory) believed a hall would be difficult and expensive to construct, but lateral galleries would not. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) had alluded to the removal of some portion of the collections. Upon that point great difference of opinion prevailed, but throughout London there was great anxiety in different parts of the Metropolis to have local museums, and he thought that portions of the collections in the British Museum, if it were resolved to remove them, might be handed over to one or other of the local museums, the Trustees still retaining a proprietary right, and exercising a supervision over them. The Committee thought the ethnographical collection should be removed, and it was also suggested that the drawings of ancient master should be removed to the National Gallery whenever the nation possessed a gallery capable of receiving them. With respect to prints the case was different, as they afforded instruction to the archaeologist and the student in history. Upon the question of removing what was called the mediaeval portion of the collection, there was great difference of opinion. He, as Chairman of the Committee, prepared a Report in the sense that the mediaeval portion of the collection should be removed to whatever place of Parliament should decide, but the Committee did not agree with him, and a recommendation to enlarge the British Museum was adopted. He still adhered to his own opinion upon that point, both upon the ground of economy and for the interest of the collections themselves. It was not fair to call upon the country to pay for two similar establishments in close contiguity with each other. It was said that the objects of the South Kensington Museum and the British Museum were different—that the latter was archaeological and historical, while those of the Kensington Museum were educational and for the improvement of art. Practically, that appeared to him to be a distinction without a difference, the means of educational improvement were to be found in the British Museum and the materials for archaeological and historical research could be found at Kensington. He adhered to his former opinion that the mediaeval collection should be removed from the British Museum. He was aware that there was great difficulty in separating what ought to be place in the British Museum from works of mediaeval art. But Mr. Newton had thrown out a hint, showing that a canon might be laid down—perhaps rather a vague one—but still effectual for the purpose. He proposed to draw a distinction between Christian art and Pagan art. The line of demarcation might be difficult, but still it was only in a few instances that any doubt could be entertained. But in any case he thought the British antiquities representing the history of the nation ought to be retained in the British Museum, whether they were ante-Christian or post-Christian. But he had heard rumours that it was the intention of the Government next year to remove the whole or part of the natural history collections from the British Museum. He was satisfied that any attempt to transfer the natural history collections from their central position at Bloomsbury to a remote and less accessible situation at Kensington would give rise to great dissatisfaction. The weight of the official and scientific evidence taken before the Committee was against such a course, and if attempted it would be met as the proposed removal of the national collection of paintings to Kensington was met on a former occasion—by an adverse vote. The proposal was disapproved by Messrs. Gray, Marshall, Waterhouse, Professor Huxtable, and others. Professor Owen himself, the only name which those in favour of separation could quote, declared that he should infinitely prefer Bloomsbury, if he could only obtain sufficient space for his collection. The great arguments in favor of retaining the natural history collection where it was were three. First, the popularity of the collection with the middle and lower classes, a fact capable of being proved by a reference to statistics. In the next place, the importance of a central situation for such a collection had been strongly insisted upon. Lastly, there was the question of economy. If they built a natural history gallery at a distance from the great national library they would