HC Deb 06 May 1870 vol 201 cc330-50
MR. ALLEN

said, he rose to move— That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the National Gallery and certain portions of the British Museum should be opened for the inspection of the public between the hours of seven and ten in the evening, at least three evenings in the week. The question involved in his Motion was one of great importance to the working population of London and its suburbs. The practical effect of the present regulations was to exclude the great bulk of the working classes from these institutions, and they were thereby debarred from all chance of deriving amusement or instruction from the treasures which those buildings contained. In fact, he might in perfect truth say that had the present regulations been devised for the express purpose of excluding the working classes, they could not be more effectual in attaining that object. The case for the opening of these places on week-day evenings was very strong; nay, it could not possibly be stronger. Those institutions were national institutions, paid for and supported by the people of the country, and yet they were closed at the very time when the great mass of the working classes could take advantage of them. This was a most unfair state of things, and it was time some remedy such as he advocated should be provided. The House had always been opposed to class legislation, and he now asked it to declare against class regulations. As he could not reply he would endeavour to anticipate the various objections which might be urged against his proposed Motion. The principal objection would doubtless be the supposed danger from fire and risk of injury from gas. Now, he would be the first to oppose these collections being opened in the evenings unless proper precautions against fire were taken. He might mention that in the year 1860 a Select Committee consisting of 15 Members, impartially chosen, sat and considered this question. They heard a good deal of evidence of a practical and scientific character, as well as evidence from working men, and those best acquainted with the working classes of the metropolis, and they adopted a Report recommending the opening of the British Museum and the National Gallery on certain week-day evenings in order to afford the working classes the opportunities of instruction and pleasure. That Committee further were of opinion that the Museum and Gallery might safely be opened at least upon three evenings of the week from 7 to 10 o'clock under due regulations, and those who had read the evidence taken by that Committee, could not but concur in the conclusions at which they had arrived. Now, would the contents of the buildings be in danger from fire, or be likely to be injured by gas? An answer to the latter objection would be found in the fact that some years ago a Royal Commission composed of five eminent men, including Professors Hoffmann, Tyndall, and Faraday, was appointed to consider that very question, and they reported that there was nothing innate in coal gas which would render its application to the illumination of picture galleries objectionable. With respect to gas they further recommended that it should be burned in open jets, for the purpose of promoting ventilation, due care, of course, being taken that all the products of combustion should escape. Mr. Cole, in his evidence before the Select Committee of 1860, as the result of his experience at South Kensington, expressed the opinion that gas did not injure pictures, and the same opinion was expressed by Mr. Wornum, the Secretary of the National Gallery. Mr. Panizzi, who might be considered as a hostile witness, did not believe there was much risk of fire, supposing due precautions were taken. He might add that Mr. Cole had drawn his attention to the case of the celebrated Sheepshanks Collection, which, he said, had been exhibited three evenings in the week for 12 years, and instead of being deteriorated, had rather improved. And, in reply to the argument which would probably be used against his Motion, that it would not be safe to open the Museum and National Gallery in the evening, his answer was, that the same thing was done, and had been done with perfect safety for a number of years, at the South Kensington Museum. Then, as to the important question whether the working classes of London would really value the privilege of visiting these institutions, supposing it was granted to them, he could only say that he himself had presented various Petitions, many of them very numerously signed by working men, and a Petition from members of Working Men's Clubs, which were unanimously in favour of his Motion, and urged its adoption on the ground that the want of rational amusement tended to the promotion of intemperate habits. Before the Committee of 1860 a great deal of evidence was given by clergymen and ministers well acquainted with the feelings of the working classes of the metropolis and also by working men themselves who thoroughly understood the views of the class to which they belonged, and they were almost all unanimous that it would be one of the greatest blessings that could be conferred on the working classes of the metropolis if the National Gallery and the British Museum were thrown open to them on week-day evenings. With regard to the objection of expense, he believed the cost of opening the National Gallery in the evening would only be about £4,000 a year, and the cost of doing the same for portions of the British Museum, such as the Natural History Collections and the Antiquities in the upper rooms—for he did not touch the lower—would not be more than £6,000 a year. He thought the House would be of opinion that that was a very small price for the nation to pay for such great benefits. When it was considered that this year the Vote for the National Gallery was some £16,000, and for the British Museum £90,000, the additional sums that would be required for opening these institutions in the evening might well be granted to make them available for the amusement and instruction of the great masses of the people. The question was, not whether daylight was not the best light for seeing the collections; but whether the working classes of the metropolis should have any chance of seeing them at all. He might be told that if they were opened in the evening they would attract a crowd; but that was the very thing he wanted. He wanted to tempt the working classes to frequent, by thousands the British Museum and the National Gallery, instead of thronging to gin-palaces, public-houses, and low dancing places, and spending their evenings in dissipation. He wanted to give them tastes for purer pleasures than many of them had at present. He did not wish to weary the House by dwelling upon a case which had such just grounds to recommend it, and he would therefore simply move his Resolution and leave it for the consideration of the House.

