Commons Sitting of 15 June 1863

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—for Lisburn, v. John Doherty Barbour, esquire, void Election.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Civil Service (Supplementary Estimate), Vote No. 28.
Resolutions (June 11) reported
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Mutiny (East India) Act Repeal* [Bill 166].
Second Reading—London, &c. Dioceses (Lords) * [Bill 133]; Charitable Uses [Bill 146]; Trout, &c. Fishing (Scotland) [Bill 146], negatived.
Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (on re-committal) [Bill 148].
Report—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation.
Considered as amended—Offences (South Africa) (Lords)* [Bill 113]; Sheep and Cattle (Scot-land) * [Bill 115]; Metropolis Turnpike Act Amendment* [Bill 131].
Third Reading—Volunteers [Bill 152]; Regimental Debts, &c. * [Bill 149]; Innkeepers' Liability (No. 1) [Mr. Wykeham Martin] * [Bill 157]; and severally passed.

TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH AMERICA.—QUESTION.
MR. CAYEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received information respecting an International Conference, which, according to the Moniteur, has been opened in Paris for the purpose of examining into the project of a Telegraphic Line from Europe to North America, viâ Brazil and the West Indies; and whether any steps have been taken for the representation of this country at such Conference?
MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that proposals had been made to Her Majesty's Government asking them to take part in a Conference which had been held in Paris; but the Treasury were of opinion, that in consequence of the engagements into which the Government had entered, it would not be desirable that they should join in the consideration of any other project.

AFFAIRS OF JAPAN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he rose to ask of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is the precise nature of the demands made by Her Majesty's Government upon the Government of Japan, in the shape of reparation for outrages committed upon British subjects in that country; and whether there is any objection to state what Instructions have been sent to the British Admiral on the station as to the steps to be taken in the event of the Tycoon's refusal to comply with those demands; and also whether Her Majesty's Government have any ground for supposing that the Tycoon has the power, even if he has the will, to obtain from Prince Satsuma reparation for the murder of Mr. Richardson?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that, as the House was aware, some months ago a murderous attack was made upon four British subjects who were riding upon the high road near Jeddo which had been opened to foreigners under treaty. Mr. Richardson was killed, two of the gentlemen were wounded, and a lady, who was of the party, escaped almost by a miracle. This was not the only outrage which had recently been committed upon British subjects in Japan, and Her Majesty's Government had made demands upon the Japanese Government, the nature of which he had no objection to state. In the first place, they demanded an ample and formal apology for the murder of a British subject on a road which had been opened by treaty, and the payment of £100,000 by the Government of Japan as the penalty for that offence. His hon. Friend had asked whether the Tycoon had power to enforce reparation from a powerful Daimio like the prince whose followers, headed by his father, had committed the offence. Her Majesty's Government had demanded that punishment should be inflicted upon that chief, and that the persons implicated in the outrage should be taken, tried, and, if found guilty, executed in the presence of one or more British officers, and that a sum of £25,000 should be paid by Prince Satsuma as compensation to the family of the victim and those who suffered in the assault. Whether or not the Japanese Government had power to enforce this demand on Prince Satsuma he could not at present state. There was a further demand in consequence of the murder of two ma-
  898
  rines who were on duty as sentinels when the British Legation was attacked on the 25th of June last. For this a sum of £10,000 had been demanded as compensation to the families of the victims. It would not be in accordance with precedent for him to state the instructions which had been given to the Admiral, but he believed that they were such as were likely to enforce the demands of Her Majesty's Government.

MR. PRITCHARD, LATE CONSUL AT THE FEEJEE ISLANDS—QUESTION.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Mr. Pritchard still fills the office of Her Majesty's Consul at the Feejee Islands; if not, when he was removed, and whether any public notification has been made of his supersession; also to state the extent of any authority Mr. Pritchard may have had, as Consul, to draw bills on Her Majesty's Government?
MR. LAYARDreplied, that Mr. Pritchard was no longer Consul at the Feejee Islands, having been removed in January last. The person appointed to supersede him provisionally had arrived in the Feejee Islands, but no public notice was ever given of such a supersession. Mr. Pritchard had the usual authority to draw bills upon Her Majesty's Government to such an amount as was required by the expenditure sanctioned by the Foreign Office. He drew bills beyond those requirements; a Commission was appointed to inquire into his conduct, and its Report was such that Her Majesty's Government thought that they were justified in superseding him.

CASE OF CAPTAIN MELVILLE WHITE.

  QUESTION.
  In reply to Colonel FRENCH,
  MR. LAYARDstated, that by despatches which had been received on Saturday, the Government learned that the Peruvian Government had instructed their Representative in this country to come to an understanding as to the Power to whose arbitration the claims of Captain Melville White against the Peruvian Government should be referred. When the selection was made, he should be glad to inform his hon. and gallant Friend what Power had been chosen for that purpose.

CESSION OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS.
  NOTICE.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDgave notice, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government having, in reply to questions asked by his (Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald's) noble Friend the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), stated that Turkey had had nothing to do with the placing of the Ionian Islands under the protection of the British Government, and therefore certainly would have nothing to do with their cession, he should, on Friday next, ask the noble Lord whether his attention had been called to the fact that the Porte was formally asked to accede, and did formally accede, to the Treaty of Vienna, and that a copy of the document containing that accession was to be found in De Hauterive's Treaties, vol. v., page 10; and whether that fact would cause him to change the opinion which he had expressed upon this subject.
SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—AFFAIRS OF POLAND—THE IRISH CHURCH—THE EXHIBITION VOTE.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: in moving, Sir, that you now leave the chair, I would appeal to the hon. Member for Tipperary (The O'Donoghue), who has given notice of his intention to bring the Question of the Irish Church under consideration this evening, to postpone that Motion to the day which is already occupied by my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard—Friday week—for the discussion of that question. The House is, I believe, anxious to go into another question, and the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) has been good enough, and with great courtesy, to postpone his Motion on the subject of Poland to this day week. I hope the hon. Member for Tipperary will show himself not less courteous than his countryman, and will postpone his discussion till the day when the subject is to brought under the discussion of the House by the hon. Member for Liskeard.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
THE O'DONOGHUE: Sir, I have to state that I have no notice on the paper with respect to the Irish Church; but I
900
also regret to say, that after the way the noble Lord has treated the Irish Church question, I should not feel justified, if I had, in giving way. The noble Lord has shown no kind of courtesy to me when, night after night, I asked for a night to discuss the question; and therefore, without in the least degree departing from that courtesy which my countrymen proverbially are said to possess, I should have felt myself bound to go on. On Friday night the hon. Member for the King's County said, in reply to a request from the noble Lord, that he would postpone the discussion on the Polish question provided other Members would give way. Upon this my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard said he would go on with the Irish Church question, and then the hon. Member for the King's County said that in that case be would go on with the Polish question-Relying upon that, my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard did not to-day come down to the House prepared to go on with the Irish Church question. I was certainly under the impression that my hon. Friend would go on with the Polish question, as I consider he is bound to do.
MR. HENNESSY: I do not think I am bound to go on. I told the noble Lord on Friday night that I was perfectly willing to accept his wishes as law, and that with regard to the question of Poland I was prepared to give way, provided other hon. Gentlemen would also give way. I believed that the other Gentlemen, including the hon. Member for Liskeard, had given way. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: I beg your pardon.] Of course; therefore if my hon. Friend and the other hon. Members have given way, I feel myself bound to do so too.
MR BERNAL OSBORNE: I do not know, Sir, whether I am in order, nor am I aware whether the word "duped" is a Parliamentary word. If it is not, I will not use it. Nevertheless, I conceive that I and many other hon. Gentlemen have been duped in this matter, and I cannot understand the wonderful anxiety to bring on this Motion for the purchase of the Exhibition Building. When I left this House on Saturday, I fully understood the hon. Member for the King's County to have pledged himself to me, in the lobby of the House, that he would bring on the question of Poland to-night. I never was more surprised than, on my arrival in town, to receive the short missive from my hon.

901
Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, which I shall read to the House, as it is necessary that I should explain my pan in this transaction, which would otherwise look as if I had been "fighting a cross." The note was to this effect—
"Lord Palmerston hopes you will not object to his proceeding with the Kensington Vote tins evening, and would be obliged to you to reserve yourself for Friday week, when he is glad to perceive you have secured an opportunity of bringing on the Motion of the Irish Church."
Not a word is said about Poland. Of course, under these circumstances, I did not come prepared to bring on the Motion relative to the Irish Church; but I must say, I think the hon. Member for the King's County has broken his pledge to me. ["No, no!"] Well, that may not be your opinion, but it is mine. For my own part, I do not know why the noble Lord is so anxious to buy this Exhibition Building. I do not think we possess the papers and information requisite for discussing the subject properly; and I am at a loss to understand the reason why the question is being in decently hurried and huddled through this House. I desire to assure the House that I am no party to this transaction, and that I consider myself to be a miserable dupe.
MR. HENNESSY: As a matter personal to myself, I desire to assure my hon. Friend that I have broken no pledge. I hold in my hand the voluminous papers and notes with which I came down prepared to make my statement about Poland. But finding that my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard had put off his notice with reference to the Irish Caurch, I was bound in honour not to go on.
THE O'DONOGHUE: When the hon. Member for Liskeard says, that the hon. Member for King's County broke his pledge, it is easy for hon. Members to say "No, no!" but I do think, after what passed between the two hon. Members, that the hon. Member for King's County was bound to go on.
MR. HORSMAN: I wish to remind the House of the position in which the question now stands. The hon. Member for the King's County agreed to give way, provided other Members agreed to do the same. The hon. Member for Liskeard refused to give way, and of course in that case the hon. Member for the King's County was to go on with his Motion. But it is now found that the hon. Member for Liskeard has postponed his Motion—that he has
902
taken it off the paper for to-day, and put it down for Friday week. He did that before he received the note which he has read; and as soon as I saw that change on the Votes on Saturday morning, I concluded that the hon. Member for the King's County would give way, because the hon. Member for Liskeard had postponed his Motion. We have nothing to do with conversations which took place in the lobby. The hon. Member for the King's County stated publicly in the House that he would give way if other Members would do the same; and the hon. Member for Liskeard having put down his Motion for Friday week, the hon. Member for the King's County was bound to fulfil the pledge which he gave.
MR. MACEVOYsaid, that probably, if the noble Viscount would say that he would give a day for the discussion of the Irish Church question, his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary and the hon. Member for Liskeard would give way.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an explanation of the circumstances under which a large sum of money—£150,000—was asked some years ago for a portion of the lands at Kensington, and whether the House did not retain a lien of some description over that propery.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the transactions referred to by the hon. Baronet were entirely gone by, but there was no difficulty in giving the required explanation. During the Government of the Earl of Derby in 1852, or else in the subsequent year, a sum of £177,500 was voted for the purchase in fee of one moiety of the Kensington Estate, to be held jointly between the Commissioners of 1851 and Her Majesty's Government. A Minute was forwarded to the Treasury arranging the form of partnership, so to speak, and as to the management and control of the estate. No proposals, which were made for turning that estate to useful purposes, were made for some time, and when proposals were made they were not successful; and it was thought better—he believed during the Government of the Earl of Derby, in 1858—that the partnership should be dissolved, and the money repaid which had been contributed by the State. Accordingly, arrangements were made for repayment, and a sum of £181,379 was accordingly restored, but the whole of that amount was not paid in cash; £121,000 was actually paid in money, and £60,000

903
worth of land was given, consisting of about twelve acres, now forming the site of the South Kensington Museum. He believed that £60,000 was much below the estimated value of that piece of ground, and consequently it Was not sold unconditionally to the Government, but with a proviso that the land should only be applied to purposes connected with science and art; and if applied to any other purposes, that the right of the Commissioners to receive a sum of money equivalent to the sacrifice which they made in parting with the land should revive. In order to meet a portion of their engagements in 1858, the Commissioners had been obliged to mortgage their lands to a certain extent. The Government, however, had no claim or lien of any kind upon them, and the Commissioners, in the face of the Government, were the sole and absolute proprietors. The difference between the sums of £177,500 and £181,379 was accounted for by a moiety of the rents which had been received up to the dissolution of partnership in 1858–9. That was the whole of the information upon the question raised by the hon. Baronet, and he hoped he had satisfied him that these transactions left the present subject, which now stood for discussion, entirely disembarrassed and free.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY; considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £67,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which trill come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for the Purchase of Land and certain Buildings from Her Majesty's Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I rise to propose the Vote of which notice has been given, for the purchase of land and buildings on the site of the Exhibitions of 1851 and 1862. This City of London may, without exaggeration, be called the commercial capital of the world. It ranks high among the great political centres of civilized nations, and in point of Wealth and population it may very fairly be stated to exceed any other European city. But the very circumstances which I have mentioned—the great wealth and
904
great population of the City—have tended progressively to impair the architectural and ornamental character of the town. Our streets are narrow, our open spaces few and small, our public buildings are not many, and, respecting those which do exist, differences of opinion prevail as to their propriety of ornamentation and architectural design. We have not, in this town, what are to be found in many smaller towns upon the Continent, a great number of splendid palaces belonging to individuals. When we have mentioned Northumberland House, and, perhaps, Lansdowne House, if we are called on to enumerate other great ornamental constructions, we shall be driven to the, no doubt, very beautiful collection of apparent palaces—the clubs in Pall Mall, many of which are imitations of beautiful palaces on the Continent. In all the Italian towns, at Prague, and in most German towns, there are large piles of ornamental buildings which represent the wealth and taste of the nobility of those countries. What is the reason of that? What is the reason of the inferiority of this city, as compared with other first-rate towns, in regard to the conditions of the space occupied by and the character of the buildings? The great run of the private houses of London may really be termed mean. I am not speaking of those more lately constructed, which are on a better plan; but the old red-brick houses of London are low, they are destitute of architectural ornament, and may be said to be mean in their character. What is the cause? It arises from the great value of the ground—from the immense competition which the wealth of the metropolis causes for the smallest spaces of ground. People are unable to buy a large quantity of ground on which to construct a house, and having paid dearly for such portion of the land as they require, they have smaller disposable means for the erection of ornamental and handsome structures. The price of land in London is very great. I will just mention a few instances to show the value that attaches to the surface in this great town. A few years ago, when improvements were made between Oxford Street and Holborn, the land was purchased at £57,000 an acre. In the improvement of Charlotte Street, the land cost £67,000 an acre. In the improvement between Coventry Street and Long Acre, the land cost £119,000 an acre. The other day, my right hon. Friend the first Commissioner