have to from a new library, the first cost of which, Professor Owen admitted, would be £30,000; and it would require a large annual sum to keep it up, and to purchase books of the same kind as they were also purchasing for the library in Bloomsbury. Then, the risk to many fragile articles which it contained, and which it was admitted could not be removed without great peril, ought not be forgotten. He wished to open the eyes of the public to the outrageous proposition which the Government had apparently entertained in 1859. On the 10th of July in that year Professor Owen submitted a plan to the Trustees, in which he said that with the utmost economy of space he should require for the present wants of his collection, and for its probable extension within the next thirty years, a building of one story covering ten acres, or a building of two stories covering five acres. On the 21st of the following January the Trustees actually voted, by a majority of 9 to 8, that it would be cheaper to provide for the natural history gallery upon a site not contiguous to the Museum. That crazy, rash, and extravagant scheme was actually in contemplation last year. It was calculated that the expense of five and a half acres at Kensington would be £27,500, and at Bloomsbury, £240,000, the building on either site costing £567,000, making thus a total of £594,500, against £807,000. But that estimate was erroneous. It was proved before the Committee that the price of land at Kensington was misrepresented in that calculation, and that it should have been £53,000, and not £27,500. There was a space of 61,155 superficial feet in the British Museum which was devoted to natural history, and which could not be used for antiquities, as it was on the second floor. The space of 61.155 superficial feet represented £122,310—that was to say, it would cost that sum to provide buildings which they had already. Mr. Smirke, the architect of the Museum, declared that, beside that, the fittings alone would cost £80,000, as the old fittings in the Museum would not be available. Taking into account these figures, the 5 1/2-acre plan at Bloomsbury would cost £656,000, and the plan at Kensington was estimated to cost £730,000, but he really believed it would cost £1,000,000, to say nothing of the large staff requisite for such an enormous building. But he would ask was all the space necessary which Mr. Owen required? The student of natural history who wished to go through the whole of the galleries would have to traverse a distance of nearly five miles. Professor Owen contemplated a great hall for the exhibition of whales. It was shown that the skins of whales could not be procured, and that, if they were procured, the stench would render it would render it totally impossible for any one but a professor to enter the place where they were kept. He could fancy a notice being posted," Shut at present on account of the stench." Even if the natural history collection were removed, not an iota of space would be gained for the antiquities, and, in his opinion, the plan was the most extravagant, the most useless, and the most unpopular which could be devised. It was proved before the Committee last year that scientific men did not require the exhibition of all the specimens, and that it would weary and disgust the public. There were nine species of crows, some of them so closely allied that only the most scientific men could distinguish them. Mr. Gould, and a host of scientific witnesses said, the public did not require to have in the galleries nine specimens of crows and thirty -nine specimens of warblers, all resembling one another. What was required was a liberal collection of type specimens. He regretted that a man whose name stood so high as Professor Owen's should connect himself with so foolish, crazy, and extravagant a scheme, and should persevere in it after the folly had been pointed out by most unexceptionable witness. A plan was proposed which struck every one in the Committee by its simplicity, its artistic and scientific character, and, above all, by its economy. Mr. Oldfield proposed a plan which was approved by the architect of the Museum, to make a chronological arrangement of the sculptures, and to provide at the same time for the perfect exhibition of the natural history specimens, by giving