MR. KINNAIRD

seconded the Motion.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the National Gallery and certain portions of the British Museum should be opened for the inspection of the public between the hours of seven and ten in the evening at least three evenings in the week,"—(Mr. Allen,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. SPENCER WALPOLE

said, on the part of the Trustees of the British Museum—for he was not going to offer any observations on behalf of the Governors of the National Gallery—he could assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Allen) and the House that nothing would give them greater gratification than to be able to extend the time for seeing the noble collections of that institution for the benefit of the working classes as much as other people; and he had no doubt that those Gentlemen who should speak for the National Gallery would make a similar remark. There were two great objects which the Trustees of such an institution as the British Museum must always keep in view, the one to afford facilities for study in literature, art, and science, the other to contribute to the popular instruction and rational amusement. Now, he believed the hon. Gentlemen would find that, as far as they were able to do so with perfect safety to the collections in the Museum, the Trustees were not only desirous, but they had accomplished their desire, of giving for the two purposes to which he had adverted the greatest facilities. Perhaps the House would allow him to state what the arrangements were at present. Speaking first with regard to study, the Museum was open every day in the week for that purpose during the winter months from 9 to 4, during the spring and autumn months from 9 to 5, and during the summer months from 9 to 6. To the public generally the Museum was open on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays during the hours he had mentioned, except that in the winter the hour of opening was for them 10 instead of 9. In addition to this, the Trustees had made a further arrangement to which he would presently revert. Now, unless the hon. Gentleman could show that, with safety to the Museum, arrangements could be made for the purpose of opening the collections to the humbler classes at night, and a greater extension of time given, he believed almost everything had been done that was possible for the accommodation of the public. The objections to opening the Museum in the manner proposed had more or less been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman himself. The hon. Gentleman adverted to the Report of the Committee on Public Institutions of 1860, of which his hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) was a Member. It was perfectly true that that Committee recommended that, for the recreation of the people, great institutions, like the British Museum and National Gallery, should be opened at night; but even that Committee, in making its Report, saw plainly from the evidence that it was by no means so clear that this could be done with safety to the collections. It was true that they stated— With respect to the British Museum, the Geological Museum, and the Museum of the East India Company, your Committee find that, although many of the objects they contain could not be so well inspected by artificial light as by daylight, yet that a large portion of the collections could be seen in the evening, and would afford much interest and instruction to the people. But in another part they say— With reference to the first point—that of opening by night—your Committee would submit that, from the evidence brought before them, the National Gallery, and portions of the British and other public museums, could safely be visited in the evening if proper precautions against fire can be taken. Now, this question of proper precaution was one of the main points to which they had to direct attention. About that time the Trustees felt it their duty to inform themselves, in the best way they could, as to the risk to the collections if opened at night; and he had now in his hand a Report, made to them 10 years ago, first, by the late Mr. Braidwood, Superintendent of the London Fire Brigade; and, secondly, by Mr. Smirke, the architect to the Museum. Mr. Braidwood said— In the first place, the use of gas desiccates everything within its reach, especially all ceilings, roofs, &c., which are placed above the lights, thus rendering them much more inflammable than they otherwise would be, causing what would otherwise be a trifling fire, a serious conflagration. In the second place, the heat and fumes evolved by the combustion of gas are most decidedly against the preservation of any vegetable or animal substances, and tend to discolour stone, marble, &c., in such a manner that it is very difficult to restore the original colour. This is stated on the supposition that the Museum is to be lighted by single Argand lights; but if what are called 'sun' burners are used the risk will be immensely increased. The sun-burner consumes a very large quantity of gas at one point, causing an intense degree of heat, which has to be carried off by pipes, a process difficult of performance with perfect safety in a building