905
of Works, in proposing the construction of a new street from Blackfriars Bridge to the Mansion House, having brought in a Bill which gave the street a width of seventy feet, proposed to increase it to eighty feet. He was, however, told, that the addition of ten feet along the length of the street, which was not a very long one, would add £100,000 to the expense, and upon that statement he gave it up. A few years ago, there was a vacant space near St. Paul's. I cannot say what fraction of an acre it represented; but when the City of London were desired to leave that space unoccupied, so as to give a wider area for the best view of the Cathedral, they answered that the value of the site was £60,000, and that they did not feel themselves justified in making the whole of that sacrifice merely for such a purpose. But not only is the price of land in this town very high; but the same causes operate in the provincial towns in the country. In Manchester, land had been sold for£50,000 an acre, and sometimes it has been sold by the square yard, and as much as £200,000 per acre has been given for land in the best parts of the town. In Birmingham, the land held by the London and North Western Railway was sold for from £57,000 to £60,000 an acre. At Liverpool, land has been sold at £30 per Square yard, or nearly at the rate of £150,000 per acre, and in other parts of the town at £100,000 per acre. Therefore, I say that the natural progress of wealth and civilization tends to add greatly to the value of land to be covered by buildings in the interior of towns; and admitting that there are certain requisites which are necessary for the development of the public establishments and buildings, the question arises where the land for such purposes can be acquired, and whether we should look for it in the centre of the town, where everything is covered with valuable property, or whether we should embrace the opportunity of acquiring it at certain greater distances, but still within reach for all the purposes to which it is to be applied. Well, we hold that the land held at Kensington by the Commissioners of 1863 does afford the means of providing for our immediate and prospective wants, and we are able to get land there for our immediate purposes on terms infinitely cheaper than those on which land can be acquired nearer the centre of the metropolis.
Now, the question is, what do we want?
906
What are the requirements that press oft the Government? In the first place, we want a Patent Museum. Any one who considers the value of a great collection of models and inventions to those employed in the mechanical and productive arts of the country, must know that it is of great importance that they should have access to a repository in which they can find everything connected with that particular department of industry to which they have devoted themselves. In America, a country not supposed to be addicted to unnecessary ornament, but where a great disposition is shown to practical improvement, there is a Patent Museum which covers eleven acres. Well, we do not propose a museum of such dimensions. I think that about three acres will be sufficient for all present needs in regard to a Museum of Patents. Then we want an addition to the British Museum. The question then arises where that addition is to be found—whether the land is to be had by purchasing land in immediate contiguity to the British Museum, or by the purchase of land at Kensington, as we propose. Calculations have been made that eight acres are required, but that is, I think, more than is necessary. I think that five acres would be a nearer approximation, and three acres have been named as the smallest amount of space that is required. Well, we have got together, at some expense and trouble, a most interesting collection of portraits of distinguished men connected with the history of the country. They are now placed in a house where they cannot be seen, and it is urgently desirable to have a better building in which to place that Portrait Gallery. Then we have a Museum at Kensington, full of most valuable and instructive productions, and a Committee of the House of Commons that sat two or three years ago strongly recommended additions to that institution.
Now, we calculate the cost of these various augmentations—supposing that the land were bought in the metropolis and at the rate which it now bears—as follows:—If eight acres are taken for the British Museum, the cost of land will be £390,000 and the buildings £824,000, making a total of £1,214,000. If five acres only are required, the land will cost £240,000 and the building £567,000, making a total of £807,000. Supposing the lowest estimate of three acres to be sufficient, the land will cost £150,000 and

907
the building £300,000, making a total of £450,000. I then take the Patent Museum, which will require three acres. The land is set down at £100,000, and the building at £100,000, making together £200,000. The Kensington Museum will require for its extension a Vote of £25,000 in 1864, and £25,000 in 1865, making together £50,000. There is no purchase pf land necessary there, because the land is already assigned to the public. The Portrait Gallery will require half an acre, and we calculate will cost £25,000 for land, and £25,000 for the building, or together £50,000; These sums would come to the following total:—If you take eight acres for the British Museum, the total for all these buildings will be £1,514,000; if you take five acres, £1,107,000; if three acres, £750,000, Assuming that these are wants which Parliament may think it proper to meet, these would be the sums you would require if you took land now occupied by houses in any central part of town. Now, the proposal that we make is one which, the Committee will see is a very economical one. By the plan which we recommend we should have much more space and at far smaller expense. The arrangement that we propose is, that the public should purchase seventeen and a half acres. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Sixteen.] No—seventeen acres pf the land belonging to the Commissioners, which is now covered with the building in which the Exhibition took place. For that land the Commissioners are willing to take £120,000. My hon. Friend will admit that to get seventeen acres of land at about £7,000 per acre, for which we should pay £50,000, £60,000, or £70,000 elsewhere, is a considerable advantage.
In addition, there is the existing building, and we think it would be good economy to purchase that building, and to adapt it to the purposes for which we want accommodation. Now, the arrangement made by the Commissioners with the contractors was, that they were to pay a large sum to the latter, of which a portion was to be repaid out of the proceeds of the Exhibition, and then, if no other arrangement should be made, the contractors were to be allowed to remove the building at the expiration of a certain time. For the use of the building the Commissioners were to pay £300,000, and if they bought the building afterwards, an additional sum of £130,000, making a total of £430,000. There was paid out of the proceeds of the
908
Exhibition £230,000, and we now propose to add to that £80,000 for the purchase of the building as it stands, making altogether £310,000, which is considerably less than the contractors were entitled to receive if the whole thing had answered; but, as it is, that sum would save them harmless. The £80,000 is a sum arrived at upon calculation of the value of the materials, and little more. The contractors asked more; the Government thought that a smaller sum might be sufficient; the question was referred to very competent authorities, who had no interest whatever in the matter, but who, from their attainments and habits of business, were likely to be good judges, and the amount of £80,000 was fixed as the sum which was fair as between the public and the contractors for taking the building as it stands. Well, then, according, to that calculation—of £120,000 for the purchase of seventeen acres, and £80,000 for the building, we should for £200,000 enter into possession of seventeen acres and a large building standing thereupon—a building which undoubtedly would be too large for our present wants, but which would be kept up at a very trifling expense, and would be available for any future purpose which the progress and development of the Arts and Sciences might require.
The building, however, was not completed by the contractors upon the plan of being a permanent public building, applicable to our present purposes; and no doubt some expense will be necessary to render it substantial and fit for the purposes for which we want it. But I think I can show, taking that into account, we get for our money more value than we should obtain Supposing the building taken away, and we had to erect another on the ground for the purpose which we have in view. The estimate of the sums required to make the building substantial is in the hands of hon. Members. It is £154,000, This calculation has been made by Mr. Hunt, Surveyor to the Board of Works, a man quite competent to make it, and of whom it may be said that his calculations in many cases have come nearer to the actual expense incurred than any calculations that have been made by any other person in his profession. I believe, with regard to the Foreign Office building, the difference between his estimate and the, actual sum contracted for was something like £2,000. The Committee, therefore, may confidently rely upon this, that these

909
calculations would not be exceeded. [Ironical cheers.] Well, that is a mere matter of opinion: hon. Gentlemen are led away by experience of former instances. Unfortunately, the ingenuity and successive developments of the imagination of architects have led the public at times into much heavier expenses than were originally contemplated; but I am firmly convinced that in this matter—not a matter of imagination and ornamentation, but a matter which can be well and strictly calculated by persons conversant with such things—the House and the Committee may be sure that these estimates will cover the expense likely to be incurred. There are many parts of the building which were constructed for temporary purposes, and which, if the building were retained for permanent use, would require to be made more solid. Things that are now in wood would require to be made of something more durable. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but they should remember that the building was erected for a special purpose, and has answered that purpose. You want it for a different purpose, and it is quite clear that many parts of it would require to be altered. But that is no argument against the plan, and I think my hon. Friend will find that the money which we ask would give to the public a good, permanent, and economical building. Then there are the two domes—and some people take objection to a dome. I am not one of those. I think a dome is a handsome thing. Those who look at St. Paul's or St. Peter's will not be of opinion that a dome is at all disfiguring, but that it is a great ornament. The Exhibition domes, however, are of glass, and it is proposed to reconstruct them in a more solid manner, that they should rest on brick, and that they should be made as like as possible to the dome of the British Museum, which has been regarded with admiration by every one. That alteration, it is supposed, would cost about £40,000. Well, then, a building to be used for public purposes, would require to be warmed and ventilated, and the cost of doing so is calculated at £30,000. Then the picture gallery would require a fire-proof floor. With the utmost care, as we have lately seen, it is difficult to guard against fire, and in a building in which such valuable property would be deposited it is manifest that a fire-proof floor would be required. Then, the exterior is plainly and simply constructed,
910
and it is proposed to ornament it with cement, and to add to it that higher degree of embellishment of which we see examples in the clubs of Pall Mall. The expense of that would be £45,000. It would not interfere with the architectural character of the exterior, but would give it a coating of cement, which is durable and pleasing to the eye. I will therefore take £284,000 for all this, which, added to the £200,000 for the purchase of the land and compensation to the contractors, would make the £484,000. Well, for that £484,000 you would have seventeen acres covered with a substantial building, requiring but slight annual repair, well adapted to the various purposes for which you want it, and capable of great extension; and you have all this to set off against £750,000, which, upon the narrowest basis, supposing that three acres only were required, is the sum that would be necessary for the additional space which the British Museum alone would want. Well, the arrangement we propose is, I humbly think, one which the Committee will not deem extravagant, or likely to involve them in expense which they cannot foresee, or which they would not be justified in incurring. In the calculations which I have laid before the Committee I assume that the whole building as it stands will be repaired, made solid, and adapted to the purposes for which we want it. But it is probable, that for the present not more than one-half of that building would be urgently required to be so completed; and, if that be so, the £284,000 might be divided into two, and the immediate expense—the expense to be incurred this year, next year, and the vear after—would be only £142,000, which, added to the £200,000 for the purchase of the land and the building, would make only £342,000, as compared with £750,000, the sum which it is calculated it would cost to get hardly the same extent of accommodation in a different part of the town.
Sundry people, however, think that it would be enough to buy the ground, and let the contractors carry away the building. There is a notion among many that this would be an economical proceeding; but I think that the Committee will see that this would be the most expensive plan. Supposing the ground were clear, you would have to erect on it buildings adequate in size and dimensions for the purposes for which they are required;

911
and it would cost far more to erect new-buildings on the ground than to purchase the existing structure and adapt it to the purposes for which it is wanted. If the present building were taken away, you would want a Patent Museum, which, as I have stated, would cost £100,000, the enlargement for the British Museum would cost 240,000, and the addition which would be wanted for the South Kensington Museum I will take not at £50,000, but £40,000, as £10,000 might be avoided. Then there would be another sum of £25,000 for the Historical Portrait Gallery, making a total of £405,000. On the other hand, by the proposed purchase, you would have to pay £80,000 for the building, and £286,000, ultimately, for alterations, making a total of £366,000, to be set against the sum of £405,000, and leaving, at all events, upon that comparison, a saving of £39,000, and probably £40,000.
There is also this to be considered—that when we engage in erecting public buildings, gentlemen of taste, architects, and the Institute of Architects, quoted by the hon. Gentleman opposite, step in with their plans and opinions. Plain buildings are said not to be suitable, ornament is demanded, and stone fronts are reckoned necessary. When you are beginning de novo, people say they cannot be content with brick fronts covered with cement. We know that taste is a very dear enjoyment, depend upon it; and if you call on a number of distinguished architects to give you plans, such a course would lead you into an expense infinitely greater than that which we now propose, and I do not know whether, upon the whole, you would get a building more approved by the country or better adapted for its purposes. Then, I say, we have here offered to us seventeen acres of land at £7,000 an acre, whereas the land, ii it were offered to the public to-morrow for erecting private buildings on, would indisputably fetch £15,000 an acre. Therefore, by the purchase we are gainers of the whole amount of the difference between £7,000 and £15,000 an acre for these seventeen acres. In fact, we should not have got this bargain unless it had been owing to the particular circumstances connected with the Exhibition. The Commissioners do not, indeed, consider themselves as land speculators, but deem it their duty to contribute, as far as they hare the power, to the promotion
912
of art and science in this country. I should hope that hon. Gentlemen would not be led away by any difference of opinion as to the particular style of ornament for the structure. No doubt, the face of the building would be improved in appearance when it is covered with cement. That style of finishing, I maintain, admits of the addition of pure ornamentation.
I have stated what we propose to do; and now I may as well state what we do not propose to do, because matters have been introduced which are not immediately connected with this subject and on which great diversity of opinion prevails. We do not propose to remove the National Gallery from Trafalgar Square to this new building. The ultimate arrangement with respect to the National Gallery, as between the Government and the Royal Academy, is a matter to be further considered. We do not propose to send the learned bodies there. They are now lodged in Burlington House, and we think that it would not be convenient for those learned bodies to hold their periodical meetings at such a distance as Kensington. If, therefore, any hon. Gentlemen are disposed to object to the proposition of the Government, on the supposition that either of those changes is contemplated, I think it essential to disabuse them and to inform them that we have no intention to propose one or the other. I think I have stated very plainly and, I trust, distinctly, the nature of the arrangement which we propose, and which I believe will be very advantageous to the public. I believe we shall get the land to the full extent we require at a price at which we could not have obtained the necessary land in any other convenient situation. London is spreading and increasing in every direction, and a great town is rising to the south of this ground. In proportion as any country increases in the development of wealth, and art, and science, the wants for the accommodation of art and science increase. By the proposed purchase we get, not only a provision for our immediate wants, but the means of future development, at a price which I hold to be infinitely below the real value of the land, and the adaptation of the existing building will be effected at a cheaper rate than a new building, with much less accommodation, could be erected for. If the Committee were to determine, though I trust it will not, that it would have nothing to do with the present building,