up the whole of the second story of the British Museum for the purpose. It would separate the natural history collection from the exhibition, and save the enormous expense which was clearly intended by the removal to Kensington. He congratulated the trustees on the changes which had been made, and on the liberality which had been evinced by Her Majesty's Government in improving the position of gentlemen who well deserved the increased salary and liberty accorded to them after long delay. But, while giving that praise, he must be allowed to qualify it with reference to one gentleman, who he regretted, to say, was no longer connected with the Museum. He could not speak too highly of Mr. Oldfield. He believed that every member of the Committee appreciated the knowledge and taste displayed by Mr. Oldfield in the evidence which he gave last year, and the labour which he must have under gone in preparing a plan which was, in his opinion, the most perfect ever submitted for the rearrangement of the British Museum. Mr. Oldfield was a gentleman who was examined before every Committee and every Commission which bad inquired into the subject. He was the person who arranged the Assyrian Gallery, the Egyptian Gallery, and the Greco-Roman and Roman Galleries, and the Temple Collection, and every one who had seen the admirable manner in which he had succeeded in those arrangements must be satisfied that the loss of his services would be a serious loss to the institution. Mr. Oldfield was most anxious to remain in the Museum, and offered to take any office, provided he was directly responsible to the Trustees and had an opportunity of submitting his views to them instead of submitting them to his superior officers, who might refuse to allow them to go before the Trustees. He even offered to serve gratuitously, if he were placed in this position with regard to the Trustees. In choosing Mr. Newton, the Trustees had chosen a very learned and a very worthy man, but the Trustees ought to have made such arrangements as would have continued the services of a man who had done such good service as Mr. Oldfield. He joined in the congratulations of the right hon. Gentleman at the additions which had been made to the Museum. He rejoiced particularly at the accessions which, it had received from Africa, and, as M. de Chaillu had been very much abused, it was only fair to him to say that he had behaved in the fairest and most liberal manner. He had acceded at once, without any cavilling, to the valuation which had been put on his collection by the Trustees. Mr. Panizzi also deserved great credit for the zeal which he had shown in forwarding all plans for obtaining accessions to the Museum, and the Admiralty also ought to have their meed of praise for the assistance which they had given. Another matter he wished to allude to was the Campagna collection. At the close of last year the Russians were in negotiation for this collection, and the Trustees, when they heard of this, sent Mr. Newton to Rome to purchase it. Some understanding was entered into between him and the French agent with regard to the particular things which each wanted. The next thing they heard was that the French Government had purchased the whole of the collection for £192,000. Through Mr. Robinson the Directors of the Kensington Collection had secured all that portion of the mediaeval collection which they required, but the British Museum had not obtained one single solitary thing. It was notorious that Mr. Robinson had had many difficulties in his way; but he was not a man to be easily overcome by difficulties. He went from Cardinal to Cardinal and from Monsignore to Monsignore until he obtained what he required, and if the British Museum had not a man at their command whom they could employ in negotiations it would he well if they would put their commissions in the hands of a gentleman like Mr. Robinson. He hoped next year when the Government came forward with a plan it would not be a thing as of shreds and patches, but that it would be one which would make the Museum a real pride to the country. Above all, he warned them against any attempt to separate the natural collection from the other collections, for that proposition, he was convinced, would meet with strong opposition both in London and the country at large.

