OBSERVATIONS.

HC Deb 04 May 1888 vol 325 cc1404-20

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, the subject he had to bring before the attention of the House was not one of an exciting nature, but of very considerable importance—namely, the desirability of circulating in towns and large centres of population those specimens of art, science, and industry, which were considered essential to the improvement of technical education, and the advancement of the workmanship of the artizans of the country. He hoped it would not be thought that he wished in any way to question the amount of work done, or to reduce the amount of money spent by the country on this very important subject. He believed we did quite as little as we could do; but the point of his remarks would be to endeavour to show that though the money voted by the House had greatly developed and very largely increased, we were not doing as much as we might do, and that we had not greatly increased the facilities given to artizans in closely populated districts for the study of works of science and art. He need not dwell on the importance of museums. The country voted several hundred thousands a-year for the purpose of museums, not only in London, but in Dublin, Edinburgh, and different parts of the Kingdom, which showed that the House of Commons and the public at large were fully aware of the importance of exhibiting to the masses of the people those specimens of art, workmanship, and industry, which so much tended to improve their trade and working capacities as artizans. Some people supposed that this was only needed in the interest of art; but it was not only necessary to promote industries which were essentially connected with art but also the various other industries carried on in the community. The necessity for the circulation of works of art and industry applied to almost every trade with which the country was connected. Those interested in the question desired that the artizans of this great Empire should enjoy at least as great facilities as the artizans of other nations of the world; and there was no trade, industry, or mechanical branch existing where the artizan would not be benefited and improved by being enabled to visit and see for himself the various specimens of different sorts of manufactures, which showed the development of his particular trade, industry, or handicraft, and enabled him to compare his own work with that of others who had excelled in his and kindred branches of manufacture. It was well understood that examples were important to engravers and designers of wall papers, painted glass, &c. But their importance was not confined to art work. They were equally important to the engineer, furniture maker, worker in metal, builder, textile fabric maker, chemist, and dye maker—in fact, to the artizan of every industry of the country it would be of advantage to secure that he should be able to visit and study the typical examples of his particular trade. But the real problem was how they could best place these specimens before the working classes of the country—how they could use them to the greatest advantage, and so secure that the largest amount of benefit might be received from them by the public. He wished to do away with the notion that some of his friends had—namely, that he desired to circulate those valuable works of art to small local museums which were irreplaceable. He did not intend that at all. He divided the art collections of the country into two classes—first, those unique works which were of great value, because they could not be replaced, they forming together one class; and, secondly, those which might fairly be devoted to the purpose in view—namely, many pictures, duplicates, triplicates, photographs of various works of art, specimens of manufactures and science, models, casts, reproductions, &c., which, if lost, were not irreplaceable, because they could be re-purchased or reproduced. He wished to be under- stood to mean that he did not in any way desire to circulate the first class—those articles which could not be replaced he thought ought not, except on special occasions, to leave our central museums, where students should go to see them. There might be some occasions on which those works might be exhibited elsewhere; but, as a general rule, they should never leave the national collections. But the other class to which he had referred—namely, duplicates and reproductions, were, no doubt, almost as valuable for students as the originals; and inasmuch as the artizans could not come up to London to see them, he thought it reasonable and proper that they should be sent into the Provinces for them to study. He went further, and said that it was essential that they should send these things about to a larger extent than at present, if they were to develop that technical education which hon. Members thought was so necessary for the future welfare of the country. Now, the idea of circulating art objects was a very old one. The first idea which occurred many years ago was that the art specimens should be sent about to the art schools in the country. In 1854 a Circular was issued by the Department of Science and Art, and signed by Sir Henry Cole and the present Member for South Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) to promote circulation, and to tend to the establishment of local museums. It was laid down that there should be admission to those museums on three nights a week at an entrance fee of not more than 1d. The first collection was sent out in February, 1855, and led to very considerable results. That was the beginning of the present system of sending out objects of art and industry, and from that beginning had come a great deal of good. He wished to dwell on three special features of the development of the system of circulation. First, he wished to show what was done 30 years ago by the authorities at South Kensington; secondly, he should endeavour to show what extra resources