HC Deb 16 August 1883 vol 283 cc877-92

(5.) £96,019, to complete the sum for the British Museum.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, he would best consult the feelings of the Committee if he made but few observations upon this Vote. Mr. Walpole, whose absence from the House they all regretted, in moving this Vote last year, stated to the Committee that the transference of the Natural History Collection to South Kensington had made considerable progress. It was now on the eve of conclusion. The minerals, fossils, and plants were already installed in the new Museum; while the last and most considerable of the Biological Departments, that of zoology, was in course of removal, and would be established in its new abode during the autumn. In the great Entry Hall of the new Natural History Museum it was proposed to place a number of the largest and most interesting specimens. Round the Hall were 12 bays, which it was proposed to appropriate to a type or index Collection, illustrated by diagrams, and which it was hoped would prove interesting to visitors, and serve as an introduction to the general Collection. The Northern Hall would be devoted to a Collection of British animals. It was proposed to extend the system of labelling, so that, as far as possible, each of the more interesting specimens might tell its own tale. Small maps were also largely used, coloured in such a manner as to show the distribution of some of the more interesting forms in space and time. He thought that those hon. Members who had seen these maps would agree that they were most interesting and instructive. The new Sculpture Gallery, erected from the fund bequeathed by the late Mr. William White, had been completed, and the friezes from the tomb of Mausolus were being removed into it. The Committee was aware that the Museum contained a very large number of specimens preserved in alcohol. These had long been a source of anxiety to the Trustees; but he was happy to say that, the Government having at length consented to find the necessary funds, these specimens were now being transferred to a separate building. The principal additions to the Collection had been the Stowe Manuscripts—996 in number—purchased from Lord Ashburnham, with the consent of the Treasury, and subject to the Vote of Parliament. The Trustees regretted that Her Majesty's Government did not see their way to purchase the whole Ashburnham Collection. The Stowe portion comprised a large number of volumes relating to English history, comprising over 42 Anglo-Saxon Charters, dating from A.D. 693 to the 11th century; wardrobe-book of Edward II.; wardrobe and jewel accounts of Queen Elizabeth; correspondence of Sir Thomas Edmondes, Ambassador in Prance and the Low Countries, temp. Elizabeth and James I., 12 vols.; correspondence of Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 1677, 16 vols.; distribution of forfeited lands in Ireland, 1677, 16 vols.; letters of the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough to Secretary Craggs; various diplomatic and literary correspondence; an original Privy Council book, 1660–1670; and several separate documents and letters of interest—e. g. letter of the Earl of Derby, afterwards Henry IV.; an original warrant for levy of ship money, County Bucks, with return of defaulters, headed by the name of John Hampden; secret Treaty between Cromwell and France, 1654, &c.; English literature and topography:—Psalter with Anglo-Saxon glasses; register of Hyde Abbey, with 220 drawings, 11th century; English homilies, end of 12th century; a Gower, a Nassyngton, and a Hampole, several chartularies of English monasteries; 12th and 15th centuries, including the Boldon Book of Durham; a register of St. Thomas in Southwark; and a Corporation register of Winchester. Heraldic MSS., comprising the Collections of Anstis, Garter and various county visitations; the Irish Collection of Dr. O'Conor, being early MSS. of the 18th and 15th centuries, including a manuscript of the Brehon Laws; a volume of the Annals of the Four Masters; a large number of autograph letters, beginning with one from Henry IV., and many other (over 900) very interesting documents. In the department of Oriental Antiquities one of the most interesting acquisitions had been an inscribed cylinder of the 5th century B.C. The inscription began with the name, title, and genealogy of Nabonidus, then King of Babylon. Then followed a description of a restoration of an ancient monument, the Shrine of the Sun God at Sippira. In ancient times it was the custom to place in the foundations of any considerable building a record of its creation, and Nabonidus was very anxious to find that belonging to the Temple at Sippira. After much labour, he succeeded in doing so, and described his discovery of the record of Naram-Sin, son of Sargon the First, whose date he gave as no less than 3,200 years before his time—that was, 3,700 B.C. At the conclusion he called on any Prince who might come after him to restore the Temple, and preserve the record of his name. The former wish was beyond his (Sir John Lubbock's) power; the latter he now endeavour to fulfil. In addition to the objects purchased, the Museum had received during the year a considerable number of donations, including a very interesting series of groups of British birds with their nests and eggs, or young, preserved by Lord Walsingham, Lord Lovat, and Mr. Powell; a very beautiful Collection of 165 drawings, by Thomas Bewick, presented by his daughter. Several new publications had been issued during the year, including catalogues of Greek and Oriental coins, guides to the Exhibition Galleries in the Natural History Museum, and an autotype copy of the Magna Charta, &c. The Reading Room had been kept open from the beginning of September until 9 P.M., by means of the electric light. Desires had more than once been expressed in this Committee that duplicates should be distributed to local Collections. The Trustees had been most anxious to carry out the wishes of the Committee in this, as, indeed, in all other respects. In the course of the last year more than 13,000 duplicate specimens had been distributed among eight institutions—namely, the Museums of Edinburgh, Nottingham, Owen's College, Manchester; Marlborough College, Carlisle; Halifax, the Somersetshire Natural History Society, and the Haberdashers' Company. The Museum publications had also been presented to various Free Libraries. In an old Institution like the British Museum they could not, of course, expect a large increase in the numbers of visitors every year. In 1881, moreover, there was a sudden bound in consequence of the opening of the new Natural History Museum. Nevertheless, last year there was a further increase of 50,000, bringing the numbers up to nearly 1,250,000. It was also a satisfactory feature that the number of students rapidly increased, having in the Zoological Department alone more than trebled in the last 10 years; while, if they compared the total number of visitors, they would find that in five years they had risen from 700,000 to over 1,200,000. In this case, however, allowance must be made for the opening of the New Museum at South Kensington. A strong desire had been expressed that portions of the Museum should be open to the public during the evening, and he could assure the Committee that the Trustees fully sympathized with that wish. He had recently the opportunity of stating to the House, in reply to the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. D. Grant), the views of the Trustees. They hoped that, ere long, a system of electric lighting for the district would be brought into operation, and they would then apply to Government to enable them to open certain departments in the evening. He could assure the Committee that it was the earnest desire of the Trustees to render our great National Collections not only as interesting and instructive, but also as accessible as possible.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he had listened with pleasure to the statement of the hon. Baronet; but it seemed to him that it was extremely desirable that there should be greater unity of administration between the British Museum and the South Kensington Museum. He called attention to the fact the other night when another Vote was under discussion. If the British Museum were to send to the South Kensington Museum all their patterns, enamels, and minor articles, a good collection might be formed there; as it was, these articles were distributed between the two Museums; and he suggested to the hon. Baronet and his co-Trustees the desirability of planning some general administration of the two Museums. In that way he believed that a good deal of money might be saved, and the rivalry between the two establishments would be avoided.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had recommended a fusion of the two Museums. Now, between 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning was a strange hour to deal with a question of this importance; but he must point out that if there was to be any fusion, the younger and the weaker Museum should fly to the larger, and greater, and stronger Museum. There were many points in which his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) touched with great ability; but there was only one of those points upon which he (Mr. Beresford Hope) desired to say a word. He wished to express the profound disappointment which was felt in many quarters, that Her Majesty's Government did not extend their bounty, and that when, out of the Ashburnham Collection they purchased the Stowe Collection of MSS., they did not also buy the other Collection of MSS. called the Appendix. It seemed a strange argument which deterred the Government from purchasing the two Collections.