MR. LAYARD

said, he was not at all surprised at the opinions expressed by his hon. Friend who had just sat down. In the Committee of last year, over which the lion, Gentleman presided, there were no less than seven Gentlemen who as Trustees were, in fact, on their trial in reference to the management of the Museum, but who, nevertheless, on the most important divisions came down when several independent Members were absent and outvoted them on almost every material point. The consequence was that his lion. Friend as regards the Report of his Committee was made to stand in the position of parent to a child which was not his own. In 1850 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire Into the management of the British Museum, but not one of the most important recommendations of that Commission had been carried out. It recommended, for instance, the abolition of the trustee system, and the creation of a Board—a recommendation in which he fully concurred, for it was impossible to carry on a large Museum under the trustee system. What was wanted was one man, one idea, and one controlling intellect. The Commission also pointed out how inadequate the present building was for the purposes of the Museum, and it appeared to him that the trustees were responsible for this state of things. At present the front rooms of the building was nearly useless on account of the portico which excluded the light. An enormous hall had been built merely to show the backs of books. Two galleries had been constructed to contain the Assyrian marbles, and when they were done it was found that the marbles could not be seen. Then the portico, which was probably intended for the Trustees to walk under and dispute, had been enclosed in a hoarding, within which were placed the marbles from Halicarnassus, from Budruom, and from Cyrene. There they were virtually excluded from public view, and were suffering injury from the soot and rain which beat in upon them. Day by day, as one thing was built it needed to be patched up in order to adapt it for the purpose for which it was really intended. These things were discreditable, and no saving was effected by such a policy. On the contrary, money was thrown away for nothing. With regard to the proposed separation, he thought it far better that art should remain at the British Museum, and that science should be transferred somewhere else. In no country in the world were the two brought together. Even, if the collections were retained under the same roof there should be a separate and dis- tinct administration for art and science; the two collections should he kept distinct, with a separate staff, a separate establishment, and separate entrances. He quite agreed that the worst thing they could do was to patch. To do so was to throw away money, and in the end have to do the thing over again. As to the removal of the ethnological collection, that might be advisable, and some witnesses went so far as to recommend its transfer to the east of London, where it could be seen by seafaring people to whom it was people to whom it was asserted, it would prove of especial interest. Original drawings should not be kept in the Museum. They should be in the National Gallery, near the pictures for which they were frequently the first sketches; probably few hon. Members knew that over the cases containing the birds and other objects of natural history was one of the most interesting collections of portraits in England. £2,000 a year was actually being pent in the purchase of portraits many of which might be had for the asking in the Museum. Why not transfer them to the National Portrait Gallery? As to the removal of the mediaeval collection, he did not agree with his hon. Friend, for it was almost impossible to draw the line between ancient and mediaeval art. The reasons for giving mediaeval art to Kensington were rather extraordinary. It was said that that was an educational establishment; but, if art education were desired, he would rather take a student to an Etruscan vase than to a bit of Palissy. At the same time it was marvellous to see what had been done at Kensington by Mr. Cole within a period of seven years. A very eminent French artist M. de Triqueti, in an article in the Revue Nationale, had expressed his surprise at what had been done there, and said that if the British Museum had only such a head as Kensington, France and every other country might despair, for England would have the finest art collection in the world. As far as the history of art was concerned, no collection could compare with that in the British Museum, but it was almost useless on account of its bad arrangement. Under the present system, the recommendations of those best calculated to judge of the requirements of certain collections were set aside, and it was in vain that they protested. It was, indeed, a bad system, and he trusted something would be done to reform it. At the beginning of the next Session he would bring the whole question before the House, and move distinct Resolutions with a view of reforming the administration of the Museum and of getting all the collections put under one responsible head. He must say he thought Mr. Oldfield's plan for the enlargement of the Museum perfectly feasible, and he believed that by adopting it in a few years a great deal might be done at no great expense. Mr. Oldfield was a most valuable servant, and be deeply regretted the cause of his having left the establishment. He (Mr. Layard) only wished that gentleman could again be employed, and he believed if it depended on his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) Mr. Oldfield would soon be there again. As to I constructing a building adapted to the purpose required, they need only look to the new reading room to see what could be done when they were not trammelled with an architect. Mr. Panizzi had given them a magnificent hall in every manner admirably calculated for its purpose. He had not shown it to a single person, whether Englishman or foreigner, who did not so consider it. With regard to the enlargement of the Museum, be trusted that some definite scheme would be laid down, which, if it could not be carried out at once, might at least be carried out as adequate means were found, and which in time might produce a complete building worthy of the nation.