constructed with so much inflammable material as the Museum. Several fires have been occasioned by their use. I would therefore consider these lights as totally inadmissible in the British Museum. Mr. Braidwood also said— I believe the risk to be such that on no consideration should a building intended to last for ages, and containing such invaluable property as the British Museum, be subjected to it. Mr. Smirke, the architect, certainly expressed an opinion that arrangements could be made which would diminish the risk from fire, but he said— I quite concur with Mr. Braidwood as to the great risk of using gas sun-burners, without removing every inflammable substance far away from them and from the ventilating tubes over them. It would be impossible to do this without a very extensive reconstruction of the floors and roofs. These were the opinions brought before the Trustees in 1860, and the House would not be surprised that the Trustees thought they would not be justified in running the risk of opening the British Museum at night under such circumstances. After that the matter more or less slept till last year, when the hon. Gentleman gave Notice of a Motion to a similar effect to that which he had made that evening, only it was proposed by way of Amendment to another Motion made by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. W. H. Gregory). On that occasion, therefore, it was the duty of the Trustees again to consider whether—notwithstanding the many improvements that might have been made in the interval—those Reports ought still to be acted upon by them or not. Well, they consulted the best authorities on the subject—namely, Professor Tyndall and Captain Shaw, the Superintendent of the Fire Brigade. Professor Tyndall, having given a strong opinion that, with proper structural arrangements, the thing could be done, did not change that opinion; but he thought they must make great alterations and special arrangements in a building not constructed for the purpose, like the South Kensington Museum, before an old building like the British Museum should be opened at night. Professor Tyndall, in answer to the question addressed to him, replied— 1. I think it would be necessary to make special arrangements for the lighting of the British Museum with gas, with a view to public inspection at night. 2. I deem it essential to remove the products of combustion of the gas, and that neither they nor the unburnt gas should be permitted to diffuse in the air of the rooms. 3. With these precautions I do not apprehend any injury either to the collections or the building through the use of gas at a sufficient distance. The lighting of the picture galleries at South Kensington is likely to furnish you with very valuable hints regarding the lighting of the Museum."! He would next call the attention of the House to the opinion of Captain Shaw. That officer stated that the risk to the British Museum from the use of gas would arise, first, from the escape of gas; second, from the over heating; and third, from the injurious chemical effects. In his Report Captain Shaw said— I am not at all an alarmist in this or any other matter connected with my profession; on the contrary, I say plainly that I believe it to be quite possible to introduce artificial light with almost complete safety into a building as large as the British Museum, and filled with contents of a similar kind and equal value, provided that the building were specially designed and carefully constructed for the purpose; but in this case I wish to state my clear and deliberate opinion, founded not only on general experience, but also and more particularly on a complete knowledge of everything connected with the structure itself and what it contains, that it would not be possible now to devise a safe mode of introducing gas into the British Museum. Having thus explained the risks, I next turn to the precautions which should be taken in the event of its being decided to light the Museum, and, after mature consideration, I am compelled to say that the only reasonably sound measure which I can think of to obviate the risk in any important degree would be to increase the watch of firemen, police, and attendants of all kinds at least four-fold, and even then the safety of the building would be very inferior to what it is now. It seems to me to be hardly comprehensible that anyone really interested in the British Museum and its contents should propose a measure of which the risks are so obvious and the advantages so doubtful. Therefore the Trustees, with every desire to do all they could to enable the working classes to visit the Museum at convenient hours would, he believed, one and all shrink from the responsibility they would have to incur if, while such an amazing risk would have to be run from lighting the building at night, they recommended the House to accede to the proposal of the lion. Gentleman. I will now state what has further been done for making the Museum more generally useful. Last year the Trustees resolved to propose in the Estimates of this year an extra sum for the purpose of opening the Museum at later hours on the two days when the working classes were able to get away from their employment and to see all our national institutions; and during the summer months the Museum would be open every Saturday and Monday from 12 o'clock in the day till 8 or half-past 8 in the evening. He thought Saturday and Monday were the two days in the week on which the people were most likely to make their holidays; and if the experiment of opening the institution between the hours he had named on those days were fairly tried, he firmly believed increasing numbers would go to see it. He hoped the House would, therefore, take that as some evidence that the Trustees were anxious to do all in their power to accommodate the artizan and working classes. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the time when the poorer classes would be most likely to go to the Museum was at a later hour at night; but he confessed had great doubts on that point—doubts founded, not on mere conjecture, but on the result of an experiment made in 1862, the year of the second International Exhibition, when the Museum was kept open up to half-past 8 in the evening. He had in his hand a Return showing the numbers of the people who, in 1862, availed themselves of the opportunity of seeing the collection in the evening in every week during the months of May, June, July, and August; and it was a remarkable fact that, although large numbers came between 6 and 7 o'clock, they invariably dropped off between 7 and 8 o'clock. The inference he drew from that was that, if they kept the Museum open at too late an hour, the poor would probably not take advantage of the additional time given for inspecting the collections. In May, 1862, the number of visitors to the British Museum, during the special evening admission, was 1,199 between the hours of and 7, and only 634 between 7 and 8 o'clock. In June, the number entering between 6 and 7 was 2,259, and between 7 and 8 only 1,259. In July, the number entering between 6 and 7 was 2,998, and between 7 and 8 only 1,691. In August, the number entering between 6 and 7 was 2,016, and between 7 and 8 only 665. If the Museum were known to be kept open to a later hour, as the Trustees this year proposed that it should be during the summer months, on Saturdays and Mondays, he trusted that the working classes would make their arrangements accordingly, and be induced to go there in large numbers; but it was a somewhat singular fact that the only experiment of the kind that had been made seemed to indicate that the people desired to get home not much later than 8 o'clock. With, regard to expense, if new structural arrangements were adopted, that, he feared, would be very considerable. The hon. Gentleman contemplated the opening at night of parts of the institution only; but that would never satisfy the people. If the Museum was to be opened at all, it must be opened as completely as circumstances would permit. For the purpose of lighting such a building vertical shafts must be introduced through all the ceilings to facilitate the escape of the gas; subsidiary arrangements would also be required, and the cost, according to a rough estimate, would not be less than £10,000. Add to that the increased number of policemen, firemen, attendants and assistants, and it would be seen that, not merely on account of the risk, but also on account of the expense likely to be incurred, it is worthy of consideration whether it would be wise for the House to sanction or for the Trustees to recommend that the British Museum should be opened and lighted at night, as the Motion of the hon. Gentleman contemplated. For those reasons, and not in the least degree with any view of limiting the advantages which the poorer classes might justly expect to derive from such institutions, but because the danger would be so great, and the benefit comparatively so small, he hoped the House would not accede to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. If that Motion had been made the other night, when he could have moved the Previous Question, he should certainly have met the matter in that way, in order to show that it was not the desire of the Trustees to negative the intentions of the hon. Gentleman, or to refuse or withhold from the people increased facilities for seeing those collections. He should now simply vote that the House go into Committee of Supply, which would be equivalent to moving the Previous Question. He thought the hon. Gentleman might see, after the observations he had just made, that it would be better to await the results of the experiment which the Trustees were going to try on Saturdays and Mondays; it would be better to see whether the working classes availed themselves of the additional opportunities to be afforded them for viewing the collection before we encountered such great risks as he had pointed out. And therefore in the absence of fuller and more accurate information than the House at present had on the subject, he trusted they would not agree to the hon. Gentleman's Motion.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY

said, he was very glad to find that this question had been again brought under the attention of the House, as it seemed to show that there was some disposition to meet the wishes of the working classes. The Motion he made for a Select Committee in 1860 had for its ultimate object the opening of such institutions on Sunday, and he was not unprepared for the hostility which it evoked. He had for a long time felt the effects of the hostility he incurred by that effort. It was satisfactory to find that the question of opening these collections on the evenings of week days was now in the hands of another hon. Member, and was likely to be received with favour. He believed a similar idea had been put into practice at Kew Gardens and Hampton Court with the very best effect. But if these collections could not be opened on Sunday, the working classes ought, at all events, to have every opportunity of seeing them during the week; and it was simply a mockery to say they could visit them in the middle of the day, or before the time at which mechanics' institutes were opened. There was a pride, he was glad to say, in the working men, who wished to go to such places as respectable as possible, and it was impossible they could do so till some time after they had left their daily labour. He considered that the difficulty as to lighting might be readily got over if there was any real desire of enabling the working men to see the national pictures, libraries, and collections of natural history. He had said before, and he would repeat it now, that the other portions of society were taking the money of the working people, and using it for their own purposes, when they did not give them every reasonable facility for visiting the public institutions. He was reminded of an observation that had once fallen from a right hon. Gentleman opposite, who spoke of the amusement to be found in Blue Books. Now, perhaps, a more instructive Blue Book than the Report of his Select Committee of 1860 could hardly be found. It might not be known to the House generally that, in some cases now, the working classes laboured all day on Sunday in order that they might be able to visit the British Museum and other national collections on Monday. That was a state of things which could hardly be satisfactory to those persons who desired that there should be no opportunity on Sunday of going anywhere but to a place of worship. He was glad the matter was making progress, and he was encouraged by the proverb—"Where there's a will there's a way," to hope that the difficulties mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spencer Walpole) would shortly be overcome. He would suggest that, at any rate, such collections as those from Nineveh, which would illustrate Scripture history, might be exhibited on Sunday and enjoyed by the working classes without harm.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spencer Walpole) did not think that those who supported the proposal now before the House meant in any way to reflect on the Trustees of the British Museum. It was, however, rather remarkable that 10 years had elapsed since this matter was first pressed on the attention of the Trustees, and yet that now, for the first time, the attempt had been made to extend the hours of opening on Saturdays and Mondays. He did not think the statistics quoted by the right hon. Gentleman were satisfactory, because it was shown to the Select Committee that the working classes required an interval between the hours at which they left off work and those at which they could set out to visit any public institution. They had to return to their homes first to tea, and therefore were unable, for example, to reach the Museum before the hour of closing. At the North London Industrial Exhibition, held at the Agricultural Hall, Islington, in 1865, upwards of 200,000 persons paid for admission during 21 days; and at the Working Men's Industrial Exhibition, held for 10 weeks in 1866, more than 300,000 persons paid for admission; the great mass of the visitors, indeed, were working people, who attended on week days after business hours. At the South London Industrial Exhibition, held in 1865, no fewer than 124,000 persons paid for admission on 44 weekday evenings. At the South Kensington Museum, upwards of 3,000,000 persons had been admitted on weekday evenings. At the recent Industrial Exhibition, held in the Lambeth Baths, 42,000 persons, chiefly of the working classes, had paid 2d. for admission on week-day evenings. The Select Committee of 1860, after examining many witnesses, reported that institutions such as the British Museum and the National Gallery should be opened between the hours of 7 and 10 o'clock, at least three evenings in the week. Professor Faraday did not take the same view of the danger of lighting the British Museum with gas as that expressed by Mr. Braidwood and Captain Shaw. But if the Trustees of the British Museum thought that building not adapted for evening exhibitions, then some portions of the collection should be sent to South Kensington. This could be done without injury to the Museum itself, because there were duplicates of an immense number of the objects. This had nothing to do with the Sunday question. The House had over and over again, and, as he thought, very properly, decided against the national institutions being opened on Sundays. He hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Allen) would take the sense of the House on the question.