Parliament had during that period given to those authorities; and, lastly, what was being done now, and what might be done with the larger resources now at their disposal. To show what was done 30 years ago, the first refer- ence he should read was from Mr. W. Cowper, the Vice President of the Council. He said, in 1857— The circulation of works of art which, in two years, have been exhibited to 88,000 persons in the Provinces, adding greatly to their appreciation … has induced their Lord- ships to extend the benefits of the valuable Library of Art in a similar manner. An extra £500 was allowed, as also money to supply schools and museums with photographs of works of art. In 1858 the circulating collections went to 20 places, and were visited by 197,812 people in Birmingham, Nottingham, Macclesfield, Dublin, Clonmel, Glasgow, and other towns, although he could not find record of any having gone at that time to the suburbs of London. In the same year, Sir Charles Eastlake, at the National Gallery, urged that there should be a sort of out-of-town museum, where newly-painted pictures might be placed for some years, and then the best placed in the National Gallery, and he also suggested that a portion of the works might be lent to provincial museums. To show the extension of this system—in 1860, owing to the munificent gift of Mr. Sheepshanks, the South Kensington Museum was able to do a great deal more in circulating works of art. It was in consequence of that gift that they were able much more freely to circulate pictures, and special series which included engravings of the English school, wood engravings, wall decorations, painted glass, textile fabrics, pottery, glass, metal, furniture, water colours, oil paintings by ancient and modern masters, bronzes, reproductions, ivory, photographs, architectural drawings, &c. Thus, 30 years ago, the principle he was contending for was recognized, and he wished it to be borne in mind that it was so developed that, notwithstanding the comparatively small resources at South Kensington, they were able to send out collections to no less than 20 places. That was the first feature in this matter which he wished to bring before the House; and it was very important, because, if South Kensington was able to do all this 30 years ago, it would be seen, having regard to the extra grants since given, that the results at the present time were not proportionate to their increased re- sources. There had in the last 30 years been an enormous development throughout the country of the idea as to the importance of works and specimens of art and industry being circulated. There had been, owing to education, a hunger for these collections in all parts of the country; and in the densely populated districts generally there was a desire to share to some extent in the grants now made by Parliament for the Metropolis and other large towns. This matter was continually referred to in the Reports of the South Kensington Museum. The Science and Art Department, in 1861, reported that— Applications for the loan collections had been received from all parts of England in the present year. And, so important was the matter considered, that in 1864 a Select Committee of the House sat to inquire into it, under the Presidency of Sir Stafford Northcote, and he would read a short extract from their Report, as it bore upon the subject in hand. The Committee said— There can be no doubt that the fine collection at South Kensington is calculated to raise the taste of the country; or, at all events, of those persons who are able to visit it; but it is equally certain that it is only a small proportion of the provincial public which have the opportunity of doing so, and it appears that the arrangements made for circulating portions of the collections to the provincial towns are as yet far from perfection. The Report went on to say— Mr. Cole suggests some relaxation of the conditions under which works of art are sent to the provincial schools, which he thinks might induce the local committees to borrow more freely than at present. He also threw out some valuable suggestions as to the formation of local museums to be supplied in great part by a system of circulating some of the works of art belonging not only to South Kensington, but also to the National Gallery and the British Museum. These suggestions are well worthy of consideration. And, in consequence of that Report, it was resolved— That the collection of works of decorative art at South Kensington be made more generally useful than at present throughout the country, especially in connection with local museums. It would be seen that the great feature of that Report of the inquiry so ably conducted by the late Lord Iddesleigh was the extension of the system of circulation and lending out works of art to local museums in different parts of the country; there was no talk of extra grants, and it was taken for granted that the collection was sufficient to do a great deal more in the way of circulation than was being done at the time. The result of this was that in 1864 a Minute was passed by the South Kensington authorities in which it was resolved— That all works exhibited at South Kensington which can be lent and removed with safety are available for temporary exhibition to the public in local Schools of Art for short periods. Year after year they found the Report referring to the wants of the Provinces. In 1876 it said that— The demand from the Provinces is so great…. In 1880 collections were first sent to Corporations and free libraries, the circulation of which had up to that time been confined to Schools of Art; and in 1881, such was the pressure from the Provincial public, that the Report stated that South Kensington existed, not wholly, or even chiefly, as an institution for the exclusive advantage of visitors to London; but that it was in truth also a great national collection or storehouse formed and conducted for the benefit of the whole Kingdom.