MR. MONCKTON MILNES

said, he had taken part in the Commission referred to by the hon. Member for Southwark, and he was of the opinion that the Resolutions, of that Commission were of a most useful character. The noble Lord the Member for London, who was not in the House that night, and whom, perhaps, they might never see again in the House, but whose absence they would all regret, appointed that Commission, which sat for about two years, and recommended a distinct division between the departments of science and art, and pointed out the necessity of each being governed by a separate head. He had never been able to understand why the Resolutions of that Commission were not carried out. He was aware, however, that several of the Commissioners, and perhaps in that capacity they did not see the same necessity for carrying out their recommendations as before. Still, year after year passed away without bringing the desired conclusion nearer. The same confusion and the same congestion of articles existed, and the same want of accommodation to the public for the purposes of' information. No one change had taken place of any considerable benefit, except the construction of that great room, for which they had to thank Mr. Panizzi. He believed that the reason no advance was made was because they did not boldly and at once confront the question of separation, the collections in the Museum being, from the confusion of subjects, repulsive to people of taste. He trusted that the Government in examining the matter would look the question of separation boldly in the face, and decide upon it one way or the other. With regard to the lighting of the library of the British Museum in the evening he could not admit that the evidence of that much-lamented gentleman, Mr. Braidwood, was to be taken as conclusive. As long as gas was unscientifically made the injury to books was very great, but when gas was used, such as that consumed in the House of Commons itself or in the library of the Athenaeum, in a chamber separated from the building by thick glass, no injury whatever need be sustained by the books. If the great dome of the British Museum were lit with gas in this manner the library might be made accessible to tho population of this Metropolis on winter evenings without danger. He hoped that this subject would again come under the consideration of the trustees. He adhered to the opinion that a more efficient government of the Museum was required. The Trustees were most diligent in their attendance; but, after all, it was a government of amateurs. A government of amateurs was a very good thing in its way, but this was an institution too great to be; governed by amateurs. Then look at the patronage of the Museum. Who were the personages who appointed every clerk, and, he believed he might even say, every housemaid about the building? The Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chancellor, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. He had felt quite ashamed to write to these personages when he wished to recommend some young man for appointment or promotion in the British Museum. Of course, in such cases it always ended in a delegation of some kind or other, in which the names of these high functionaries were, no doubt, sometimes improperly used. He agreed in all that had been said in regard to the character and conduct of Mr. Oldfield. The officers of the Museum were gentlemen of great attainments, and the small addition made to their remuneration had been in every respect well merited.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that the discussion of the evening had traversed rather a large field, but in the few words which he wished to address to the Committee he would not attempt to touch upon the great variety and diversity of the topics which had been introduced into the debate. He was bound to say, however, that the view presented to the British public and to the Government was most disheartening if the pessimist sentiments of hon. Members who had spoken that night were to be generally adopted. The Museum contained the richest and most magnificent collection in the world. But they had been assured the Government was bad, the building was bad, the arrangement of the collection was bad, the Museum never could do well as long as an architect had to do with it; and lastly, the principal librarian, in the opinion of one hon. Gentleman, although he believed he stood alone, was bad also. Well, the Government were of opinion that the case of the British Museum was one that called, and had long called for consideration; and the reason it had not had practical consideration was, not that the Government were unwilling to entertain it, but on account of those abundant differences of opinion of which the discussion they had bad afforded ample evidence. They were all agreed that something ought to be done, but not what that something was. The hon. Member for Southwark did not agree with the hon. Member for Galway, except in one proposition, that there ought to be no patching, and nothing could be easier than to subscribe in general terms to such a doctrine. But when they came to consider what was meant by "patching," they would find one Gentleman meant exactly the reverse by that opprobrious term of what another meant. If, for example, a body of gentlemen called before them the greatest living naturalist, whose splendid genius and high character ought to have exempted him from being the object of the terms indulged in by the hon. Member for Galway in speaking of Professor Owen's plans — if they had heard from that Gentleman