MR. T. BARING

said, he thought the Trustees of the national institutions were as anxious as the promoters of the Motion to give the public all possible advantages of the National Collections. As a Trustee of the National Gallery, he might observe that the powers conferred on his colleagues and himself were small and limited; but there was one thing specially incumbent on them—namely, to take every care of the collection intrusted to their charge. The Trustees of the National Gallery were unanimously anxious to avoid even the slightest risk of danger to the treasures in their charge; and there were two dangers of which they were naturally apprehensive—the first was that of the destruction of the building and its contents by fire; and the second was damage to the pictures from the lighting up of the building with gas. The experiment at South Kensington had not been tried long enough to be decisive of the question whether gas-lighting deteriorated pictures and works of art. This was the first time he ever heard, as had now been stated on the authority of Mr. Cole, that gas improved them. The question, however, was whether the long and constant employment of gas-lights might not greatly affect the pictures, and of this, he was not competent to judge. Anyone who examined the present National Gallery must be convinced that it could not be lighted up without great risk of fire. What had been said about the British Museum applied thoroughly to the National Gallery, with this difference—that some things in the Museum which were saved from fire would not be destroyed by water, while the water used to extinguish a fire would be as injurious to pictures as fire itself. On these grounds, the trustees of the National Gallery had the greatest objection to lighting up the present building. Whether a new building might be lighted up with gas, was a question to be decided by the Government of the day, or those who were in charge of it, for when it was erected sufficient precautions might be taken to guard against the risk of fire and the damage of the pictures from ordinary lighting. The hon. Member (Mr. Allen) spoke of bringing the people to the building by the thousands; but even that in itself might be attended with injury to the pictures in the absence of proper arrangements for ventilation. Everyone who took an interest in the progress of art valued so much the pictures we now possessed as to desire that they should be kept out of the shadow of danger, and that no experiment should be made which would jeopardize them. The hon. Gentleman must feel that, until some precautions were taken which could be taken only in a reconstructed building, it would be unwise to attempt to light up our National Gallery.

MR. W. H. GREGORY

said, the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Allen) was clearly intended as an alternative proposal to the opening of the British Museum and the National Gallery on Sundays. Even so, he, as a Trustee of the National Gallery, would gladly assist the hon. Gentleman in his object, were it only possible to effect it; because he felt certain that the interest which would be created among the working classes, by their becoming acquainted with the noble national collections of art and science, would render them less tolerant of that legislation which closed those galleries to them on the only day in the week when men have rested from their toil. But, unfortunately, it could not be effected. It was no fault of the Trustees. These treasures of art were such that, if de- stroyed, they could never be replaced—an insurance representing ten times their cost price could not replace them—for they were unique; and their loss would be an irreparable blow not merely to England, but to the civilization of the world—just such a blow as the world had received recently by the accidental burning of the famous Peter Martyr, of Titian, at Venice. At present the structure of the National Gallery was totally unfitted for being lit up by gas; and even were it so fitted, he (Mr. W. H. Gregory) would still shrink from the responsibility of what a slight act of omission, or neglect, might bring with it; to say nothing of the damage which might arise even without an accident. All the arguments applicable and applied by the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) to the British Museum, were still more applicable to the National Gallery. The Trustees of the National Gallery were most desirous to popularize the collections of which they had charge, and to give every accommodation to the public; but the construction of the Gallery would render lighting most dangerous. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) referred to Kensington, and said he hoped that, as Kensington was lit up at night, a portion of the Natural History Collections of the British Museum would, be removed there for exhibition. He (Mr. W. H. Gregory) hoped, on the contrary, that the New Museum of Natural History, so long promised by successive Governments, would be undertaken at once, in accordance with the unanimous recommendations of the Committee of 1869; and, if so, there was nothing to prevent the architect from making arrangements for the lighting up of a portion of it. Then, as to the Galleries at Kensington—alluded to by the Mover and the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird)—there was the greatest difference between the picture galleries of Kensington and the picture galleries of Trafalgar Square. The Galleries at Kensington were narrower, lower, and more accessible to light. The pictures, too, at Kensington were modern, far