MR. COURTNEY

pointed out that there was a special Vote for the Ashburnham Collection, under which the observations of the right hon. Gentleman would be more appropriate.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, that, inasmuch as that was so, he would defer any remarks he had to make.

MR. TOMLINSON

remarked, that the Reading Room of the British Museum was very defective in the matter of ventilation. He trusted that the hon. Baronet would turn his attention to the subject.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, he would make inquiries into the question raised by the hon. Member for Preston (Mt. Tomlinson). The subject introduced by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was too large a one to discuss at that hour of the morning. He thought it right, however, to point out that the authorities of the two Museums had taken steps to avoid any competition.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £45,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the purchase of certain Manuscripts from the Collection of the Earl of Ashburnham.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, he was sorry this Vote was not a larger one, because if it had been larger they would have been able to have bought those other and valuable MSS. known as the Appendix. He need not trouble the Committee by going over the whole ground. The Committee knew well enough that Lord Ashburnham's Collection comprised four parts, of which three were bought en bloc; but to a certain portion of two of them the French Government laid a claim, and this Government, he was sorry to say, while they allowed the claim, rejected the residue. The distinguishing features of the Stowe Collection were the historical Collections of letters of Diplomatists of the last century, and of other valuable historical documents, including a very curious Irish series. The Appendix, on the other hand, which he extremely regretted they had not obtained, was extremely valuable in an artistic aspect. One of these MSS., for instance, was a small Book of Hours, comprising miniatures, one of which bore the name of Pietro Perugino, while others were of the most exquisite perfection. The Committee knew, of course, that a collection of MSS. was a thing in which each item had its distinctive value. It was not like a consecutively-numbered volume; and as, in one word, this Appendix Collection was a unique gem for any nation to possess, it was no reason for refusing it that the distinctive Stowe Collection was to be bought, while even this was to be tabled for the benefit of Ireland. They allowed the Hamilton MSS. to be sold last year, and now they had also allowed a far more valuable and inte- resting Collection to escape their hands. He must note that only an additional £45,000 would be involved in the matter, because that amount would have purchased the Appendix. Had they been building an iron-clad, nothing would have been thought of so small a sum. In this case the Committee should also know that the Museum offered to make up £25,000 by the sacrifice, at much inconvenience, of so much of its annual grant, in order to contribute, out of its own resources, to the purchase money; but the Government refused to entertain the offer. That was a Collection that ought not to have been lost; and in the name of the British Museum, in the name of Art, in the name of this country, which in these matters ought to hold its own, he protested against the ill-judged economy displayed in this proceeding.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he simply regretted that he did not move the reduction of the last Vote by £20,000. It appeared, from what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) said, that if the Government had been willing to give some more money for the Ashburnham Collection, the British Museum would have given £20,000. It was evident, therefore, that the Trustees had £20,000 to spare; and he would, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote by £10,000. He did not suppose all these valuable old MSS. would be destroyed if the State did not become possessed of them; somebody would buy them, and somebody would preserve them, so that those who wished to go and see the Collection could do so. There could not be the slightest object in our having the MSS.; let other people have them if they wished; we should save our £40,000, and those interested in the MSS. could still go and see them, or, as an hon. Friend suggested, by means of photographs we could get all we wanted out of them. He would venture to say not 100 people in the year went to see the MSS. in the British Museum; and he doubted if 50 would be sufficiently interested to go and see the Ashburnham Collection. Why, therefore, was the nation to spend £45,000 for the 'fads" of a few individuals? It seemed to him that £35,000 was quite enough to hand over to the Trustees of the British Museum to buy what was worth buying from the Collection.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £35,000, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the purchase of certain Manuscripts from the Collection of the Earl of Ashburnham."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