He thought he had now shown his two points—first, what was done 30 years ago; and, secondly, that the country had been clamouring for a greater and greater share of the grants of Parliament during the last 30 years. Now, he could state briefly what had been done in the matter of Parliamentary grants in that period. And upon that subject he would have to go into some hard and dry facts of finance. What had been granted for the purchase of works of industry and specimens of science and art? Having gone through the Estimates, he thought he should not be far out in saying that in the last 30 years there had been granted for Works of Art, £316,000; Science Collections, £34,000; Aid to Local Museums, £8,400; Examples, £88,000; Reproductions of Works of Art, £57,000; Hire of Specimens, £9,200; Photographs, £20,000; Historical College of Painting, £15,000; Exchange of Works of Art, £5,500; Art Library, £63,000; and Catalogues, £38,000; making a total of something like £660,000 granted by Parliament dur- ing the last 30 years for specimens at South Kensington. In addition to that £32,000 had been granted for purchases of specimens for Jermyn Street, £50,000 for Edinburgh, and Dublin £47,000, or a total of £116,000; and, as far as he could make out, about £800,000 had been granted for similar purposes for the British Museum, and about £400,000 for the National Gallery. All those grants, in round figures, amounted to over £2,000,000 sterling for works of industry, science, and art. He wished to show that, having granted £600,000 to South Kensington alone, the public had a right—the provincial public had a right, and the suburban public of our great towns had a right—to a much larger proportion of this sum than they had at present. Supposing that of this £600,000 granted to South Kensington half was available for the purchase of those specimens of great value which it would be undesirable and improper to remove, there still remained £300,000 available for those specimens which could circulate from one part of the country to another, and he said that £300,000 would form a sufficient fund for a fine and complete system of circulating collections. But that was not all; because, as those who studied the Reports of the South Kensington authorities knew, in addition to the grants made by Parliament, they had received an enormous amount in gifts and bequests which, in themselves, formed a magnificent collection. In 1859 it was stated that the proposed purchases in the grant made by Parliament were only supplementary, the objects of these collections having been, for the most part, presented to the nation by the public. Among those gifts he might instance the following:—Sheepshanks' collection, numbering 522 objects; Ellison, 51; Brooke, 1,114; Duke, 1,314; Wollaston, 270; Ella, 326; Mrs. Plumley, 63; Townshend, 7,828; Dyce, 16,153; and Parsons, consisting of 139 objects. Those were some of the larger collections, leaving out of consideration the smaller ones, the list of which occupied many pages of close printing in the Reports for almost every year. He thought he had now shown clearly that 30 years ago the South Kensington Museum was able to circulate their collections to 20 places, and that their resources had since been added to, not only by an expenditure to the extent of £600,000, but also by gifts and bequests which amounted to almost the same value. He thought it quite clear that the amount of circulation now was not proportionate to the enormously increased resources which Parliament had placed at the disposal of the South Kensington authorities. What had been done by way of extra circulation with all these increased means? In the Report of 1886, it appeared that to 30 provincial museums, 26 temporary museums and science and art classes, there had been lent a total number of 26,164 specimens. This number of specimens, however, was not much greater than the number of gifts to the museum above referred to, to say nothing of the £600,000 granted by Parliament for the purpose of purchases on the understanding that the Provinces should have the benefit of them by