913
still the opportunity of buying the land is not to be overlooked. However, I think it would be advisable in point of economy and convenience to buy not only the land, but also the building on it; because the building can be adapted to the desired purpose at a smaller expense than a new building could be erected on the land. I may now state that, for the convenience of discussion, we propose to take the Votes separately. The first Vote will be for the purchase of the land, and the next for the purchase of the buildings upon it. The noble Viscount concluded by proposing a Vote of £67,000 towards the purchase of the specified land at South Kensington.
MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought that the Committee would be of opinion that the speech just delivered was not so successful as most of the speeches proceeding from the noble Lord. A little investigation would show that the arguments of the noble Lord were about as unsubstantial and as rickety as the foundations of the very pleasant edifice which the Committee was asked to purchase. It appeared to him that the Government had treated the matter in rather a jaunty way, and one would have thought that in a purchase of that description, involving so large an expenditure of public money and affecting such a variety of interests, some statements more in detail would have been presented to the Committee, and that, at all events, they might have been treated to a view of the building as it was to be when it was restored and covered with cement. The Government had not done this, but it had begged the question of a number of propositions, about which he much doubted if the House were at all prepared that the question should be begged. The noble Lord assumed that the art and science collections were to be separated; then that the Natural History Collection was to be removed to Kensington, and that the House of Commons was prepared to reverse the decision arrived at last year, that it would not adopt the gigantic plan, or sanction the gigantic expense attending Professor Owen's scheme. The noble Lord bad also assumed that the new Patent Office to be constructed was to be at Kensington. He believed that there were other plans in view, to which the noble Lord had not alluded, and he should like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the intention of the Government with respect to those plans.
914
He understood that it was the intention of the Government that the Geological Museum in Jermyn Street should be transferred to Kensington; and he had seen an article in the great leading journal intimating that the prints at the British Museum were to be sent there. With regard to the transfer of the Natural History Collection, he did not pronounce any opinion himself; but he knew that a number of Gentlemen in that House, and the mass of the scientific world out of doors, were opposed to that transfer. At one time Professor Owen, who was a great authority, wrote so eloquently and vigorously in favour of keeping the collections of art grouped about the great national library that he exercised a vast influence on the public opinion. Professor Owen, it seemed, had now changed his mind, but the scientific world had retained theirs. There was great diversity of opinion on the question of transferring the Natural History Collections to Kensington. It was a working man's question. No fact was more clearly proved before the Committee which sat in 1860, and of which he had the honour to be Chairman, than that these collections were the most popular collections in the British Museum—that the visitors who frequented the Natural History galleries exceeded in number the whole of the visitors to all the other departments put together. Hence it was to be remembered that transferring these collections from Bloomsbury to Kensington would be taking them from the poor and giving them to the rich. People who were well to do could drive to Kensington in their own or hired carriages, but a poor man could not afford to pay sixpence for his own conveyance, or, if he took his family with him, a much larger sum, every time he visited the establishment. London was increasing in every direction, but the British Museum still preserved its central situation. If the Committee were to agree to the proposal of the Government, it would reverse the decision at which it arrived last year. The House decided last year that it would not sanction the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to roof over a space of five acres if the building were of two stories, or eleven acres if of one, for the Natural History Collections of the British Museum. That expensive plan rested exclusively on the authority of Professor Owen. He had a great respect for Professor Owen, who was a man of remarkable intelligence, and an ornament to his country, and whose opinion

915
upon a question of comparative anatomy, or any purely scientific matter, would justly carry with it great weight. But, fortunately, upon that subject they had got the scientific opinion of the whole of England, and it was opposed to that of Professor Owen. Every one of the scientific men examined before the Committee of 1860 declared that the establishment of an enormous Natural History Museum, such as was proposed by Professor Owen, would not only be detrimental to the interests of science, but would rather injure than promote the instruction and recreation of the labouring classes. Among the men who joined in that declaration were Sir Roderic Murchison, Dr. Goold, one of the best ornithologists in this or any other country, Mr. Bell, President of the Linnaean Society, Professor Huxley, and, last but not least, Sir Benjamin Brodie. Sir Benjamin Brodie thought that natural history might be represented in a much smaller space than professor Owen proposed, and he said more than once that there was nothing he dreaded so much as that the nation, should be induced to listen to inordinate demands for great space for scientific purposes, because he believed them to be unjust to the taxpayer, and calculated in the end to bring public disfavour upon science and scientific men. But not only did the great authorities he had quoted declare that a email additional space to the British Museum would be amply sufficient for its requirements; every gentleman connected with the Natural History department, including Professor Maskelyne, Dr. Gray, and Mr. Waterhouse, had expressed precisely the same opinion. One and all thought that large purchases of land would be prejudicial to science and a gigantic bore to the public at large. Last year the House decided, by a majority of 169 to 71, to accept these authorities as conclusive against the proposal of the Chancellor: of the Exchequer, to construct a Natural History Museum at a cost of £700,000. The proposition now before them was an old friend under a new form. The outlay, however, was not to exceed £500,000, instead of £700,000, and for that sum the Government were going to give this city of refuge for all the houseless and destitute collections and institutions in the metropolis. In addition to Natural History collections said the noble Lord, this building shall house the patent models of the country. He was aware that the patents were at that moment at Kensington, but there
916
was a fund, or ought to be, of £130,000 available for the construction of a Patent Office and Museum. Where ought that Patent Museum to be? He put it to the common sense of the Committee whether it ought not to be along with the specifications in which the patents were described, and these specifications were in the Patent Office. Such, at all events, was the opinion of every one acquainted practically with the business. He did not suppose, however, that the Government intended to remove the Patent Office from Chancery Lane to Kensington. The Patent Office was in Chancery Lane, in the centre of the legal district, just where it ought to he. The common-sense view-of the case was to do what was so repeatedly demanded, for which there ought to be ample funds—namely, to build a Patent Office, and with it a Patent Museum in that quarter of the town, where suitors would obtain ready access and investigation. Although the magnetism of Kensington was great, he hardly thought it could attract to it the Patent Office; but since the proposal was made to set up the Patent Museum at Kensington, he should not be surprised at anything. Again, he understood it was the intention of the Government to transfer the Geological Museum to Kensington, which would alone induce him to give their proposal his most strenuous opposition. The Museum of Geology in Jermyn Street was one of the few public buildings that were thoroughly adapted to the purpose for which they were intended. It was built only eighteen years ago at an enormous cost. He had been told that more room was wanted, but he believed that the museum would find ample accommodation if the house next to it, which belonged to the Government, could be appropriated to the staff of officers. He also objected to the removal of the National Portrait Gallery to Kensington. All the authorities concurred in thinking that their picture collections should be kept together. It would be a breach of faith to separate the Portrait Gallery from the National Gallery, as the Legislature had sanctioned the institution of the Portrait Gallery distinctly in connection with the National Gallery. There was space enough at Burlington House to hold all the national pictures and the drawings of the great masters now in the British Museum, and he hoped that something would soon be done in that direction. In the whole Government scheme there was a great want of sequence.

917
Everybody had been complaining of the system of jumbling together works of nature and works of art, and yet the Government proposed to do what they themselves had so much deprecated—namely, to bring together every kind of incongruity—pictures, and patents, and whales, and megatheriums, and portraits—what the late Colonel Sib-thorp, in his expressive language, called an "omnium gatherum pie."
Having said thus much, he should next proceed to advert to the marvellous bargain which the noble Lord seemed to think he was about to make. Before doing so, however, he would ask why it was that the Commissioners were going to give the public so extraordinary a bargain; why they did not sell the ground for the full value, and invest the proceeds in the manner in which they were intended to be invested—for the promotion of science and art? If they did not choose to do that, why, he should like to know, did they not hand over gratis to the Government the whole of the ground at once? That was a question which required an answer. There were stories of a somewhat strange character afloat on the subject. He had heard it said that the Commissioners could not act in the manner he had just suggested, and that they were obliged to adopt a middle course. But why was that so? He had been told that they had embarked the money—which he called the public money, because, though not voted by Parliament, it had been obtained for public purposes—in a private undertaking—the Horticultural Gardens. The reason, then, it appeared, why the public were to have so great a bargain was, that while the Commissioners wished to make over the property at their disposal to the Government, they at the same time were desirous of being recouped by the nation of the money which they had thus improperly expended. If he were wrong in the surmise which he had ventured in this matter, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, he felt assured, correct him. But, be that as it might, the sum to be paid for the International Building was £364,000—£80,000 for the framework, and £284,000 for putting it in order. Now that, he should contend, was a perfectly enormous amount to pay for converting what was a mere makeshift into a permanent institution, because rubbish was, in his opinion, dear at any price. He would ask the Committee to listen to the view taken by a very eminent engineer, the
918
editor of the Exhibition Journal, and who, he believed, was employed by Sir Charles Barry in connection with the Houses of Parliament. Mr. Mallet, the gentleman to whom he referred, declared that the building was unfit, by any amount of outlay short of reconstruction, to become the depository of a national collection of any sort. Again, a writer in The Mechanic's Journal, in the spring of the year, said—
"Those who saw the interior of the nave during the foggy days, and considered the formation of the building, must have had this question forced upon their reflection—for what possible use or end could such a building be permanently employed in our climate?"
But the argument used on behalf of those who advocated the purchase of the building was that it was worth, or ought to be, £430,000; that the land was worth £280;00, and that thus the public were to have the wonderful bargain of getting £710,000 worth property for £200,000. Now, he would take a little familiar illustration from the occurrences of daily life, in order to exemplify the force of that argument. Let him suppose that he had a carriage of light and delicate materials, for which some years ago he gave £200, and that he said to a friend of his who was about to travel on the Continent, "Here is my carriage. It will just suit you while you are abroad. You can have it for £50; it is the greatest bargain in the world; it cost me four times that sum." But his friend might say, "I want something more substantial for my purpose;" and to that very fair remark he might reply, "Well, even so; if you put a new body to it, and new wheels, and new springs, you will find that the pole is in admirable order; to do that will cost you only £150." It would not, he thought, be at all surprising if his friend were, under those circumstances, to observe, "Well, if that be so, I think it would be better for me to have a new carriage altogether." Now, that illustration was, in his opinion, quite applicable to the bargain which the Government supposed they were about to make. The great point was to show whether it was or was not really a bargain, and whether it was or not worth the £364,000 it was proposed to lay out upon it. In dealing with that point he should, as he might find it to be his duty to make some remarks not complimentary to Captain Fowke, assure the Committee that he had

919
the greatest respect for the talents and promise of that gentleman. The position in which Captain Fowke was placed should be borne in mind. He was called upon to cover a large space of ground; he had not the means of making the building a structure of architectural beauty, and no doubt he did the best he could under the circumstances. If, however, he should sink under the abuse which the perpetuation of that horrible building would entail upon him, it would not, at all events, be the fault of those who were opposed to the scheme of the Government. Now, he would, if the Committee would permit; read a letter which he had received, describing the condition of the building in question. The writer was Mr. Mallet, whom he had before named; who was very well known as an engineer, and after having heard whose statements the Committee would be in a somewhat better position to judge as to whether the estimate of Mr. Hunt was or was not likely to be exceeded. Mr. Mallet said—
"The true question as to present value and for the purpose proposed is this—How much of the existing building can be viewed as fit to remain, or can be in any way made use of. With the exception of the front picture galleries and parts of the external walls, I believe that ultimately all the rest would resolve themselves into so much old materials, the greater part of which would have to be disposed of as such, and be found of a character incapable of being again worked into the new structure fitted to receive collections, &c."
He then proceeded to say—
"The gross area (of floor) of the whole building (exclusive of the annexes or refreshment rooms or picture galleries) is about 692,000 square feet, and the picture galleries cover 70,000 square feet. The picture galleries are roofed, with a quasi- permanent roof of slate, &c. All the rest of the building is roofed either with glass, by far the largest proportion of which (all except the domes) is in common wooden bar sashes, the most miserably slip-slop make and material, or with common tarred felt, i.e. with the most inferior sort of tarpaulin stretched on wood. So that of the entire area of the building (without annexes or refreshment rooms) of about 17½ acres, 11 acres are covered with tarred felt, and nearly 5 acres with wood and glass. The result is that 16 acres out of 17½ are practically without any roof, and that of the picture galleries is not such as any architect would pronounce permanent, or fit for the reception of works of art or collections of any sort. The means of taking off the rain water were so badly devised, and the gutters of the great area of glass roofing so disproportionately small, that in every heavy rain they overflow. This evil is irremediable, except by the reconstruction of the whole of this roofing. The felt must all have permanent covering substituted for it. A very large proportion of the whole of this
920
part of the roofing, more especially all that forming the extensive flats at the level of 50 feet above the floors, would require entire reconstruction. But, assuming that all the felt roofing were only covered with permanent slating and lead, the cost will be large. Passing to the floors—There is no sufficient or complete system of under drainage, no basement. The floors are open surfaces of boarding of only one inch thick, and of the very worst quality in material and laying. They rest on rough cross joints and beams, which again are stilted up upon slender brick piers and dwarf walls, bedded on a little concrete earth. Before the building could be fitted for any purpose, the whole floor must be removed, a thorough system of under drainage constructed, and upon proper foundations, a complete system of vaulting substituted for the present flimsy wooden surface, to preserve dryness in the building, and to enable it to be warmed in any way, and to give a foundation upon which collections can be based. Then, to make anything like a precise estimate, or even a very close guess, at the cost to be incurred in doing all this, and a vast deal more that I have not alluded to, and much that I cannot now foresee, in the absence of detailed designs, &c., is impossible. Something like an approximate guess, based on calculation, may, however, be made, and if kept on all points within a safe margin, may be relied upon. The following is such:—Vaulted basement system of drainage, and new flooring over 692,000 square feet, £231,000; roofing in a permanent manner eleven acres of felt-covered sheds, £90,000; reconstructing the whole of the glass roofing, except the domes, in a permanent manner, to keep out water, £43,000; reconstructing the two domes in a manner to be safe and permanently water-tight, probably £60,000; reconstructing the roof of the picture galleries so as to remain water-tight and keep out snow, £18,000; constructing of apparatus to heat and ventilate the building, probably £25,000; total, £467,000."
That came to the sum of £467,000. "Thus," he said—
"for a sum which in round numbers (and adding to the above a trifle of £23,000 for official fitments and alterations to make the building tenantable for any museum purpose) amounts to half a million, plus the £200,000 of purchase money, we should have the building just as it now stands, except that it would be as permanent a structure as it can ever become, in place of a sham, or mere booth. But now it is to be made use of; for this the walls, decorations, the doors, the ventilation, the ground glass skylight—everything, in fact, beyond the existing four walls of the picture galleries, will have to be done; and in the natural history part of the affair, the cases, the fixtures of all sorts, and division screens between classes. Will £100,000 more do this? I should think not."
In that Mr. Mallett was quite right, because the architect of the British Museum stated that, according to Professor Owen's plan, the sum required for glass cases alone would be £80,000.
"Suppose it then all done, what is the result? Every one knows, who saw the building in the winter, at the close of the Exhibition, that its structural defects as to lighting are such that everywhere (except in the glass-roofed courts) it