MR. COURTNEY

said, he thought his hon. Friend, on a little reflection, would see that this was scarcely the way to meet the Vote. The proposal was to buy the Collection, subject to the sanction of Parliament, for £45,000; but the purchase must be made of that particular part of the Collection as it stood in one transaction, subject to Parliamentary approval, between Lord Ashburnham and the Trustees of the British Museum. If the hon. Member wished to negative the transaction altogether, he should move the rejection of the Vote. He must either take the Collection or reject the bargain—a mere reduction of the Vote would not meet his object.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, he could confirm all that had been said by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Beresford Hope) in reference to this Collection. It was unfortunate that the Government had not resolved upon the purchase of the Collection in its entirety for the country. Though the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) spoke sneeringly of it, it was one of those things of which anyone knowing anything about it would feel proud that his country should be the possessor. He had had an opportunity, by the courtesy of the Trustees, of seeing some of the MSS. in the Collection; and he was fairly astonished at the beauty, the rarity, the matchless-ness, he might say, of the Collection. There were things there that if any Gentleman saw them in a foreign country he would say they were worth going any number of miles to see. There was a chance not quite gone of securing the whole; the Government had given no pledge that they would not ask for more money next year; and there was the probability of their further considering the matter in the Recess. This discussion, short and inadequate as it must be, would tend to awaken interest in the minds of hon. Members; and if Gentlemen would take the opportunity, during the Recess, of looking at the Collection—which he was informed was to remain at the British Museum for a certain time, Lord Ashburnham not intending to dispose of it immediately—he was sure hon. Members would see it was an opportunity not lightly to be parted with. As to what the hon. Member said, that it did not matter by whom the Collection was bought, of course the MSS. would not be destroyed; they would be bought by some connoisseur, if not by some foreign nation; but anyone with feelings of patriotism would be extremely anxious that the British Government should be the custodians of these treasures. There was one particular volume which he would venture to say would be acknowledged to be in itself almost worth the £45,000, with illuminations by some of the Old Masters of the schools, of a beauty and rarity past all description. This country would be doing a short-sighted and foolish act if it did not secure, while it could, the whole of the Collection.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, he had already expressed his regret that the Trustees would not be enabled to purchase the further part of the Collection, and he would not refer to that again. He concurred in all that had fallen from the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope). It should be said, in reference to what had been said by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), that Lord Ashburnham wished to dispose of the whole Collection, and was not willing to break it up, so in regard to the present proposal it was a question between taking all or none. If the hon. Member would go to the British Museum and examine for himself, he would see that this was not a question of anybody's "fads," but that this was a Collection of the most interesting documents, throwing a great light on history. He hoped the hon. Member would see his way to withdrawing his opposition.

MR. DAWSON

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not go to a Division. Much interest was felt in Ireland in the Ashburnham Collection; and it was the intention of the Government to give that portion dealing with Celtic literature to the Royal Irish Academy. The Irish MSS. would become the property of the Irish nation; and he felt sure the hon. Member, who had often expressed his sympathy with Ireland, would, for that reason, not press a Division.

MR. CALLAN

said, he should like to know from the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Celtic portion of the Collection would really be given to Ireland, or whether a selection would be made by the authorities of the British Museum, and only the refuse sent to Ireland? He certainly should vote with the hon. Member for Northampton unless a specific pledge were given that the Irish portion should be relegated to Ireland? It would be satisfactory, as satisfying all doubt, if the Secretary to the Treasury would state distinctly whether the portion which appertained to Ireland would be sent to Ireland in its entirety?