that a space of five and a half acres for the exhibition of his specimens of natural history were required, and then cut down that five and a half acres to two acres—he should consider that not altogether unlike patching. No doubt the pressure for space acted injuriously and caused great inconvenience. He would admit that it had reached a point that was scarcely compatible with the cha- racter and credit of the country. The Government were sensible of the evil, and they were of opinion that the difficulty ought to be faced without "patching," but by the adoption of some plan giving large and complete provision for a great length of time. But in order to fulfil that condition it was essential that there should be a separation of the collections, and that this separation should be drawn between the natural and scientific objects and the objects of art. The Government had thought it right to do something to elicit the opinion of the House of Commons. The Committee had made a Report, but he doubted whether it expressed the general sentiment of the House, and the Government were not prepared to act on that Report. The tendency of the Report was to keep the collections together, yet the Committee were not absolutely and uniformly of that opinion, because they thought that the ethnological collection had better be kept elsewhere. Those who were for keeping the collection together might be divided into two classes—those who advocated it on grounds of prudence and expediency, and those who favoured it on grounds of principle. Those who held the latter view maintained that, as the Museum had its origin in a private bequest, it would be to profane the intentions of its founder to separate or remove it. Of that opinion there seemed to be a few advocates. The Committee had abandoned it, and the hon. Member for Galway abandoned it because he proposed to give up the mediaeval and ethnographical collections, and would also give up the drawings. That being the state of the case, he thought it was the duty of the Government to consider what course was dictated by prudence, public convenience, and a due regard to public feeling. He agreed with those who entertained the opinion that whatever was done ought to be done in such a manner as that it might not require hereafter to be undone. If, therefore, the Government were not prepared now to adopt the largest plan which had been laid before them, their endeavour must be so to adjust their present measures that they might do nothing which they would have to retract hereafter, or which would cross and traverse public feeling. The hon. Member for Galway had adverted to some plan which he seemed to think was in contemplation, and which he had aimed at prevented from being carried into effect; but he could assure him the Government, neither alone nor in conjunction with the trustees, sought to do anything without the approval if the House. He must as the same time distinctly tell his hon. Friend that the Government would not found their proceedings on the Report of the Committee, because, although in principle it gave up the idea of union, yet it contemplated that which the Government thought was unreasonable and inconvenient —an indefinite extension for an indefinite period on one and the same spot of vast and heterogeneous collections. The buildings connected with the British Museum admitted, he believed, in many parts, of considerable architectural improvement, while there were portions of the ground within the precincts of the present site not occupied which might be occupied for the purposes of the Museum. There were two sources of increased accommodation, while he believed it was admitted that certain branches in the Museum could he and ought to be removed. His hon. Friend the Member for Galway threatened to raise popular emotion, which, he hoped, might not end in popular commotion, with respect to the removal of the natural history collection. Now, he was disposed to admit with him, that, whether owing to tradition, or custom, or positive convenience, there was a certain amount of public feeling which would welcome the preservation of the zoological collection on the present site, and he might observe that no absolute necessity for entertaining the question of the removal of that collection existed at the present moment. But without raising any question which may hazard the future solution of the points in dispute, he thought it was open to Government very greatly to enlarge the accommodation afforded by the Museum. The present hour was not the time to enter into details on the subject, but he might state it to be the opinion of the Government that no necessity now existed for raising the question connected with the removal of the zoological collection. Improvements in building and the occupation of unoccupied space would, he believed, be useful so far as they went, and would afford increased accommodation for a considerable period. He might add that he did not think his hon. Friend's allusion to Professor Owen involved any want of respect for that distinguished man, any more than what had fallen from him might be construed into a want of respect for the hon. Gentleman himself. He would, therefore, say veniam petimusque damusque vicissim, and would assure his hon. Friend that the Government would take the proper opportunity dining the recess of bringing the subject under the consideration of the Trustees, and endeavouring, in concert with them, to hit upon some plan which would so relieve and improve the British Museum as to lender its condition satisfactory to the House and the country.