the circulating collections. As they were told by the Vice President of the Council last year, in answer to a Question, that 26,000 specimens were circulated to 56 museums, he had taken the trouble to look into the matter, and see how long each collection remained in the country. He found that only four collections were lent for a year, seven for 11 months, six for 10 months, four for nine months, only one for eight months, and so downwards, till at last they had 23 collections circulated for one month only. But when they looked into the Report they found that the one month dwindled down, and a good many places had two collections a-month, and, in some eases, collections were lent for one or two days only. That was the case with regard to Brighton, which had a collection of 203 specimens lent for exhibition during three days in January. He was aware that a circulation of 26,000 specimens was referred to, and he said that they were the same specimens treated over and over again, like the army on the stage represented by the frequent reappearance of the same soldier. In the Report the number of days was distinctly shown during which these specimens remained at the places they were sent to, and hon. Members would see that the number of specimens calculated on these figures dwindled down to a very small number. He found, taking the whole of the exhibitions together, the average was 20 days each—that was to say, if two or three collections only were available, the South Kensington authorities would be able to do the whole of the work with those collections. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council would explain how it was announced that 26,000 specimens were circulated, while so many of them were only made use of for so short a period of time. He referred to the Blue Book to show that the same specimens were spoken of over and over again; that the maximum number of specimens sent out at one time was 9,351, and during all the rest of the year those not circulating must remain at South Kensington. If that were so, he thought it a very misleading statement to say that there was a circulation of 26,000 specimens. It would probably be said that the cost of these collections was very much greater then than it was 30 years ago. The 1886 Report stated that 30 collections, valued at £2,000 each, were issued. Taking that as correct, it amounted to £60,000 out of the £600,000 voted by Parliament for the purchase of specimens, and this the Report described as a "severe tax on its resources." He would now examine one or two details of expenditure. First, there was the photographic grant, which in 30 years amounted to £20,000. That was a very large sum, and some might say that it was excessive. But they had a statement of what the photographs cost, and at what price the Department was prepared to sell them to the public, and it was 2½d. per 25 square inches, or 1s. 3d. per square foot; if mounted, the cost would be, say, double, or 2s. 6d. a-foot. Working this out, it would be found that the £20,000 would supply a number of photographs sufficient for 80 collections at £250, and these would cover for a width of six feet a room 100 by 50 feet. He thought it was only fair to ask where were all those photographs; where had they been put to? They were good, although not quite so good as the works of art which they represented; they would be of immense use for the purpose of circulation. The House of Commons had granted in 30 years £60,000 to the South Kensington Museum for reproductions alone of works in metal and plaster. Now, £60,000 was a very large sum of money, and they knew that a very large collection of reproduced works could be obtained for £1,000. It was, therefore, sufficient to supply 60 such collections to different parts of the country; and for all practical purposes there was no doubt that reproductions of such things as he had referred to were as useful to the student as the originals. He maintained that this sum was sufficient to insure that the Museum should have in store a number of articles sufficient for these circulating collections.