MR. COURTNEY

said, it was fully explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the purchase was sanctioned by the Treasury, that Mr. Bond, the Librarian of the British Museum, and Sir Samuel Ferguson, President of the Royal Irish Academy, were united jointly to make the selection. They met and decided how the division should be made—which MSS. should go to Ireland, and which to the British Museum. No difficulty arose in settling the matter.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 84: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 295.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £8,530, 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 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, they had heard not long ago something said about the farce of voting money at such an hour in the morning; and he might be justified in a Motion to report Progress. But, as he probably would not succeed in carrying that Motion, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division; but he would point out to the Secretary to the Treasury that it was impossible for him to give the reasons he proposed to assign for moving the reduction of the Vote pursuant to the Notice which stood in his name on the Paper; but he would state, very shortly, why he gave Notice of that Amendment, and he hoped at a future time to be able to place before the Committee a very important matter, one which concerned the administration of the National Gallery, and in which he considered the administration had erred, whereby the taxpayers of this country were compelled to pay a much larger sum than ought to be demanded at their hands. His Amendment had to do with the travelling expenses of the Director, and this was a question in which the present Chairman (Sir Arthur Otway) ought to take peculiar interest. The Chairman would recollect that during the Directorate of Sir Charles Eastlake there was every year on the Estimates for the National Gallery an item for the expenses of the travelling agent of the Gallery; and the present Chairman of Committees led a movement which, after several years of contention, was successful in removing this item from the Estimates. The reasons given for doing away with that expenditure were that it was a fact that pictures could be much more cheaply purchased in England than on the Continent, and that, if purchased on the Continent, it was far better that purchases on behalf of the Gallery should be effected by private individuals rather than by a representative of the British Government, whose appearance at once excited the cupidity of dealers abroad, and sent up the prices of pictures. But the unfortunate practice was kept up yet. In this Vote was included an item of £150 for the travelling expenses of the Director, and there was a larger sum last year. Anyone acquainted with Italian picture sales would be aware that the moment it was known that the National Gallery was in the market pictures would not be parted with except at a very high price; but he did not see why the national purchases should not be conducted on the same principle as those of private individuals. Nations, like individuals, should buy in the cheapest market. Then, also, in England the auction sales were not sufficiently well watched; and he could recall several occasions within recent years where admirable pictures had been sold in London, and which ought to have been purchased by the National Gallery. To illustrate that he would give one instance, that of a picture known to be a Paul Veronese, "The Vision of St. Helena," one of the most beautiful works of the Master in the National Collection. That picture was sold at Christie's 15 years ago. At the time he admired the picture very much; and, not being sufficiently in funds himself, he persuaded a friend of his—now no more—to become the purchaser. That gentleman—his name would be known to many in the House, the late Mr. Munroe—was at first unwilling to buy it; but eventually allowed himself to be persuaded to buy it for £300. Some years afterwards, upon the death of Mr. Munroe, that picture came again into the market, and was sold at the same auction rooms under similar conditions, and then it was bought for the nation at the price of £3,455. Now, he wanted to know, why did not the Director of the National Gallery attend at the first sale and buy the picture, thus saving over £3,000 to the nation? He could name several other similar instances. And in the administration of the National Gallery he would submit that the Trustees of the Gallery had not sufficient power—they were, to all intents and purposes, absolute dummies. They could give an opinion, and that was all; all power was vested in the Director, and the Trustees could not control him at all. There was also in his Notice a reference to the glazing of the pictures in the Gallery; but at that time in the morning he must pass that by, owing to the position in which the Committee found themselves. In November last the House was engaged in discussing New Rules, projected, they were told, so that Members could resort to their original right and power of criticizing the Estimates; but, like too many things said in the same quarter, "they kept the word of promise to the ear to break it to the hope." In reference to the glazing, he would only say that a great portion of the pictures were nothing more than looking-glasses; it was impossible to examine them, even in summer time. It was quite a moot point whether the glazing was right or wrong, some experts said the glass was injurious. But, in any case, he saw no reason why, in the summer months, the glass should not be removed, in order that the public might then have a chance of seeing the works. He did not know whether the hon. Member for South-East Lancashire (Mr. Agnew) was in the House; he was in hope that he would have given the Committee the benefit of his experience on the point; but, doubtless, he was tired out with the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government and had gone to bed, and he did not blame him for it. He should content himself with moving the reduction of the Vote by £150, the travelling expenses of the Director of the Gallery.