brighter in colour, and consequently more easily lighted up than the older pictures at Trafalgar Square. The tone of ancient pictures was generally low, and absorbed much light. Anyone who was in the habit of lighting up ancient pic- tures in his own house was aware that to see these pictures well the light must be approached to them, or they to the light; but in bringing the light close arises the risk of heating, of desiccation, and consequently of irretrievable ruin. If pictures were to be lit up with safety and efficiency means should be taken to provide a copious supply of light; but it should come from outside the room—that is, if the lighting were to be constant. Of course, were it only to be done very rarely, the risk would be comparatively little, as at the Royal Academy at present. But it was idle to enter into these matters and to argue on what was impossible, for unless the rooms at Trafalgar Square were altered, and that at a large expense, lighting would be impossible. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution quoted the recommendations of the Select Committee on Public Institutions, which sat in 1860, as justifying his proposal. But the Committee distinctly laid down the principle "that proper precautions against fire should be taken;" and one of the first precautions insisted on by Professor Faraday was "that the roofs of galleries, which may be lighted by gas, should be of iron"—and he distinctly stated "he would hesitate to recommend lighting in the British Museum," and à fortiori in the National Gallery. A fortiori, because not only was there even a greater danger from fire there, but because, as Professors Hoffman Tyndall, and Faraday, in their Report on lighting pictures by gas, state— That London gas has not been cleared of sulphide of carbon, which it is not safe to permit to come into contact with pictures painted in oil or other colours. But, as the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) had rightly pointed out, the real evidence which came home to every one was that of the experienced Chief of the Fire Brigade—Mr. Braidwood—who, after speaking of the desiccation and discolouring caused by the fumes of gas and of the danger of explosion wherever it is used, sums up by giving his deliberate opinion thus— I believe the risk to be such that, on no consideration, should a building intended to last for ages, and containing such invaluable property, be subjected to it. After such evidence as this he would, indeed, be a bold man who would take the risk of advising gas lights for those galleries. If proper structural arrangements were made—as he hoped they shortly would be—in the National Gallery, he thought it would not be impracticable to open a room or two at night for the exhibition of drawings. Still, there was something to be said on the subject of locality. There was not much objection, on the ground of locality, to evening openings at the British Museum; but the National Gallery being just over barracks, where a large number of soldiers were collected, and where the neighbourhood was far from select, the consequence of nightly openings might easily be conceived. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution expatiated on the cheapness with which his proposal could be effected. The National Gallery would only cost £4,000; the British Museum £6,000 a year for lighting up. But as cheapness seemed so important, it was well it should be known that for Sunday opening the National Gallery would cost £150, and the British Museum £250. The hon. Gentleman talked of bringing the working classes to higher and purer pleasures than the public-house; but if he was in earnest in that expression, let him join in opening these galleries on the only day when those who had been toiling all the week could really enjoy them. In Dublin, last year, where the people had insisted on having their institutions open on Sunday, there were 118,942 visitors to the National Gallery, and of these 28,200 went on Sunday. The Director had written to him to this effect— The visitors on Sundays are almost exclusively of the working classes, and they are generally remarkable for the care and interest with which they examine the pictures, and for their quiet and orderly conduct while in the Gallery. Such were the results in Dublin; and he hoped that if the lion. Member's conscience could stand galleries being open on Sunday at Hampton Court, it would not be shocked by a similar latitude being sanctioned in Bloomsbury and Trafalgar Square. He trusted the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

trusted the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne would be satisfied with the discussion, and would not press a Motion which could only be productive of negative results. Such institutions as the National Gallery and the British Mu- sum were places for the deposit of unique works of art, which, if destroyed, could never be replaced; and, therefore, much as he desired to give every facility for their being seen, he thought there ought not to be any danger of their destruction. The House ought to be satisfied with the risk run at South Kensington Museum, the loss of which would be irreparable. Having recently gone over the National Gallery, he was alarmed at the dangerous condition and position of that building; and was convinced that there would be great danger in adopting gas burners there, for the roof had been built without any such idea on the part of the architects; and, as far as it had gone, the debate had fully shown how strong were the arguments against the proposition before the House.