921
was gloomy at all times, and twilight only after 2 o'clock p.m., while beneath the opaque floors of the galleries it was actual darkness. Is this the sort of place to display objects of natural history—many minute structures that can only be seen or understood in the finest and best-adjusted light? If, instead of such being the case, the building were suitable in the highest degree for museum purposes, it still labours under the disadvantage as a national museum building that structurally it is ricketty and unpermanent everywhere, as must every building constructed of iron, wood, and brick be—in which, as in this, no attention has been given to the effects of the unequal expansion and contraction by change of temperature. In this case, however, there are other and equally grave structural defects. The timber roof principals of the nave and transepts have such a tendency to spread, by want of rigidity in their curved timber ribs, that by their thrust they actually drove the iron columns eight or nine inches out of plumb, and were in danger of thrusting out the exterior brick walls while the building was in course of erection. This was remedied, then, by diagonal iron stay bars, introduced by the advice Of Mr. Ordish, C.E., and upon these bars of iron the standing up at all of the building is now dependent. None of the roof principals, indeed very little of the timbers of the structure anywhere, were ever planed, they were put up rough from the saw, and their apparently smooth surfaces have been given by daubing over with distemper colour; hence they cannot ever be oil painted, and without such paint to keep dust away in London from any museum is impossible. Dust is the great evil of all London museums, even as best constructed. In this building, and especially in the much-vaunted picture galleries—the ventilation of which depends upon their sucking in dust from the Cromwell Road—the evil of dust would be found insufferable."
As soon as Mr. Hunt's statement of the amount which would be required for "repairing, altering, and eventually completing the building" appeared, Mr. Mallett wrote him another letter, in which he said—
"I am favoured with yours of yesterday with the so-called estimate. Ex nihilo nihil fit, or, as we may say, nothing can be made of an estimate in which nothing is given almost beyond the ipse dixit of Mr. Hunt. However, it does admit of some damaging criticism. Item No. 1, you will have remarked, professes to include only repairs and reinstatements. It does not embrace the vaulting, sewerage, and flooring; and as to any repairs or reinstatements making the building 'thoroughly and permanently substantial,' it is simply impossible by any process short of knocking it all down to make 'permanently substantial,' or even permanently weather-tight, a building so immense, a proportion of the exposed surfaces of which, in roofs, skylights, ventilation, louvres, and upright sashes, consists of woodwork of the most flimsy and wretched description, both in materials and workmanship."
Passing over his criticism as to the domes, he continued—
"You ask, why should not this building be heated and ventilated as is the Crystal Palace?
922
There is no physical reason why it should not, but the expense of heating it and at the same time preserving such a continued change of warmed air as is essential to keep natural history collections safe and sound, Would cost an enormously greater proportionate sum. In the tropical department at Sydenham, where alone the heating artificially is sensible, every care is taken not to ventilate of change the air at all, unless in the very hottest sunshine. At any rate I can say at once, from my experience, having for Government directed the heating and ventilation of all the Queen's Colleges and of the convict prisons and almost all the other public buildings, that £30,000 is utterly inadequate to heat and ventilate here; £90,000 would probably be nearer the real thing."
With respect to item No. 4 he expressed himself very irreverently, saying—
"We now come to item No. 4, and here we have caught them. The floor area of the picture galleries is in or about 70,000 square feet, which, at £15,000 for fire-proofing the whole, gives about 4s. 3d. per foot super. This would scarcely suffice to lay 4-inch brick arches on cast iron beams for a common cotton mill in Lancashire, without any flooring over them to walk on at all; and here there must be fine flooring, a fine ceiling underneath, if the lower story is to be used for any thing, provision for heating and ventilating pipes and flues, and the greatest requirement as to strength known to engineering; it being well known that a densely-crowded floor of people is the heaviest living load."
Of the next item he said—
"Item 5 is mere bosh" (vulgo et vehementer): adding, "another nought might make it look more probable. There are 32 panels above the windows, 20 ft. by 15 ft., or thereabouts, to fill with mosaic wall-pictures. Each of these will surely cost £5 the foot super, or £1,500 per panel; that alone is £48,000, without the terra cottas on the pilasters or anything else, and this only deals with the Cromwell Road front; the two wings would cost more than the front. These hints may, perhaps, be of some use. It is a sickening mass of falsehood and jobbery."
The sum and substance of what he had said was, that the Committee was, for the sake of what was said to be a cheap bargain, asked to involve themselves in a most useless and reprehensible expenditure. They were asked to purchase the shell without knowing what might be the cost of putting it into order, or what would be the annual estimate for the maintenance of this enormous building. He objected to the proposal, also, because it was a preparation for that drawing into one focus all the different institutions of the country against which the House of Commons had more than once protested. Not only that. He did not wish to see all the institutions of the country fall into the grasp of that craving, meddling, flattering, toadying, self-seeking clique that had established itself at Kensington; that had

923
been doing a good business there, and now wanted to extend its operations. It would have been much better for those gentlemen to have kept themselves quiet. It would have been better for them not to hare been pushing themselves perpetually forward, not to have been making these perpetual requisitions, but to have said with thankfulness—
"Satis supérque nos benignitas tua Ditavit."
Public opinion was beginning to get raw and sore upon the subject. There appeared on the previous day in one of the periodicals a notice of those people and their doings which he believed fully expressed the opinion of the public. It said—
"The building itself is far from popular; but the people connected with it are more unpopular still. If it should happen that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Disraeli—who are at one on this question—should suffer defeat, and not be able to bring up their respective contingents to the rescue, we believe it will be owing more than anything else to the increasing dislike and jealousy of the public and of the representatives of the people to the parasites who have fastened themselves upon so many of the institutions which have already gathered about the great Kensington estate, or who are expectants of the new 'kingdom come' to be established there. Already the class of 'managers' is well known for exclusiveness, class combinations, servility, and extravagance. There are the Council of the Horticultural Society, the Council of the Society of Arts, and the 'managers' of the 'Great Exhibition.' They not only play into each other's hands, but they are for the most part composed of the very same well known persons. They are either hunters after honours or Court favour, or they are small clerks, who have promoted themselves into commissioners, councillors, or dispensers of honours in science and art. We believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have the least difficulty in getting any sum required for the great public purposes of the institutions to be located at South Kensington, if he could show any chance of being able to keep down the abuses which are all but too well known. These small people are neither artists nor men of science. They are unknown to literature. They are ever ready and at hand to patronize all undertakings, and to vote one another into the management of every rising institution. There is no doubt that much of the unpopularity of South Kensington is owing to this class of men."
If the House of Commons were willing to purchase the land, all he could say was, let the Government come down next year with a well-prepared plan for a Natural History Museum of moderate size; let them bring down the plans and specifications, so that the House might know what they were dealing with. If accommodation were required for the national pictures, that subject must be dealt with
924
sooner or later, and then let all the scattered collections be provided for. If a Patent Office were needed, they had, or ought to have, £130,000 available. But he implored the Committee not to consent to the purchase of that building at South Kensington, for by doing so hon. Members would be entailing upon themselves perpetual mortifications, vexations, and disgrace. If hon. Members wanted to become acquainted with the effect of three-quarters of a mile of stucco, let them walk down Motcomb Street and look at the Pantechnicon, and say whether it was possible for imagination to suggest anything more horrible. By complying with the proposal now made to it, the Committee would not only involve itself in an experiment of which it was impossible to count the cost, but it would put the coping stone, the pinnacle, and crowning act to that artistic and architectural degradation for which he regretted to say England was too notorious. He begged to move the rejection of the Vote now asked for.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER(who rose after a pause) said: I did not rise to address the Committee, presuming from what he had written, and also from what I had heard otherwise, that my noble Friend (Lord Elcho) Was about to propose the Motion of which he has given notice. But, in point of fact, I suppose that the form in which it is now proposed to take the Vote substantially meets his view. It does not appear to be desired that there should be a general debate before going to a division; but it is necessary that I should reply to some of the remarks of my hon. Friend who has just addressed the Committee. I cannot help regretting the extreme vehemence of the language which my hon. Friend thought fit to apply to persons out of this House. [Mr. GREGORY said the terms alluded to were in the letter.] Exactly so; but it is to be presumed, that when letters are read in this House by my hon. Friend, the statements which they contain are adopted by him, and he becomes responsible for their language. When he speaks of these proceedings as a combination of fraud and jobbery—[Mr. GREGORY: Falsehood and jobbery.] I am sorry I misrepresented my hon. Friend. But he must either attribute proceedings so reprehensible to Her Majesty's Government, or else to the professional gentlemen who were consulted. If the words he used were intended as applicable to Her Majesty's Government, I am the last man

925
in this House to complain. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Not to the Government.] Then I can only say that such remarks applied to Gentlemen like Mr. Hunt, whose standing in their profession, whose reputation and immense professional practice are far stronger testimony to their ability and character than the trifling remuneration which they receive from the Government for the services they render—language of that kind on the part of my hon. Friend is a very great error, and one which I trust he will not repeat again. I appeal to the House of Commons to protect gentlemen of this class in the public service, who have no opportunity of defending themselves, from these violent, indiscriminating, and very discourteous attacks. I will not trouble the Committee with any more quotations from the speech of my hon. Friend, though I might have multiplied them very considerably; but I proceed to answer some of his most signal exaggerations.
The hon. Member says we adopted, in all its enormity, the design of Professor Owen, which he first described as a scheme for roofing over eleven acres of land; and he added that I proposed a scheme to the House last year which, if carried into execution, would have entailed an expenditure of £700,000. I made no such proposal. The proposal which the Government made was to purchase five acres of land at a cost of about £50,000; and I think I stated that the very maximum which, under any circumstances, the cost of building upon that land in the manner proposed could reach was £400,000 or £450,000. The effect of that statement, I have reason to believe, was most injurious to the proposition; and, on another occasion, when it was contemplated to build courts of justice, the course taken by the Treasury, I am afraid, was likewise detrimental to the plan. Out of a feeling of honour and fidelity towards the House of Commons, and from no other motive whatever, the Treasury placed before the House on each occasion the very maximum which, upon the largest estimate, the charge could possibly amount to. But how have the Government been met? Although they feel the utmost confidence that the charge will be materially less than what they have stated, they were met by my hon. Friend and others with the suspicion that they are putting foward a scarcely honest, and at any rate most superficial and careless statement to the House—a statement
926
merely of the sum called for in the first instance—and that the House must be prepared subsequently to have that amount doubled or trebled. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: Hear, hear!] I appeal to the hon. Member for Liskeard, who cheers, to say what the Government are to do. Either we must ascertain the amount that will probably be required, making the largest allowance for every demand that is likely to be incurred, and then state that amount frankly to the House; or we must fall back on the system of loose estimates, generally very much within the expenditure that has to be incurred. But if estimates framed from the best data at the command of the Government, and resting upon evidence which experience shows we can rely on, are to be treated as merely superficial statements, and are immediately multiplied by two or three, such a course of proceeding on the part of the House of Commons can end in nothing but a practical stoppage of all plans for supplying buildings worthy of the country, and adequate to its requirements. My hon. Friend went on to say that £130,000 were applicable to the building of a Patent Office. I hope my hon. Friend guarantees the existence of that fund; but I am humbly under the impression that no such fund exists, and that there is not a shilling applicable to a Patent Museum. My hon. Friend has confounded two distinct things, a Patent Office and a Patent Museum. If such a fund did exist, of course it would go towards the change we are now making; but, in point of fact, no such fund exists. It is quite true, there is a revenue arising from patents, and therefore there is a moral obligation to provide an adequate museum in return for the revenue. It would be fair for the Government to say, "Although we are asking you to incur an expenditure of several hundred thousand pounds, you must not consider it as an expenditure out of the public purse so far as the £200,000 are concerned; that sum, which is the smallest we should require to find a Patent Office elsewhere, you cannot consider as your own; but, as the proceeds of the revenue from patents, which you are bound to return when the interest of the patentees or of the system require it." This deduction we are entitled to make from the charge; we are not asking for an outlay the Committee is free to refuse, inasmuch as what is necessary must in propriety and honour be found. No decision, however, has been taken to place

927
the Patent Office at South Kensington; the question is not determined, and therefore no such scheme as the transfer suggested is involved in the proposition of my hon. Friend. At the same time, if it should he found that the interests of the patentees will be better served by a different arrangement, we may feel ourselves bound to consult those interests. The Patent Museum is at South Kensington already; the only difference is that it encroaches on space meant for other purposes, and, instead of its being an exhibition of patents, things are heaped together in a way which prevents their being seen, and constitutes a scandal to the country. This scandal it would be one of the objects of the present Vote to remove, but the speech of my hon. Friend who has just Bat down I think rather tends to perpetuate it.
He asks whether we have decided to transfer the Geological Museum to South Kensington. His divining power being so great, I wonder that he puts the question to us, who, with our limited sources of knowledge, can know so much less than he does of our own intentions. Perhaps it was the same authentic source which furnished him with information regarding the fund of £130,000, from which he received the assurance that it had been determined to transfer the Geological Museum to South Kensington. The question of transferring the Geological Museum, or of enlarging it, has never yet been submitted to the Treasury or the Cabinet; I therefore think I am perfectly safe in saying, that up to the present they have had no opportunity of knowing that such a step was in contemplation. The Museum, however, is constantly accumulating treasures; and if my hon. Friend asks me whether, in the interests of economy and convenience, I think that the Geological Museum ought to be widened by throwing in Piccadilly and Jermyn Street frontages to double or perhaps treble its present width, I reply that such a proposal requires consideration. [Cheers.] I understand from the tone of that cheer that hon. Members think the interests of economy would be promoted by such an enlargement. Either those cheers have no meaning at all, or they mean that. My hon. Friend asks why the Commissioners of 1851 have made this offer, and he places them in this dilemma—he says they ought either to sell this land and apply the proceeds for the promotion of science and
928
art, or else they ought to make over to the Government the entire estate they possess. I will show pretty good reasons why the Committee should not take either course. The hon. Gentleman said, that they should sell the land to the Government, or to other parties, and apply the proceeds—
MR. GREGORY: To the Government.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is what it is proposed to do.
MR. GREGORY: I said that the land might be sold at its full value to the Government, and the sum paid for it applied by the Commissioners to the promotion of science and art; or else they might give the land to the Government, to be applied by it to the purposes of science and art.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I thought I understood the speech of my hon. Friend, but now I find I do not understand it at all. It is very obvious, that if he restricts his observations to the land, the reason why the Commissioners cannot give it to the Government is that it is mortgaged for the purposes of the Commissioners. That is a conclusive reason why they cannot give it to the Government. He thinks, that if the Commissioners of 1851 sold this land to other parties, they would obtain a sum of £250,000, which they could invest. I say that they are making a better bargain. If they pass this land to the Government for £120,000, they will obtain the outlay of half a million for science and art. That is, I think, a fair reason for the course which has been taken by the Commissioners of 1851.
My hon. Friend has quoted largely from the letters of Mr. Mallett, and has invited our attention to a multitude of technical and professional questions. He has thought himself justified in reading from letters some passages, containing what I cannot otherwise describe than as gross and virulent personal abuse of Mr. Hunt. Now, Mr. Hunt is a responsible officer of the Government. He is more. Besides being employed as a consulting surveyor by the Government, he enjoys a large and lucrative private practice of tenfold greater value. He is therefore in a position in which we have every guarantee for the fidelity and integrity of his proceedings. We are consequently disposed to trust Mr. Hunt, and I will assert that the letters which my hon. Friend has read do not overthrow the