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £8,380, 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 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery."—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he did not know exactly who was present to defend the National Gallery, or who was going to give the Committee an essay on Art. He presumed it was the Secretary to the Treasury; if so, he would ask him to explain who it was decided on the purchases of pictures? Was it the Trustees, or was it the Director of the National Gallery? He presumed it was the latter. That gentleman, he had no doubt, was a very able man in his way; but he did not think he was quite fitted for the performance of this function. He seemed to have shown himself greatly mistaken. The National Gallery ought to contain examples of our best English artists; but where, for instance, was the work of Frederick Walker? Happening to be in the Gallery the other day, he found there was no picture of this painter's there; but he found there was a free indulgence of the "fad" for early Italian painters. The Secretary to the Treasury was, no doubt, aware that there were fine specimens of Andrea Mantegna at Hampton Court; but what happened at the Duke of Hamilton's sale? An Andrea Mantegna was bought, a small and comparatively worthless one; it was forgotten, he presumed, that they had a large collection of Andrea Mantegnas at Hampton Court. Then at the Duke of Marlborough's sale another Andrea Mantegna was bought for £2,500, and he was given to understand there were grave doubts as to whether it was an Andrea Mantegna or not; but, whether it was or not, the nation had enough of these before; and why on earth should the nation be forced to buy one at the Hamilton sale, and then another which might be genuine or not, probably was not; but in any case it was a poor specimen, and give 2,000 guineas for it? He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury, who understood Art, as he did every other question, to give his opinion as to the merits of the Director of the National Gallery in regard to the purchase of pictures, whether he approved of the selections, or whether he did not agree that it was desirable there should be some sort of authority to decide what should or should not be bought? Without such control the whole of the money that could possibly be so used would be expended in the purchase of early Italian pictures, simply because the Director had a "fad" for it.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the purchases of pictures were made by the Trustees. The Director, no doubt, constantly advised them, and his advice and judgment were valuable; but it rested with the Trustees to make the purchase, the Trustees taking a personal interest in the matter, and examining the pictures before the purchase. With regard to what the hon. Member said as to the preponderance of Andrea Mantegna's, he could only say it was obvious that the Government having appointed certain Trustees to make the purchases for the National Gallery, must have confidence in them, and accept their advice. As to the travelling expenses and other points raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), it was to be observed that this was a very small Vote, covering the expenses of only one journey a-year by the Director to the Continent, and very different to the Vote allowed for a travelling agent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave an interesting personal recollection in reference to a picture which the Gallery failed to purchase, and which Mr. Munroe secured 15 years ago. Well, he could not explain why it was not done 15 years ago; it was to be regretted, of course, that the picture was not bought when it would have cost a much smaller sum than the nation eventually gave for it; but the moral attaching to it was the request that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should use his influence with the Trustees when again he saw anything of the kind in the market to save a repetition of the error. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the expenses for glazing. He was told, as a matter of fact, that the unglazed pictures were much injured; that the glass was a nuisance, and interfered with a proper view, there could be no doubt; but pictures suffered great damage without it. But, however, this was a point he would not argue now.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the Committee ought to know, at such an hour of the morning as had now been reached (3 o'clock), how much longer they were to go on. It was nothing but a perfect scandal to go on in this way; and if they were to go on with Bills after Supply, he would move that Progress be reported.