CAPTAIN JERVIS

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), if he could state, with any degree of certainty, whether it was intended to render generally accessible the drawings of the ancient masters in the British Museum, and whether they were to be displayed there or at Kensington? To the working artist they were of the utmost importance.

MR. TITE

said, he could not conceive how any alteration of the natural history collection was to take place. The solution of the question appeared to him to consist in the adoption of Mr. Oldfield's plan, which, by the arrangement he suggested, gave the whole of the chronology, the archaeology, and the architecture in a very complete system. He was afraid that, however the so-called system of patching was decried, he did not see how they could progress satisfactorily without it. But with all its faults they might well be proud of the Museum collection, which was one of the finest in Europe; and as for the library, probably it was the finest in the world. With regard to the Campana collection he admitted they were outbidden upon it; but at the same time he believed if a Minister of the Crown were to rise and ask for a Vote of —100,000 for such a collection, hon. Gentlemen would be somewhat unwilling to grant it.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR

said, he gathered from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was going to do what many of them so much disapproved— namely, to carry out the plan of Professor Owen and those who supported him. He would, no doubt, first remove the mineralogy and the palaeontology, and then the zoology must follow. That would bean underhand mode of working. They ought to be told plainly what was intended. Kensington Museum was an admirable thing; but they were not to be treated as children, and to have a good object revealed to them only bit by bit. There should be some distinct determination of the House upon the subject before the divisions of the collection were attempted to be carried out. The government of the British Museum was admitted on all hands to be defective, but many persons had left their collections to the nation upon the understanding that they were to be in the charge of trustees, and the trustees could not be at present got rid of. He should like to see these- national collections under the control of a responsible Minister of education sitting in that House; but as the Committee of Council were at present without a responsible head in the House, he objected to this duty being entrusted to them.

MR. CONINGHAM

said, he wanted to know whether it was intended that the archaeological collections of the British Museum, the finest in the world, were to be broken up? The reason why the British Museum was overcrowded was that they were omniverous, and were not satisfied with having a perfect national collection, but filled up the rooms with useless articles.

MR. KINNAIRD

asked whether there was any probability of the Museum being opened of an evening, an advantage which a great number of working people desired?

MR. WALPOLE

said, he would remind the Committee that nothing was more easy than to find fault, and nothing more difficult than to find a remedy. If the Trustees of the Museum needed any justification in respect of the censures aimed at them, it was to be found in the conflicting opinions delivered that night, which showed that whatever the Trustees had done, they would have been blamed for something. Upon the retirement of Mr. Hawkins it was arranged that three keepers of departments should be appointed, and the question was who should they be. Mr. Birch, the senior of his department, had been appointed keeper of the Egyptian department; Mr. Newton, who had been in the Museum many years, and who was one of the most intelligent gentlemen alive, was appointed as keeper of the classical antiquities, and he (Mr. Walpole) would stake his existence that a better appointment could not have been made. The keeper of the coins also was a gentleman thoroughly conversant with that matter; and if Mr. Oldfield had been appointed instead of any one of these gentlemen an injury and an injustice would have been done. Nobody took greater pains than he (Mr. Walpole) personally took to preserve Mr. Oldfield's services for the public, and he believed that unless Mr. Oldfield had thought that he would not be in so independent a position as that to which he naturally aspired he would have remained. The hon. Member for Southwark had made a serious attack, as he had often done before, upon the constitution of the government of the Museum. And if he were to respond to the hon. Gentleman's question of what sort of government was best, he might, as an abstract principle, prefer the government of a single authority; but the Trustees had been working for many years, and working in a way which had been attended with great advantage to the establishment, and he thought it would be a serious thing to disturb that government. His opinion was that it would not be desirable to change the Trustee management. Each head of a department was responsible for his department; so that the public had undivided responsibility in each department, subject only to that control which must be always exercised in establishments which were composed of several divisions. As to the Campagna collection, the non-purchase of that collection was not owing to any delay on the part of the Trustees. With respect to the additional space required, an expression of his personal opinion on any particular plan would now be premature; but he might say that all the plans which might be submitted to them would receive the attentive consideration of the Trustees, and he hoped that such an arrangment would be made as would contribute to the better exhibition of the very valuable collection, for the due arrangement of which the existing accommodation was decidedly insufficient.

MR. AYRTON

said, that, even without opening the Museum by gaslight, a great deal might be done to afford the people greater facilities for visiting it. It was at present closed at six o'clock in the evening, though there was daylight till nine. He should like to hear some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman on that point.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter had been most carefully considered. The Trustees had gone into the minutest details. He himself had recommended that the Museum should be kept open till half-past eight in the evening during the summer months, when he found that it could not be opened by gaslight; but, on referring to former experience, it appeared that when it was kept open till eight o'clock the people would not come between six and eight, and that the number who might be expected to visit it between those hours would not be at all commensurate with the additional expense which would be in curred by keeping it open till eight.

Vote agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.