929
result of the careful and protracted inquiry made by a gentleman of known ability and character, and who is responsible for his calculation. Nor am I disposed to take in lieu of Mr. Hunt's conclusion those of a gentleman who may be a very clever person, but of whom officially we have no cognizance, and for whose opinion it would be absurd for Parliament to make itself responsible. My hon. Friend asks, why we did not bring specifications. Why, we cannot bring specifications without presuming to foreclose every question as to the mode in which this building is to be employed. We must have employed an architect, we must have called for designs, and are we to do that before Parliament has voted the money for the purchase of the building? The question before us is, whether the House of Commons shall or shall not take the site offered it by the Commissioners of 1851; and my hon. Friend says, that before the House allows the Government to purchase the site, we ought to lay before the House a specification in minute detail of the mode in which the whole of these seventeen acres are to to be disposed of, and of everything to be erected on this site. I wish my hon. Friend had told us how long a time Mr. Mallett spent in examining this building. He is, I believe, a civil engineer. Mr. Hunt has been paid for his estimate, and he has, in consequence, given a responsible opinion. My hon. Friend has not told us whether Mr. Mallett has been paid for his estimate, or whether an examination of a day or a couple of days may not have been the basis of this statement.
My hon. Friend says that by this proposed purchase of land at South Kensington we are robbing the poor for the benefit of the rich—that the British Museum is the site to which all have the easiest access, and that at Kensington there is no corresponding facility of access. But he must bear in mind that a fundamental change is about to be made in the facility of communication between one point of London and another. That which was last year an unsolved problem is now solved, and railway arrangements for transporting the public from one point of the metropolis to another are proved to be practically, easy, and lucrative. In the course of a year or two, therefore, we may expect that a ring of railways will be completed, which will include the line of South Kensington and pass close by the estate of the Commissioners. I venture
930
to lay down this proposition—that, so soon as these railways are made, the facilities of communication from the most distant points of these lines will be far greater than to any point, however central, that may be off the line. Whatever, therefore, may be at present the relative advantages of the British Museum and South Kensington, those relative advantages are about to be enormously changed in favour of South Kensington.
My hon. Friend says that no visitors go to South Kensington. ["No, no!"] What, then, does he mean by saying that we are going to rob the masses for the benefit of the rich? Does he not mean that we are going to rob the many for the benefit of the few? Now, let the Committee examine this subject. The British Museum has the advantage of containing a collection which has been in process of accumulation for a hundred years. The Museum at South Kensington, on the contrary, is the child of yesterday, and depends upon the liberality of Parliament. It has only been in existence ten years, for it was, I think, in 1853 that I proposed the first Vote for it. Now, let my hon. Friend listen to these figures. The visitors to the British Museum in 1862, exclusive of students and readers, were 895,000. The number of visitors to the South Kensington Museum in the same year was 1,241,000. [Cries of "That was the Exhibition year."] Well, have I not quoted the same year for both? [Cries of "Oh!" and "The Loan Collection!"] It is disadvantageous to go back, because South Kensington is a rapidly growing institution. Last year was, I admit, the year of the Loan Exhibition of Fine Arts, and I will therefore quote the figures of 1861. In 1861, the visitors at South Kensington were 604,000; the. British Museum had 641,000 visitors. [An hon. MEMBER: South Kensington was open both morning and evening.] Only one-third were evening visitors, and more than two-thirds visited South Kensington in the morning.
Now, my hon. Friend again says that this is a question of economy, and that some very slight extension of the British Museum is all that is required. Again I say, my hon. Friend gives his irresponsible opinion against the opinion of those whose duty it has been in the present or the last Government to make a responsible examination of the question. He says, We are going to adopt the monstrous

931
scheme of Professor Owen." I have a very different opinion of Professor Owen from that of my hon. Friend; but I say we are not going to adopt his scheme. The position of my noble Friend has been, that take this plan as you will, there is a saving of £300,000 or £400,000. And when we say that, let it be borne in mind that we are not charging my hon. Friend, or those who follow his lead, with the responsibility of finding elsewhere that proportion of land proposed by Professor Owen. We have not spoken of five acres, but of three acres. [Mr. GREGORY: Hear, hear!] Am I to understand from my hon. Friend that he thinks a space of three acres an irrational or monstrous space for the accommodation of the Natural History collections? [Mr. GREGORY: No.] But if he does not say that, the ground is completely cut from tinder his feet. When my noble Friend says we are going to provide for £500,000 what elsewhere would cost £1,000,000, we proceed on the supposition that only three acres would be required, according to the plan of my hon. Friend. But we have got an illustration of what is required for the Natural History collection. I draw it from the State of Massachusetts, and I think that England and London may be allowed as liberal a space as Massachusetts. In the University of Cambridge, near Boston, they have provided five acres of land for the purposes of a natural history collection. They have not built as yet upon the entire five acres, but have raised a structure of three stories upon two acres, which is exactly equivalent, in point of accommodation, to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government—one of two stories upon three acres. That institution in Massachusetts has been open only a few years. And I will now read a few words from Professor Agassiz, a name rather better known to fame than that quoted by my hon. Friend. Professor Agassiz, in a recent letter, writes—"Our new building is overflowing. It will be necessary for us to extend our structure within the next two years in order not to check our progress." Under those circumstances, are we to buy near the British Museum those five acres, to begin by invoking the Goddess of Economy to lay out £250,000 for the site, then £250,000 more for the buildings? and then, in consequence of the narrow approach to the Museum from Holborn, we must open a new street. And all this is for the purposes of economy.
932
Sir, the wants of the public have been stated by my noble Friend; but before I sit down, I would wish to touch on one or two points. It is said our estimates are fallacious; but if so, I must say they have been made with a much greater anxiety to reach the maximum cost than the estimates which we have charged on the other side of the account. When we have said that elsewhere you can build a Patent Museum for £100,000, and a National Portrait Gallery for £25,000, I believe those estimates are very low indeed. How moderate is £25,000 or £30,000 an acre for land in the middle of London. With the figures that have been quoted, it is more probable you would have to pay double that sum. But we have been anxious to understand this case, to put down against our own plan the maximum of the public charge, and to speak with moderation in regard to the other plans. But after proceeding upon that principle, my noble Friend has shown, that if you are to act upon responsible and not irresponsible judgments, you will have a saving of £300,000 or £400,000 at the first outlay, and a much larger saving ultimately. I do not wish to detain the Committee by entering into particulars, but only to give them satisfactory and adequate explanation; and I take my stand upon the responsible judgments of those whom we consult. My hon. Friend has probably forgotten that there is a document in existence signed by two gentlemen of reputation, Mr. Baker, civil engineer, and Mr. W. Fairbairn, civil engineer, speaking in satisfactory terms of the solidity of the building as it was constructed for the purposes of the last year. I fully admit that the testimony of those gentlemen does not apply to every portion of the building, as, for example, to the state of the flooring as regards permanence, or to the state of the roof. But with respect to the walls the effect of the document is, that the building has been subjected to the severest tests, and has proved on all points to be more than equal to any trial it could be called upon to bear.
With regard to the scheme of taking the land without the building, I hope the position of the Government is understood. It is absolutely our duty to take the judgment of the Committee upon the question whether they will give £80,000 for the building at South Kensington, and we shall do our best to show that that

933
arrangement is a wise and profitable one for the public. But that is not the question that is now before the Committee. That question has been entirely blinked and evaded by the hon. Member. My hon. Friend has not said one word upon that question, and I am using the strongest language that I can when I say my hon. Friend has entirely blinked and evaded the practical question, whether it is necessary, in the interests of the public, to endeavour to obtain those seventeen acres of land. My hon. Friend has, I think, by his silence admitted that three acres are wanted for the Natural Histoy collection. I have shown that for Massachusetts a considerably larger space has been given. If we wanted five acres, I wish to know where they are to be had. They cannot be had in London at an expense of less than £50,000 an acre; that would be an expense of £250,000 before anything was built. Then for the Patent Museum three acres is a moderate allowance. What do they think of that matter in America? The Patent Museum of Washington covers, I believe, eleven acres of ground; and I think we are making a moderate proposal when we take for the Patent Museum of this country a space equal to about one-fourth of what is devoted to it in America. Now, I have got eight acres, and we are to provide yet for the National Portrait Gallery and other purposes in connection with the South Kensington Museum. But let me take my stand upon those two purposes only and where are we to get the eight acres that we want? My hon. Friend, a worshipper of economy, is prepared to pay elsewhere £400,000 for eight acres, when we are now enabled to purchase twice that number, with certain buildings upon it, for half the money. Which will the Committee prefer to do? That is the issue upon which they are called upon to decide, and I do not think my hon. Friend's professions of economy, however sincere and ardent, will convince the Committee that it is an economical course to refuse to purchase land at £6,000 an acre, and in preference to pay £40,000 or £50,000, or even a still larger sum. That is the question with which the Committee has now to deal, and I trust every hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the real responsibility attaching to this proceeding, for his responsibility is very heavy. For a long time it has been observed, and observed
934
with rare unanimity, that every possible evil of vacillation, uncertainty, delay, expense, and many others that I need not now repeat, attend our method of management of those great questions of public works. Does the Committee think that that system will be amended by statements made in a very highly-coloured if not an exaggerated tone by my hon. Friend, by unmeasured denunciations of men of great authority employed by the Government to examine those questions, by ruthless assaults upon the performances of architects, and, I may say, by total misapprehension of the peculiar merits of the case? The House of Commons can reject any of these proposals if they think fit, and, in doing so, would be acting strictly within their right and province; but the advisers of the Crown, after long considering what would be best to propose to the House for the purpose of meeting the urgent necessities of the country, and likewise of providing for future wants, are of opinion that the best and by far the cheapest mode of proceeding is to acquire the land at Kensington; for they are not aware in what other way the Government could proceed, unless they were prepared to propose those extravagant and enormous grants which, under the name of economy, my hon. Friend the Member for Gal way, seems to admire.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he would not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes; but he was sure that they did not wish to come to a vote under any feeling of momentary excitement, or under any Misapprehension of the real nature of the question on which they had to decide. They were called upon to vote a sum for the purchase of land and certain buildings. But they ought clearly to understand that those buildings did not include the Exhibition building, and that the Vote was substantially for the land alone. He regretted that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) had made himself a medium for bringing before the Committee the attack made by Mr. Mallett upon other professional men; but he believed that the statements of the hon. Gentleman with respect to the Exhibition building would require a more effective answer than they had yet received from the Government, before Parliament would consent to purchase that building. He felt convinced, however, at the same time, that the Government would have been wanting in their duty, at a time when accommoda-

935
tion was so much required for the various collections of art, if they had not asked the House of Commons to grant the sum required for the purchase of the land at Kensington. Even as an investment, the Government would have done well to buy the land.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in reference to the statements of the right hon. Baronet, he wished to explain that there were certain buildings, the property of the Commissioners, and not of the contractor, which the Commissioners joined with the land in making their offer to the Government. Those buildings were of a very unpretending character looking towards the Horticultural Gardens, and had been used as refreshment rooms; but the best way was for the Committee to consider these buildings as non-existent, and that the whole price was charged for the land, which would then be purchased at a very cheap rate.
MR. AYRTONsaid, in reference to the statement that buying the land would be a good investment, he understood that it was not proposed to buy the land pure and simple, but for the express purpose of devoting it to science and art.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that the Government were not to be allowed to buy the land for £120,000 for the purpose of selling it next day in the market. The land would be purchased, subject to the condition that it should be permanently appropriated, as Parliament might think fit, for purposes connected with science and art.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that so much depended on the Tote that it ought not to be lightly dealt with. He wished, therefore, to earnestly recommend the Committee to consider the circumstances under which they were to come to a vote upon that occasion. They had for many years been Buffering in this country from a chronic congestion of the departments of science and art. He feared that many hon. Members conceived that they were about to give their votes upon the whole scheme, whereas the Committee were simply asked to decide whether they would not acquire the land at Kensington. He hoped they would not hastily resolve on rejecting that proposal. He should therefore move that the Chairman report progress.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: We should make progress before we report it. The Committee seems to have made up their minds, and I trust they will not agree to
936
the Amendment. If a division be taken upon it, I hope it will be considered to be a division on the proposition before the Committee. When we come to the next Vote, the Committee shall, if they wish, have further time to consider it; but I hope hon. Members will come to a decision on the first Vote.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I am aware that at this hour it would require the tongue of Demosthenes and the ability of the noble Lord to detain the House; but I beg leave to say that this is a very grave question, not to be despatched in an indecent manner. If there has been any confusion, it has arisen entirely from the speech of the noble Lord, because he mixed up the site and the large shed together, and consequently it became impossible for hon. Gentlemen to discuss the one without alluding to the other. I was particularly struck by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, not following the example of his noble leader, completely gave the go-by to Captain Fowke's enormities. If there has been any reproach cast upon Mr. Hunt, which I deny, remember the unsatisfactory nature of the plans and estimates presented to the House. Was ever a great scheme brought forward in so slovenly a manner? Was ever an estimate submitted to Parliament in a condition more deserving of reprobation? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer talks about the estimate not being exceeded, let us remember the building in which we are assembled. We were told that £745,000 would complete the Houses of Parliament; the cost at this day amounts to over £3,000,000, and even yet they are not finished. Let that for ever be a warning to us not hastily to adopt imperfect estimates. With respect to the present Vote, I deny the necessity for it. Something has been said of chronic congestion. That chronic congestion, if it exists, has been produced by the Government, who have been continually forcing this House to remove all the collections to Kensington. Nothing has been done with Burlington House, for which a large sum was paid, and yet we are now asked to vote £120,000 for a scheme of which we know nothing. The Patent Museum, for example, has made its appearance to-night for the first time. I have no doubt the encouragement of art and science is a very nice thing for those gentlemen who make fine incomes by it, but it may cost the public too much to be pleasant. One might