MR. COURTNEY

said, there was really no discussion upon this Vote. He hoped the Committee would allow it to be taken.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, his observation related to the Business to be taken afterwards. If any other Business was to be taken, Progress ought to be reported now.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

said, the Government were quite wrong in what they had said. The Trustees of the National Gallery had no power at all; the whole power resided in the Director of the National Gallery. If the hon. Gentleman would make inquiries of any of the Trustees, he would find that that was so. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had had some experience in these matters, and he knew perfectly well that the Director was the sole person who had the power of deciding. But he did not want to go into the controversy about the glazing, further than to say that he stuck to his point; and he would refer the hon. Gentleman to some of the very best experts in London, who would agree with him (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). It was absolutely scandalous that the Committee should vote away these large sums of money without any power on the part of hon. Members to criticize the Estimates. He should have been glad to have pointed out how much money had been wasted by buying questionable pictures which ought not to appear in the National Gallery at all; but there was really no time for it. The principle he had always maintained was that their National Gallery ought to have no pictures except well-authenticated works of the highest class; but instead of these, whenever there was a sensational sale, like the Hamilton sale, the Director rushed in and bought pictures, some of which had afterwards to be re-christened. No less than five pictures bought under certain names had had to be re-christened, and now had to make their appearance in the catalogue of the National Gallery under different names, or under no names at all. However, he would say no more—he could only protest against the Vote being taken at a time when there was no real opportunity to discuss it.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(8.) £1,277, to complete the sum for the National Portrait Gallery.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Sir R. Assheton Cross,)—put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.