SIR WILLIAM TITE

said, that the question before the House was not as to the opening of the National Gallery or the British Museum on Sundays, but whether those buildings could be opened with safety at night—a result which he was of opinion was quite impossible. Those buildings were constructed, before the fire-proof principle was understood, and when but little was known of the practical introduction of wrought iron; the roofs of these buildings were of ordinary construction, and not calculated to bear the great heat which would be produced by gas being lighted under them every night. With regard to the effects of gas products, he had in his own house done everything he could to prevent the fumes from penetrating into his library, but he had failed; and the same result had occurred at the London Institution, where books had been almost entirely destroyed. Notwithstanding all that had been done to absorb or abstract gas products, it would be quite impossible to introduce gas into the present National Gallery with safety. He differed from the opinion expressed by Mr. Cole as to gas-lighting, and could point to a picture, by Mr. Howard, which he (Sir William Tite) presented to the South Kensington Museum, that was cracked in all directions, and how it was to be repaired he could not imagine. He believed the action of gas upon pictures to be very mischievous, and suggested that time should be given for further consideration before an experiment was made upon national trea- sures, which were of inestimable value, and could not be replaced. He did not entertain the opinion that it was very important to open these institutions at night, because the working classes could see them at Easter and on other holidays; but with regard to the British Museum more particularly, he was sure that to open it at night would be much more dangerous to the contents than advantageous to the public.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he was sure that the House cordially sympathized with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Allen) in the object he had in view, and it would be a great pleasure to all of them if they could carry out that object without a danger which would counterbalance the advantage to be gained. As a Trustee of the British Museum, however, he felt bound to say that, in his opinion, it would be a most dangerous thing to light up that institution by night. No one could say what might be the effect of gas-burners there. Both at the British Museum and at the National Gallery there were things which, as they hoped, would exist hundreds, nay, thousands of years. The effect of gas, continued for years in either place, might be most deleterious. All observation and modern science pointed in that direction, and therefore we ought not rashly to generalize and suppose that, because hitherto no such effects had been seen at South Kensington, the same results would not follow there as elsewhere after such a system of lighting had continued for 100 years. It should also be remembered that science was advancing very rapidly, and difficulties which seemed insuperable in these matters to-day might, if we waited patiently for a few years, be met and overcome. On this point he would read to the House an extract from the Report of the late Professor Faraday, who said— I am very strongly against the common practice of erecting a church or other building by one set of hands under one mind, and then giving it over to another authority and set for the introduction of gas apparatus and pipes, or pipes of hot air or water (frequently at high temperatures and pressures), into parts and places where no intention respecting them had existed before, where no preparation had been made for them, and where the final arrangements must partake more of accident and risk than of premeditation and forethought. That was exactly the case here with buildings which were not constructed with a view to gas, and which would, therefore, be exposed to a formidable and unknown risk under any such system of lighting. Professor Faraday's remark applied strongly to the British Museum, and perhaps still more strongly to the National Gallery, which had a wooden roof. That being so, he would not dwell on the risk of fire, which was not to be contemplated without absolute horror, because the loss to the human race by the burning of the British Museum no words could express and no money could compensate. The blow to human knowledge and progress would be absolutely incalculable; and the House must therefore see that it would be very unwise to attempt any plan of gas lighting in the existing buildings. But the House was aware that considerable quantities of land had been purchased behind the National Gallery, on which sooner or later—and he hoped rather sooner than later—new galleries would have to be erected. It was not for him to presume to judge whether these galleries could be put up so as to exhibit pictures at night; but the subject would be most carefully and minutely considered, and, if it were possible, he could not doubt that the Government of the day, whatever that Government might be, would be only too happy to make suitable buildings. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would take this statement into consideration as affording, not an immediate, but a proximate hope that something might be done. It was impossible to say absolutely that it could be done, because even there he should be against incurring the risk of destroying these valuable pictures, even for so good an object as that contemplated by the hon. Member. As to the British Museum he could speak with somewhat greater confidence. It had long been decided that the Natural History Collections there should be separated from the rest of the contents. Of course the working classes might find some pleasure in seeing the Antiquities; but the objects which would naturally interest them the most would be those which dealt with the works of nature rather than the works of man—the Ethnological, the Mineralogical, and Natural History Collections; because everybody knew that, in order to enjoy works of high art, particularly Antiquities, there was required a cultivation of the eye and the taste involving more previous study than could be expected from the average working man. The removal of this collection from the British Museum to some other site was a crying necessity; and it was not impossible that he might be able to make some proposal to the House on this subject during the present Session. At any rate, new buildings were to be put up, and. if this could be done without any danger or inconvenience, they would, be lighted with gas and thrown open in the evening for the use and amusement of the working classes. Of course no one could say that the risk of fire would not be increased; but lions and crocodiles might be replaced, while objects of art and antiquities could not be. As so much assent had been given by the House to the principle laid down by the hon. Gentleman, and as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been able to hold out some not very distant prospect of in some degree realizing his wishes, probably the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to press his Motion.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, he would suggest, in reference to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole), that during the six weeks including the longest days in the year the working classes should have the opportunity of visiting the Museum six, or, at all events four, evenings in the week.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.