937
apply to art the apostrophe which was once addressed to Liberty,—"O Art, what atrocities have been committed in thy name!"
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he merely wished to ask a question upon a matter of form. The estimate was one for an entire sum, and he did not understand why the Vote should be broken up. He wished to ask whether it was not proper that the whole sum of £484,000 should be asked for at once, and then that the Committee should proceed to the various items in detail, rather than that they should be asked to vote on a single Vote of £67,000, in which they thought they might be successful.
THE CHAIRMAN: The proposal of the Government is to move the different items which constitute the estimate in separate Resolutions. There is no irregularity in point of form in that proceeding.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Lord Elcho,)—put, and negatived.
Original Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 267; Noes 135: Majority 132.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(2.) £805, Salary and Expenses of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that he did not, in accordance with what he had already stated, intend to press the Committee to come to a decision on the Resolutions next in order that evening. He should therefore postpone them until Thursday week.
MR. MALINSsaid, he apprehended the Committee was quite unprepared for the course proposed by the noble Lord. If the noble Lord did not like the temper of the Committee, possibly he did well in not going on with the Resolutions; but he was quite sure the Committee would be aware that the postponement of the Resolutions was agreed to for the accommodation of the Government only, and not of the Committee.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he must emphatically protest against the hon. and learned Gentleman taking it upon himself to speak on behalf of the Committee. He understood that the Vote next in order should be postponed, and hoped that course would be taken.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £3,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for the University of London."
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he wished to ask why the Vote for the British Museum had been postponed?
MR. WALPOLEstated, that he had consented to postpone the Vote for the British Musuem to meet the convenience of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, who had given notice of a Motion on the subject. He proposed to fix it for Thursday week.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, he rose to protest against a Vote being put, as that in reference to Irish education had just been, while the noise was so great that nobody could know what was being done. He had been prevented from speaking on the Vote, because he could not make himself heard by the Chairman.
MR. MASSEYsaid, the Vote related only to the staff in connection with education in Ireland. The Committee was, he thought, perfectly aware of what was taking place.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that he had not heard a word of what was going on, owing to the rush of hon. Members leaving the House. He thought that important Votes should not be put at such times.
MR. LEFROYsaid, he was not prepared for the Vote for National Education in Ireland coming on that night.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, the Vote which had just been passed was £805 for the Secretary of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland. That Vote, he believed, had never been challenged. He had certainly heard the Chairman put that Vote, and thought that both sides of the House had also heard it.
MR. BUTTsaid, the important Vote for National Education in Ireland was Vote No. 3, which, it appeared, had been postponed.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, there seemed to be some misunderstanding. The only Vote put from the Chair since the decision of the Committee, with regard to the purchase of land, was £805, the salary of the Secretary of the National Education Commissioners. The question then before the Committee was that £3,500 be granted for the University of London.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that the large Vote for Education in Ireland had been postponed, becanse it was thought that it would not be fair to bring it on in a hurry, and without ample notice.
MR. BUTTasked, whether it would come on the next Supply night?
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that Thursday night was appropriated to the Public Works (Factory Districts) Bill, and the following Monday would be given up to the hon. Member for the Bang's County for the discussion on the affairs of Poland. They proposed, however, to take the Vote for public Education in Ireland on the first Supply night
MR. O'REILLYasked, whether the right hon. Baronet intended that that Vote should be taken on the first Supply night after next Monday?
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he wished to ask for some explanation of the charge in this Vote for six scholarships in art and science, which appeared this year for the first time.
MR. PEELsaid, that all the scholarships were sanctioned four or five years ago, but had not all become tenable yet. The total amount paid for scholarships was £2,202; only about £150 more would become chargeable.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHmoved its reduction by £500.
Motion made, and Question,
"That a sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for the University of London,"—(Mr. Augustus Smith,)
—put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to; as was also the next Vote—
(4.) £13,905, to complete the sum for the Scottish Universities.
(5.) £1,296, Queen's University in Ireland.
MR. SCULLYsuggested that the Vote be postponed. Many hon. Members not then in the House were anxious to discuss the subject, and the Vote could conveniently be taken at the same time as that for national education.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he thought there was no good reason for delay. The Vote had been discussed on many previous occasions, and had always received the sanction of Parliament.
MR. DAWSONsaid, the education afforded in the Queen's University reflected credit on the country. If there were any delay in assenting to the Vote, the object the House had in view would be misinterpreted.
MR. SCULLYsaid, he had no objection to the principle of mixed education, provided it were carried out in a bonâ fide spirit; but in Ireland the religious element was introduced under cover of secular education. If the principle were good for anything, why not apply it to this country? In England, on the contrary, all the great schools—Eton, Harrow, and Eugby—were conducted by clergymen; nor would a Roman Catholic be admitted to any of the great colleges at Oxford. He knew both countries well, having lived as much in England as in Ireland—that was to say, during the rational part of his life—and he had no hesitation in asserting that mixed education in Ireland, to a great extent, meant proselytizing He could not understand the course pursued by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The noble Lord, against his own conviction, had, on a recent occasion, supported bigotry in Scotland because it was in the majority. Now, if the noble Lord yielded to the majority in Scotland, why did he not act in the same manner with respect to the majority in Ireland?
THE O'CONOR DONsaid, that the principle of the State usurping the education of the middle classes, who were well able to pay for it themselves, had been declared by the most distinguished statesmen to be opposed altogether to the wishes and feelings of the English people, and he saw no reason why it should be sanctioned with respect to Ireland. He did not believe that the Queen's Colleges led to any change from one religion to another; but he thought that the false principle of mixed teaching induced indifferentism among the students, which was quite as bad as proselytism. The whole of the Estimates for Irish education, in his opinion, ought to be taken together.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, he fully agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last that the Irish Education Estimates ought to be discussed as a whole. One principle of the English system was that the State should not contribute to the education of those who could afford to pay for their own education, and another principle was that the assistance given to the poorer classes who could not pay for their

941
own education should depend upon the amount obtained by voluntary efforts. It was a cardinal point in that system that the State should not monopolize the education of the people; and although in France and other countries a contrary system was adopted, it had always been held in England that the individual freedom of the citizen would thereby be compromised. In Ireland, gradually and insidiously, because, if brought forward at once, it would have been successfully resisted, the attempt had been made to introduce a system by which to vest in the State the whole education of the country. It was said that free education might also exist. The ex-King of Bavaria instituted a State newspaper, the whole cost of which was paid for out of the public funds, and he caused it to be sold at infinitely less than its cost. It was said that free newspapers might exist in Bavaria. But, under those circumstances, competition was impossible, and no free press could exist. It was the same with regard to education. No system which must be supported by the voluntary contributions of the taxpayers could compete with a system of State education paid for out of the public funds, which the taxpayers were called upon to provide. Last year Irish Members pointed out that one-third of the students in some cases, and two-thirds in others, received pecuniary rewards for attendance. The right hon. Baronet then promised that these rewards should not be distributed over so large a number. They also called his attention to the fact that some of the professors taught classes of one, two, and three in number, and the right hon. Gentleman promised a revision of these professorships. In the Vote for London University the practice was to give the names of the professors, the numbers of the students, and classes. No such particulars were given in regard to the Vote before the Committee. It was also a rule in London University that no professor should, under any circumstances, become the examiner of his own pupils. He should like to know how many professors of the Queen's Colleges examined their own pupils when they came before the Queen's University.
MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, that in his opinion a general discussion on the subject of Irish Education was beyond the scope of the matter before the Committee, but he would observe that in England Parliament had arrived at the system of testing
942
education by results, and something of the same kind ought to be done in Ireland, so that the working of those valuable institutions would be ascertained without a shadow of doubt. Instead of having the large sum of £475 given away in medals and prizes, it would be better to apportion it in the shape of exhibitions and scholarships. At the same time, he was glad that these colleges offered to the young men of Ireland the opportunity of self-cultivation and improvement. In this light they were a boon and a blessing to Ireland.
MR. BLAKEsaid, that some years ago there was, perhaps, no greater advocate of mixed education than himself, but experience had convinced him that nothing could be more prejudicial to the south of Ireland than these Queen's Colleges, in which their religious education was neglected.
MR. MORE O'FERRALLsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Baronet the Irish Secretary would give the explanations which had been asked for.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to know whether the Royal Commissioners, who were all favourable to mixed education in Ireland, had not, in their Report, recommended that these scholarships should be cut down in number and amount, since the number of students in the Faculty of Arts was smaller than the number of scholarships. He wished also to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had not thought fit, in the face of that recommendation, to endow more scholarships, and to ask the Gentlemen of Ireland to contribute to them. The President of Queen's College, Cork, Sir R. Kane, stated in his Report that of the six students in the Faculty of Arts five had been promoted into the fourth class. Would the Committee believe that for these six students there were no less than twelve scholarships? Last year, in the same faculty, there were nine scholarships to be competed for by eleven students. He was most anxious that the youth of Ireland should avail themselves of the education of the Queen's College; but that could not be done by making the number of scholarships greater than that of the scholars. It was no use trying to force the Government system upon the people of Ireland, and he would urge the Secretary for Ireland to take the advice given to him by the Vice President of the Queen's College in Galway, and come to

943
a compromise with those who really represented the people of Ireland.
MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he wished to ask for some explanation of the payments to the examiners.
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he was not able to say exactly off-hand in what proportions the sum taken for examiners was divided among them, but he would take care that the information, was furnished in a note next year. He was sorry that the hon. Member for the King's County did not approve the voluntary subscription which had been raised in Ireland. The request, which had emanated from himself, had met with remarkable success. In a brief space of time the sum of £10,000 had been raised, which was a substantial approval of the policy of the colleges. He had never heard of any charge of proselytism in connection with the Queen's Colleges; but if any were brought to his knowledge, he would take care to inquire into it. The hon. Gentleman was quite aware that he had no more authority to interfere with the course of examination or to change the system than any one else. The Vote was very fully discussed last year, when he had endeavoured to reply to all the objections raised, and he trusted the Committee would pass the Vote—the items of which were not extravagant—just as they had passed the Votes for London University and the Scotch Universities. The students were increasing year by year, and they derived from the education there provided much greater facilities for advancing in their several careers than they had enjoyed before.
MR. SCULLYcomplained of the small amount of information given in the Estimates compared with the Votes for the London and Scotch Universities.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, he wished to ask how many professors of the Queen's Colleges acted as examiners at the University, or, in other words, acted as the examiners of their own students?
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he could not state how many acted as examiners, but they did not examine their own students.
MR. O'EEILLTasked, how that was managed?
MR. SCULLYsaid, there was no use in asking the right hon. Baronet for information, for he knew as little about the matter as any of themselves, and perhaps a great deal less.
MR. HENNESSYasked when the
944
Report of the Queen's University for the year would be laid upon the table. [Sir ROBERT PEEL said he would inquire.] It would be very interesting to have that Report. He had looked at the last year's Report, and he found that the total number of those who took Master of Arts degrees was ten, of whom five got gold medals and money exhibitions; and among the remaining five, about whom he asked for an explanation last year, but did not get it, were A. H. Curtis, W. Nesbitt, and C. P. Reichel, whose names corresponded with those of three Professors in the colleges. He found one of those gentlemen, Mr. C. P. Reichel, down as one of the examiners; he examined himself, was paid for examining himself, and got his degree. Mr. Nesbitt did the same. Mr. Curtis did not examine himself. So that out of the whole number who took master's degrees there were two students who did not get gold medals. No doubt the right hon. Baronet had the success of these institutions at heart; he had given his money for that object, and got his friends to do the same; but he would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to do that which alone would insure the success of the colleges—to come to a compromise with those who represented the youth of Ireland.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, the attempt of the Government to educate the youth of Ireland reminded him of an old Irish proverb—it was "whistling jigs to a milestone."
Vote agreed to.
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £3,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1861, for the Queen's Colleges in Ireland."
In reply to Mr. HENNESSY,
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, a considerable sum was proposed to be given in aid of the augmentation of the salaries of the professors in Cork, Belfast, and Galway. It had been clearly shown that the salaries were inadequate to the duties performed, The question had long been under the consideration of the Government. The present Chancellor for the Duchy (Mr. Cardwell), when Chief Secretary for Ireland, had elaborated a scheme for the

945
abolition of certain professorships, and increasing the salaries of the professors. When the colleges were established, under the Government of the late Sir Robert Peel, the number of professorships was not so large, but the Earl of Clarendon afterwards increased it without increasing the Vote applicable to the salaries. What was now proposed to be done was to abolish the office of Vice President, to suppress certain chairs, and to apply the saving which would be thus effected to the increase of the salaries of the professors. The total sum available would be about £2,100, of which £1,800 would be from the Parliamentary grant, and the remainder from chairs which had lapsed in the different colleges.
MR. SCULLYsaid, it was a very extraordinary thing that the right hon. Baronet, while attending proselytizing meetings in London, should have the control of the education given in the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman came down and told the Committee that some chairs were to be abolished and some professors salaries to be increased, but did not explain why it was to be done. He was informed that an English barrister going the Oxford Circuit, who was professor of logic in one of the colleges, was to have his salary doubled. It was not a proper way to present a Vote of that kind to the Committee without enabling them to judge whether the explanation was right or wrong. He should therefore move to reduce the Vote by £1,800.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, the explanation of the matter was this. The salaries of the professors were reduced by the Earl of Clarendon from £300 to £250, when the professors were increased from sixteen to twenty. It was said, when the reduction took place, that the professors would get £250 a year, and in addition the class fees of the students. Mr. Hamiliton estimated that those fees would amount to a considerable sum; but what was the result? There were few students, and therefore the class fees amounted to but little. The Committee was accordingly called upon to increase the professors' salaries out of the public funds. He should vote for the increase, because as long as they had professors they ought to pay them.
MR. SCULLYsaid, his hon. and learned Friend had given a satisfactory explanation, and ought either to change places with the right hon. Baronet or coach him upon occasions of that kind.
Motion made, and Question,
"That the Item of £1,800, in aid of the augmentation of the Salaries of the Professors of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland, be omitted from the proposed Vote,"—(Mr. Scully,)
—put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to; as were also the two next Votes—
(7.) £500, Royal Irish Academy.
(8.) £500, National Gallery (Ireland).
(9.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,500, be granted] ed to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for the Salaries of the Theological Professors and the Incidental Expenses of the General Assembly's College at Belfast, and Retired Allowances to Professors of the Belfast Academical Institution."
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he objected to such a sum being paid to the clergymen of a Dissenting body, who were so largely assisted by the Regium Donum, and who were able to raise immense sums for religious purposes by voluntary collections. He should therefore move that the Vote be cut down to £450, that being the sum paid by way of retiring allowances.
SIR ROBERT PEELthought, that while money was given to the Established Church in Ireland, and Maynooth was kept up for the purpose of educating the Roman Catholic priests, Parliament could not be considered as doing too much if it voted £2,050 for the purpose of educating the clergy of the important body of Presbyterians, who numbered 528,000 out of the 586,000 Protestant Dissenters in Ireland.
MR. DAWSONsaid, he should oppose the Amendment. At the close of the last Session the several professors gave a most favourable report of the classes under their care. There were twenty-seven students in the class of divinity, thirty-three in the class of Church history, thirty-five in the class of Hebrew, twenty-seven in the class of Christian ethics, twenty-six in the class of Biblical criticism, and 129 in the class of sacred rhetoric.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would remind the right hon. Baronet that there was no proportion between the Vote for 528,000 Presbyterians, and £26,000 for Maynooth on behalf of 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 of Roman Catholics.
MR. BLACKsaid, that he objected to all Votes of that nature, but he thought that they should be considered as a whole

947
and not separately, and on that ground he would suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That a sum, not exceeding £450, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for the Salaries of the Theological Professors and the Incidental Expenses of the General Assembly's College at Belfast, and Retired Allowances to Professors of the Belfast Accdemical Institution."—(Mr. Hadfield.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 95: Majority 70.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
On Motion, "That the Chairman report Progress,"
MR. CONINGHAMobjected, and said he thought that at that comparatively early hour (a quarter past ten o'clock) the Vote on the National Gallery might very well be proceeded with. He wished to give notice that he should move that the Vote be reduced by £1,400 in the item for travelling expenses and agency.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report these Resolutions to the House."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 20: Majority 88.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

SUPPLY— [EDUCATION].

  RESOLUTIONS [JUNE 11] REPORTED.
  MR. MASSEYbrought up the Report of Supply.
  Resolutions (June 11) reported.
  First Seven Resolutions agreed to.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he was sorry he was not in his place the other night when the Education Vote was discussed, because there was a point of considerable importance to managers of schools on which he should have wished to make a few remarks. Perhaps the House would permit him to do so at that time. As that was the first year in which the Revised Code had been in operation, his object was to ascertain exactly how the managers of schools stood under that Code. Under the former arrangements the Government gave comparatively little directly to managers of schools, but they assisted education in this way:—they examined a
  948
  certain number of teachers, granted them certificates according to their proficiency, and allowed them an augmentation grant proportioned to the character of their certificates. The effect of that augmentation grant was, that the managers of schools were able to obtain the services of certificated masters on more reasonable terms than they could otherwise have done. At the same time, the Government were in the habit of paying the salaries of the pupil teachers employed in the different schools under the Privy Council system. In those two ways the managers of schools received substantial assistance from the Government. The year before the last the Government proposed to alter entirely the plan by which aid was given to education. They proposed, in lieu of the grants to masters and teachers, to give a single capitation grant to managers of schools, and out of that grant the managers were to pay the masters and pupil teachers for themselves. They stipulated that the managers of schools should be bound, if they wished to get any aid from the Government, to undertake to provide for the existing pupil teachers during the time their apprenticeships had to run. In order to; make the existing pupil teachers quite safe, they undertook to pay them if the managers of schools failed to do so, but in that case they took away the grant to managers altogether. Afterwards the Government consented to modify their scheme, agreeing in all cases to see that the pupil teachers were borne harmless, and if any of the capitation grant were left, the surplus was to go to the managers. In few words, they constituted a charge upon the capitation grant for the benefit of the pupil teachers. The question to which he wished to call attention was, how that affected the masters. At first the masters were alarmed by the Revised Code, because they said they should no longer get what they had been in the habit of receiving from the Government, but should have to look entirely to the managers of schools; in other words, they would be exchanging a certainty for an uncertainty. That point was pressed on the Government at the time, and the Government said they would provide that the managers of schools should be obliged to employ certificated masters, and that unless there were a special agreement to the contrary, they should pay them what they had been in the habit of paying them before. The Government consented, in fact, that the masters should

  949
  have a lien upon the capitation grant, and that that lien should be a first charge upon the capitation grant to the extent of the former augmentation grant. According to the previous arrangement, a master who obtained a certificate was entitled to a certain augmentation grant. Suppose the case of a master who was entitled to £20. He was not only entitled to receive £20 in the form of an augmentation grant from the Government, but the Government stipulated on his behalf with the managers that the latter should pay him as salary at least twice as much as the amount of his augmentation grant, so that such a master would have been entitled to £60. It was distinctly understood by those who took part in the discussions of last year that the compromise effected between the Government and the opponents of the Revised Code amounted to this, that the masters should still continue to be entitled to advantages equal to the minimum of those which they enjoyed before—in other words, that such a master as the one supposed should be entitled to his £60, £20 out of the capitation grant and £40 from the managers. Because, however, of the altered system, it was not possible that the charge could be divided as before, and the managers were told that they must provide the master with three times the amount of his capitation grant. The Government proposed a Resolution to the effect that the first charge on the capitation grant was to be the master's lien for the amount of his augmentation, and that the next charge was to be the payment to the pupil teachers. It was also distinctly understood, that if the whole amount of the capitation grant were insufficient to pay the charge for pupil teachers, the Government should make up the deficiency, and therefore the managers anticipated, that if they got a capitation grant large enough to pay the whole of the master's augmentation grant and half of the pupil teachers' salaries, they should be quite safe, inasmuch as the other half of the salaries would be paid by the Government. But by a new code of instruction since issued by the Education Committee to their Inspectors, a wholly different sense had been given to that arrangement. The point was one of great importance, because the matter was settled last year by a kind of compromise; and he believed, indeed, that if the Government had taken a division on the Revised Code as originally framed, they would have been defeated
  950
  by a considerable majority. The Government, however, did not wish to come to that point; they made concessions, and eventually the matter was arranged on the terms he had already stated. A very slight change made by the Privy Council without the knowledge of Parliament would alter the whole effect of the compromise, and therefore it was important, when the matter was coming into working order, that they, who were in a certain sense the guardians of the interests of the managers and promoters of schools, should ascertain how the Government were carrying out the arrangements, and whether they were keeping faith with the managers. They knew that there must continually be small modifications and changes, but they denied that the Privy Council had a right, without taking the opinion of Parliament, to make changes materially altering the effect of the code as understood to be settled last year. It was almost impossible to explain to the House the minute and technical arrangements which were so important in their bearing, but he had endeavoured to explain what was understood by the managers to be their position under the arrangement of last year. They considered, that if they, the managers of schools, were prepared to provide two-thirds of the master's salary, they might count for certain upon having a lien for the remaining one-third upon the capitation grant, and they considered that there was no impropriety in their agreeing with a master, when engaging at a salary of say £60, to pay him £40, and to give him a first lien upon the capitation grant for the balance. That was understood to be the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's words last year, and in one case, to his knowledge, the manager of a school acted upon that understanding. In the case to which he referred the manager asked the Privy Council whether it would be necessary to make a new arrangement with their master, the old arrangement being that he was to have £40 a year, and £20 from the augmentation grant. The Privy Council answered that there must be a new arrangement, and a new agreement was come to that the master should receive three times the amount of his certificated money. The reply of the Privy Council was to the effect that the object of the Revised Code was to guard against certain teachers being unduly paid and to secure them against their agreement being broken; but the same teachers could not agree that their agree-

  951
  ments should be broken, and that they should be unduly paid. The existence of such a clause virtually put the school beyond the limits of the code, as it tended to divert the first charge upon the grant from an accident into a certainty. The gravaman of the complaint which he made was that the lien upon the grant was meant to be a certainty and not an accident, and the right hon. Gentleman was striving to evade the pledge that had been given. The reason appeared to be to prevent the Government being called upon to meet the charge for pupil teachers. If the right hon. Gentleman could force the managers of schools to make new arrangements to deprive the masters of their first lien upon the capitation grant, of course the pupil teachers would then have the first lien. But it had always been urged, that if only results were to be paid for, let it be so, but allow the managers to use whatever machinery they pleased to obtain the results. That had been the line of argument adopted by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) and other gentlemen, but the Government had always said, "You shall use our machinery." The Government then seemed to take charge of the pupil-teachers, but now they were compelling the managers to make new agreements with the masters, throwing additional burdens upon the friends and promoters of education. Under these circumstances, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council, whether, supposing in any school the augmentation grant was £20, supposing that the managers agreed that the master should have a salary of £60 a year provided the capitation grant reached the sum of £20—and that he considered a fair and proper arrangement for the master and managers to make—and supposing the capitation grant exactly covered the augmentation grant, and that there were also pupil teachers, would the Government feel bound to make up the salaries of these pupil teachers, and would that school be allowed to go on in union with the Privy Council, and to receive a grant as hereto fore?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he also wished to put two questions to the right hon. Gentleman, both of which involved the good faith of the Government in carrying out the arrangement which had been made in the previous year. It was true that it was difficult to make intelligible to the House the particular points and details
  952
  involved in the subject, but it was upon small details that the successful working of the system depended. The question was really one of good faith, and the Revised Code had not been in existence for one year. The 136th article said that no grant should be made to an endowed school if the endowment was more than 30 s. per scholar per annum. That was an intelligible rule, and in his own neighbourhood an arrangement had been made to establish a district school for four small parishes and a small endowment was used as a nucleus; but on the 19th of May an order was issued by the Privy Council completely annulling the arrangement, by declaring that all grants should be lowered by the amount of any annual endowment. That was a grave matter of complaint. He did not intend to enter upon the question whether it was right to make grants to endowed schools or not; but as a year previously it had been declared that such schools should receive grants, the right hon. Gentleman could not be surprised that there were complaints of the changes, as managers had no right to expect such a Sudden reversal of understood arrangements: He wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman another question. Great complaints were last year made in consequence of the frequency with which changes were introduced into the scheme of education, and in order to protect the country against those sudden changes the 150th article of the Revised Code laid down that in January of each year, if the Code should be modified or any material alterations in its provisions effected, it should be done in such a form as to show clearly which were the articles cancelled or modified, and all the new articles. Now, to bring down to the House of Commons in the month of May a Minute directly reversing a very important article in the Code was not, in his opinion, to act in accordance with the regulation to which he adverted.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he desired to call the attention of the House to the remarkable manner in which information was furnished by the Committee of Council with respect to the Vote under discussion. It was the duty of that Committee to make a Report independent of the Reports of the Inspectors, and the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President had been repeatedly asked when the blue-book on the subject would be presented. Hon. Members were told it

  953
  would be presented when it was ready; but last Thursday the right hon. Gentleman had carried the Education Vote through Committee, while it was not until Saturday morning that the blue-book made its appearance. Information given in that way was almost useless; but if the blue-book had been laid on the table sooner, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) thought he should have been able to adduce additional evidence to show that the Report, to use a term to which the right hon. Gentleman took exception, was "cooked." The right hon. Gentleman told them that the Inspectors were not to express opinions, but merely to state facts; yet he found, from the very cursory examination which he had been able to give the volume, that opinions were stated, only they happened to be all on one side. He found, for instance, that there was in the present volume a very clever Report in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, while he did not perceive that there was anything on the other side.
  MR. PUGHsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the House to the case of Wales. The managers of schools there found no fault with the present system, but some difficulties arose out of the operation of the Welsh and English languages. He did not desire to break into the present system, but it would at the game time, he thought, be an advantage if it were made an instruction to the Inspectors, when called upon to allow the grant, to admit of the standard being lowered to some extent in the Welsh schools.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he could not consent to the lowering of the standard as the hon. Gentleman suggested, nor, he was happy to say, did he think it necessary to take that course. There were, no doubt, some difficulties to be contended with in Wales owing to the cause to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but then they were not of so serious a nature as to render it impossible that they should be overcome. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), he might observe that it was quite natural he should complain of the Report not having been laid on the table when the Education Vote came on for discussion. Neither the time when the Report should be ready nor that on which the Vote should come on was, however, a matter over which he had any positive
  954
  control. The Vote was seldom brought under the notice of the House before the middle of July, while the Report had that year been presented as early as usual. The hon. Gentleman would therefore see that there was no good ground for assuming that the Report had been intentionally withheld until after the Vote had been passed.
  He should next advert to the remarks which had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, who had used somewhat hard language, inasmuch as he had stated that the Committee of Council had last year entered into an engagement through which they had broken. The ground on which he made that charge was that in the 136th Article of the Revised Code it was laid down that no grant should be made to endowed schools whose endowment yielded more than 30 s. per annum on the average attendance of scholars, and that it was now sought to depart from that arrangement, which he said was part of the compact entered into last year. There was, however, he contended, no breach of agreement in altering the article alluded to. These were the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, embodied in articles 150–1 of the Code—
  "In January of each year, if the Code be revised, or any material alteration in it be necessary, it shall be printed in such a form as to show separately all articles cancelled or modified, and all new articles.
  "In the event of such revision or material alteration as mentioned in the last foregoing article, it shall not be lawful to take any action thereon until the same shall have been submitted to Parliament, and laid on the table of both Houses at least one calendar month."
  The Code was to be printed in January. In that Code were to be shown all the articles that were modified or changed. Now, that, said the right hon. Gentleman, had been violated, because on the 19th of May a fresh Minute was made, and they had not, he said, printed it last January. But it would be printed next January. The two articles last quoted amounted to this, that where a new Minute was made, it should be laid before the House of Commons for one month before it became law; and in addition to that security the Code was to be printed with the new Minutes made once a year, so that the House should have the opportunity not only of seeing a Minute at the time it was passed, but have a collective view each year of all the Minutes and changes made. Now, if it

  955
  were meant by the right hon. Gentleman that they had come under an engagement to make no Minutes except in January each year, he must ask him where it was said so; and if it was not said so, why were they charged with a breach of faith? The Minutes had been literally and studiously adhered to.
  Having disposed of that point, he would turn to the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford. In order, as far as they could under the Revised Code, to meet the wishes of the schoolmaster, they undertook to give him as much security as was in their power that he should be properly paid by the managers. Perhaps it was superfluous to undertake to protect the schoolmaster against the managers, because seldom or ever had the managers taken advantage of the schoolmaster; but purely for the purpose of protecting the schoolmaster a lien or charge was given him on the grant to the extent of one-third of his salary, as defined by his certificate; and if the managers did not pay him twice as much, their grant would be withheld altogether. That agreement was made voluntarily by the Government, under no pressure whatever, on the 13th of February in last year. Two months afterwards, on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, a further concession was made in behalf of the pupil teachers, who were to have a second lien or charge on the grant for their salary; and if that was not enough, the Government would make it good. Then the first Minute became of great importance, because, although it was originally intended to protect the schoolmaster against the manager, certain managers fancied they saw a way in which, by colluding with the schoolmaster, they might obtain the means of extracting more money from the Privy Council than they would be entitled to receive on the examination of their children. That was never the intention of the Minute; and he did not intend, if he could help it, that such an effort should be successful. The hon. Gentleman said he had now altered the construction of the Minute—that he had given one interpretation at one time, and another at another. Where was the evidence on which he rested such a charge?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEexplained, that he had only said the Minute had been understood differently by others.
  MR. LOWE: It was true he had said that the masters should have a lien or
  956
  charge on the grant, but a lien on a man's coat was one thing, and the coat itself was another. The hon. Baronet had put four questions to him in writing, which he had answered to the best of his power, and he was sorry to find his replies had not been satisfactory. The hon. Baronet now put further questions to him, but he could not pretend to answer these hypothetical questions. He was not there to give, without notice, hypothetical interpretations on points of great nicety and difficulty in the Minutes of Council. He might be misreported, or what he said might be used as a means of charging: him with a breach of faith. That was the answer he had to make, and he thought it much more prudent to make no further answer till the cases on which questions were put were before them. The best mode of raising questions was to move for the correspondence which might have taken place.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESobserved, that many questions not hypothetical had been put to the right hon. Gentleman, and his answers had not always been satisfactory. It was not very agreeable to find that the Revised Code was little better than waste paper. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would treat this matter liberally, and not by any lawyer-like quibbles seek to deprive any class of schools of that which, according to the spirit of the Minutes, was promised them.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he had heard, and he thought the country would also hear, with the greatest possible alarm, the statements which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education had made. The Revised Code was a measure undertaken by the Government entirely of their own accord, and without any pressure being put upon them. That Code was placed before the country, and to parts of it exception was taken. After being amended it was passed by the House; and now the right hon. Gentleman stood up and coolly said, "Oh, you don't suppose there is any force in it!"
  MR. LOWEexplained, that what he said was that they did not bind themselves not to alter it if they saw fit.
  MR. HENLEY: Nobody supposed it was unalterable like the laws of the Medes and Persians; but the right hon. Gentleman charged school managers in the country, who put the best construction they could on parts of the Code which had not been altered, with "colluding" to get money from the Privy Council to which

  957
  they were not entitled. It would be better to make such a charge, if it were made at all, against those who had an opportunity of answering it. It could not, however, be answered, because nobody knew against whom it was made, There Was enough mistrust already as to the mode in which the right hon. Gentleman was administering the Privy Council grants; but if he was to play fast and loose with his new Code or Minutes as he chose, the present distrust would greatly increase. They all knew that the phraseology in which these things were drawn up was so highly technical, and was prepared by such a master of language as the right hon. Gentleman who presided over the Department, that nobody could tell exactly what was meant; but if, in addition to all that, they were to have from the right hon. Gentleman the statements they had heard that night, the relations of school managers with the Committee of Privy Council would become very uncomfortable indeed.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Eighth Resolution read 2o.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he wished to have some explanation as to the item taken for permanent buildings at South Kensington. A Committee had originally recommended an expenditure of £27,000 for permanent buildings, in lieu of certain sheds, which were said to have been in a very dangerous state in case of fire; but he found that they had been laying out money for permanent residences. That expenditure went on increasing year by year without any satisfactory explanation being given, and in order to check that increase he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by £10,000.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out "£82,883," and insert "£72,883,"—(M Augustus Smith,)—instead thereof.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that when it was agreed that residences should be erected for certain officials at Kensington, it was understood that their salaries would be reduced in consequence of those residences being provided for them. He wished to know if such reduction had taken place?
  MR. LOWEexplained, that what he had said on a former occasion was, that when the persons entered into possession of their residences, there would be a deduction from the salaries corresponding
  958
  with the rent. The residences were not complete, and they had not entered them, and consequently the reduction was not yet made It would be settled by the Treasury; and as soon as it was fixed, he would give the hon. Gentleman the information he required.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, that as his Amendment did not refer to the deductions, but to the Vote generally, he should take the sense of the House upon it.
  Question put, "That '£82,883' stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 19: Majority 128.
  Resolution agreed to.

VOLUNTEERS BILL— [BILL 152.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he rose to move that the Bill should be re-committed, with the view of striking out the 20th section, in order to insert a clause empowering the commanding officer of a Volunteer corps to suspend a Volunteer for a period not exceeding two months, and authorizing him in addition to, or in lieu of, such suspension to assemble a court of inquiry, consisting of himself as president, and six other members of the corps, to investigate any charge against a Volunteer, such court to have power of suspension or dismissal. The clause which he proposed would in effect carry out the War Office regulations. He held in his hand a bundle of letters all in favour of the institution of a court of inquiry as opposed to arbitrary dismissal, and another packet to the like effect, exclusively from officers of the Volunteer service. The commanding officer of the 3rd Lancashire Rifle Volunteers wrote that a meeting of officers had been held, at which it was unanimously agreed to petition against the power conferred by sections 21 and 24 of the present Bill. The lieutenant colonel commanding another regiment stated that—
  "A properly constituted court of inquiry, far from weakening the commanding officer's authority, would strengthen his hands, by guaranteeing to him possession of the true facts of the case before he was called on to act, and in many cases would relieve him from great difficulty and embarrassment."

  959
  Lieutenant Colonel Luard, Inspector of Volunteers, when questioned before the Commission as to the power of dismissal, said—
  "It is a greater power than is awarded to any officer in the army; and I should say it is a power which ought not to be in the hands of the commanding officer of any Volunteer corps."
  His noble Friend (Lord Elcho) said, "Why not adopt the law of 1804?" But he would ask his noble Friend whether he was prepared to adopt in all points the law as it existed in 1804? In the Annual Register for that year he found the following case:—
  "Robert Howes, J. Reynolds, and J. Cody stood in the pillory at the corner of Duke Street for having assumed the character of merchants and drawn bills of exchange on each other."
  He maintained that in forcing the clause upon the Volunteer force the Government were not only doing much to destroy the Volunteer force, but were actually creating a power unknown to the common law and in direct contravention of the War Office regulations. Some commanding officers, with the qualifications of his noble Friend, were perfectly fit to be intrusted with the proposed power; but he could contemplate cases in which such a discretion would not be safely or properly reposed. He hinted that some of the military or naval Members of the House would give them the benefit of their opinions on the clause.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the word "re-committed,"—(Mr. Hennessy,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left oat stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL FANEsaid, the Volunteers of the county which he had the honour to represent felt very strongly on the subject. Having mixed a good deal with them of late, he knew that but one feeling existed in the force, and that was in opposition to the power asked for. Having had the command of a militia regiment both at home and abroad, he knew that circumstances were constantly occurring which were calculated to irritate and annoy commanding officers; and this certainly would be a very oppressive power to put into the hands of any man who might happen to lose control over his temper.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that at that moment commanding officers of militia in Ire-laud could recommend the dismissal of any
  960
  member of the permanent staff. He presumed a similar power existed in England. He did not, therefore, see why Volunteers should object to it.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, in his opinion the power was necessary, but it should be so guarded as to prevent abuse. He therefore thought that the commanding officer should be required to record the reasons for the dismissal of any officer under his command.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Bill only proposed to continue a power which already existed, and which, up to that time, had been found to act in a highly beneficial manner. At the first blush they must all feel that it was an arbitrary power to give to any individual; but it was very difficult to avoid it, because there would be no Volunteer force at all if a court martial, or anything like it, was applied to the Volunteers. As matters stood, commanding officers had power to assemble courts of inquiry. That power was not taken away by this Bill; and he had no doubt that it would continue to be made use of to the same extent which it had hitherto been. In the army and in the militia there was such an organization as permitted a court martial being held, but it was different in the Volunteers. If they made it compulsory in the Volunteer service to hold courts martial, it would be, in fact, to place the command of every regiment in the hands of a committee, and it would be necessary to make the committee, and not the commanding officer, responsible for the discipline of the corps. He believed the vast majority of the Volunteer force were aware of this, and he believed that the introduction of the clause sought to be introduced would be, in the minds of that majority, fatal to the service.
  MR. COXremarked, that he differed very much from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and he thought the clause to which exception was taken one of the most arbitrary which could possibly be drawn. The Volunteers asked for a court of inquiry, precisely in the same way as a court of inquiry or court martial was held on the privates and non-commissioned officers in the militia and regular army. It was true punishment could be inflicted on militiamen and soldiers which could not be inflicted on Volunteers, but the punishment of dismissal was quite as serious in its effect on the character of the Volunteer who was dismissed as any punishment authorized by the Articles of War. Why was the Bill

  961
  pressed forward in such haste? Were the Government afraid of Petitions coming in? He had promised that Petitions would be presented, and they had been presented in some numbers; but in a week or ten days they would be sonumerous as to show, that if the clause were retained, the Volunteer force would be destroyed. From a letter which he had received from Lord Ranelagh, he understood that the noble Lord was annoyed at an observation made by him (Mr. Cox). He (Mr. Cox) thought he had only made a fair deduction from the noble Lord's evidence; but the noble Lord said he never intended such deduction to be made. Any one had a right to make his own deductions from evidence; and if the noble Lord did not intend such deduction to be drawn, the person deducing was less to blame than the witness who had given evidence which was liable to such deduction. However, the noble Lord said he did not intend such deduction to be made; and he (Mr. Cox) wished to give him all the advantage of the greatest possible publicity to his denial.
  MR. J. R. ORMSBY GOREsaid, he thought the explanation of the hon. Member for Finsbury very insufficient. He was authorized by Lord Ranelagh to say that not a tittle of his evidence could be construed to bear the meaning which the hon. Member had tried to put upon it. No one deprecated more than Lord Ranelagh the flogging of Volunteers, and he was astonished that the hon. Member for Fins-bury should shield himself under the privilege of a Member of Parliament to make scandalous and unfounded assertions.
  SIR ROBERT CLIFTONsaid, he rose to order. He moved that the words just used by the hon. Member be taken down. The words having been taken down by the Clerk at the table,
  MR. SPEAKER: I certainly should myself have risen to state that the observations which fell from the hon. Member in regard to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury were not Parliamentary, and were such as he himself must on reflection regret he had used.
  MR. J. R. ORMSBY GORE: Sir, I am sorry if I have said anything disrespectful to this House. But when a man is not here, and cannot defend himself, there should be better grounds for the allegations that are made against him. However, I am sorry if I have transgressed against the rules of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member
  962
  having expressed his regret for the language he has used, that expression of regret must be satisfactory to the House.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, the provision of the Bill under discussion was of a most objectionable character. In fact, the whole system of courts martial in the army itself required an alteration, and he could not think that the arbitrary powers conferred under the clause were popular with the Volunteers.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, in the absence of the noble Lord who had been the subject of attack by the hon. Member for Finsbury on a previous occasion, he wished to say a few words to the House. The noble Lord had, he thought, just reason to complain of the language of the hon. Member for Finsbury on the former occasion to which he referred; and that evening, with the denial of the noble Lord in his hand of the Opinion imputed to him, the hon. Member for Finsbury had uttered the most scanty—he would almost say the most ungenerous expression of regret which had perhaps ever fallen from an hon. Gentleman under similar circumstances. A charge resembling that made by the hon. Member for Finsbury had before been made against the noble Lord. [Mr. Cox: I made no charge.] Well, then, the statement he made—
  MR. COX: I made no statement. What I said was that some commanding officers appeared to regret that they had not the power of flogging.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: That was supposed to apply to Lord Ranelagh. A similar statement had already been the subject of an inquiry before a magistrate, and Lord Ranelagh thought it his duty to bring the author and disseminators of that calumny before the tribunals. Lord Ranelagh upon that occasion distinctly denied that he had ever made such a statement, or given any evidence to justify it, and that any such imputation was contrary to every opinion he had ever held. Yet, after that denial, the statement was repeated by a Member of the House. [Mr. Cox: No.] Lord Ranelagh thereupon wrote to that hon. Member to say that the opinion imputed to him was quite contrary to his views, and could there be a more grudging and scanty apology made to that House than for the hon. Member for Finsbury to say "I will give the noble Lord the benefit of his denial?"
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could not altogether regret the debate

  963
  Which had just taken place, because it had afforded the hon. Member for Finsbury an opportunity of retracting some aspersions which he had cast upon a noble Lord. [Mr. Cox: I cast no aspersions.] He could have wished that that retractation had been more complete and generous than the hon. Member for Finsbury had made it. The statement of the hon. Member might lead the House to think that it was only since receiving the denial from Lord Ranelagh that he had been aware of the noble Lord's real sentiments. Lord Ranelagh had, however, taken every opportunity in his power of denying the accusation made against him as distinctly and completely as possible; and it must have been within the knowledge of the hon. Member for Finsbury, when he spoke the other night, that Lord Ranelagh had denied, and successfully denied, what had been imputed to him, and had obtained an apology from those who had accused him. The proposal of the hon. Member for the King's County to re-commit the Bill was most extraordinary. He could understand a Motion against the third reading, but to move to re-commit the Bill for the purpose of expunging a particular clause which had been already twice discussed, was bordering on what he might term trifling with the House. The question had been so fully discussed that the House would, he hoped, forgive him if he declined to argue the clause again. Not a single new argument had been brought forward in favour of the Amendment, and of all the cases which had been brought before the House in its support (and they had certainly been raked up in a most industrious manner) not one had been substantiated. He did not underrate the value of the opinion expressed by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Fane); but almost every Volunteer who had spoken had expressed a contrary sentiment. He did not think the clause was unpopular with the Volunteers, who were, he believed, aware of it when they enlisted. The Bill had been pressed forward in order to entitle the Volunteers to receive the grant during the present year, and he trusted that no further opposition would be made to the passing of the measure.
  MR. KNIGHTLEYdid not believe that the clause would make the service unpopular. It was a mere re-enactment of the existing law.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 31: Majority 107.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 3o, and passed.

PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (re-committed) BILL— [BILL. 148.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  LORD RICHARD GROSVBNORmoved that so much of the Bill as relates to Rhyl Pier and the Provisional Order referring thereto be struck out.
  MR. WYLD, as a Member of the Committee to which the Bill was referred, said, that the Committee had inquired into the subject with great care and had decided according to the evidence. He should therefore support the decision of the Committee.
  MR. HUMBERSTONsaid, that the governing body at Rhyl had petitioned against the confirmation of the Provisional Order relating to that place. If it were confirmed, a pier would be enforced on the inhabitants to which they objected, and they would be compelled to buy up the projectors, in order that they might get a pier afterwards adapted to their requirements.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that all the proceedings upon the Bill had been strictly regular, and the Select Committee had reported in favour of the Bill. Of course, it was for the House to say whether it would or would not confirm the finding of the Committee; but for himself he thought they ought to do so, for he believed that the Committee was perfectly impartial and had framed their Report upon the evidence before them.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that the fact was, that through a technical mistake the Provisional Order had not been opposed, as it otherwise would have been, in the Select Committee. It Was most important that the House should take care that under cover of these Provisional Orders promoters of bubble schemes should not be enabled to carry out their plans at the expense of the inhabitants of a district.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, that Parliament never contemplated encouraging jobs or parties occupying ground without a bonâ fide intention to carry out a work. He thought the Board of Trade had not done its duty in the matter.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONdenied that there had been any negligence on the part of the Board of Trade. He believed that this matter was purely a question of competition.
  MR. E. ELLICEsaid, that unless more satisfactory information were given on the part of the Board of Trade he would support the Amendment.
  MR. COBBOLD, as Chairman of the Select Committee, said, it appeared in the evidence that many of the local Commissioners and many inhabitants of the town were favourable to the Bill. The Committee were unanimously of opinion that it was expedient to confirm the Order.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

CHARITABLE USES BILL— [BILL 164.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALmoved the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. HASSARDwithdrew an Amendment of which he had given notice on receiving an assurance from the Attorney General for Ireland that he would consider the propriety of assimilating the laws of England and Ireland relating to charitable property.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Thursday.

TROUT, &c. FISHING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  [BILL 146.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. W. EWARTmoved that the Bill be now read the second time.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYmoved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  MR. MACKIEseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Sir Graham Montgomery.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATErecommended that the Bill be not passed, as, although he thought there was a grievance to be remedied, yet he thought also that the remedy would go far beyond the grievance.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 12; Noes 37: Majority 25.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Second Reading put off for three months.

MUTINY (EAST INDIA) ACT REPEAL BILL.
On Motion of Mr. BARING, Bill to repeal the Act of the twentieth and twenty-first years of Her Majesty, chapter sixty-six, for punishing Mutiny and Desertion of Officers and Soldiers in the Service of the East India Company, and for regulating in such Service the payment of Regimental Debts and the Distribution of the effects of Officers and Soldiers dying in the Service, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BARING, Sir CHARLES WOOD, and the JUDGE ADVOCATE.
Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 166.]
House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.