He would also point out that there was always a cry at South Kensington that more space was wanted there; and it was true that the cases were so close together that some persons found it extremely difficult to squeeze between them. He was there a short time ago, and in one case he saw two Persian lamps practically identical, and at a few yards' distance, across the passage, there were three more lamps of the same kind. The furniture was crowded together, and he found three or four Chippendale chairs, side by side, identical with two others at a short distance. He asked why that should be, seeing that those specimens would be more valuable in small local museums in various parts of London where furniture, &c., was made, rather than huddled together at South Kensington. In one case there were two tables almost identical in pattern; in a second case, two, three, four, and five specimens of china all alike; and in a third case might be seen 18 similar knives, forks, and spoons. The specimens of earthenware were crowded together in such a manner that a visitor could scarcely see them. He found four duplicates on one shelf. All this showed that at South Kensington there was an immense amount of material which it was most desirable should be circulated, and it was these things which he desired to get into local museums. He knew that remarks would be perhaps made upon the subject; that he might be attacked personally, and be told that the objects were wanted to be circulated for political purposes. But all that he wanted was to have the specimens circulated—["Hear, hear!"]—and if the hon. Gentleman who cheered his last remark would only start another museum in his district he should be most pleased. He (Mr. Bartley) had estab- lished a museum in his district, and all that he wanted was to assist others to do the same. Seeing the immense educational value of placing such collections close to the homes of the workers themselves, they wanted the masses of the people to have the benefit of the collections as near their homes as possible. How was local effort and interest treated at South Kensington? In 1870 the Report stated that— As a matter of course, the extent to which large towns can advantageously use the privileges now available for the circulation of objects illustrative of science and art in its application to industry depends very much on the accommodation in each locality for the purposes of exhibition …. . Clearly the function of the Science and Art Department was to assist local efforts, and not to originate them. The future supply of means for promoting such education must depend rather upon the provincial wants and demands than upon any arrangement of a class in the centre from which such wants may be met. And, again, the Report in 1883 said— The advantages of the art collections are such that they can be extended to any part of the Kingdom where any real desire exists to participate in them. Those were nice words; but what were the facts of the case? In 1864 a deputation came from South London and North London to endeavour to get museums established in those districts where everyone agreed they were urgently wanted. The South Kensington Authorities said they were willing to aid; but now, 24 years afterwards, there was no museum in either of those two parts of London. The local effort had been smothered, and when application was now made it was always stated that there were no funds available. But he had shown that if South Kensington were only to keep half the specimens and only use half the Vote—that is, £300,000—for their own Museum proper they would still be able to supply 150 collections at £2,000 a-piece for circulation throughout the country; whereas they now had only 30 collections circulating, or one-fifth of the proper number. But he did not think that £2,000 was needed for every collection. His own collection cost about £1,000; and he thought if they had 100 at a cost of £500 each, 100 at a cost of £1,000, and 75 at £2,000, there would be 275 collections for £300,000, as against 30, which they now had for the same money. He saw no reason why the actual cost of circulating the objects should not be defrayed by the localities. He said that 275 collections would have done infinitely more good in promoting education than the small number on which the money had been expended. He ventured to criticize the action of the Department in spending £2,500 in purchasing five salt-cellars. As he thought two or three additional circulating collections would do much more practical good, this proposal would be a step of immense value for technical education.

With regard to the rules of circulation, it was not till 1880, owing to the agitation in Birmingham, that the rule was relaxed which now allowed the collections to be sent to Corporations. Why, he asked, were they to be confined to Corporations and free libraries? Perhaps, in the case of London, which had no Corporation, the rule would also be relaxed, and the County Council would be allowed to have the collections. They wanted in London at least 50 of those small collections. To have small museums close to their homes would be most beneficial in elevating the minds of the people, and be the best antidotes to drink and other evils. What they wanted was to have these small places of education, of recreation, and of industry within the easiest reach of the people. He believed that where these places were established they would be of enormous benefit to those who used them. Who stopped this great progress? It was not very difficult to say. He did not wish to say a word against a Department with which he was for so many years connected, and which had done more good for education, perhaps, than any other institution in the country. He believed they had been ahead, to a great extent, of the national wants; but he must candidly say that he was filled with disappointment that the Vice President (Sir William Hart Dyke), when he accepted his great Office, did not shake off the red-tape rules of officialism which governed his Department. He did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman considered himself a great Educational Minister; but he knew the right hon. Gentleman did consider himself a man of common sense—a man of keen sympathy with the wants of the people; and he (Mr. Bartley) thought the right hon. Gentleman would be the means of breaking down the red-tape officialism which existed at South Kensington. He was sorry to say, however, that up to the present they had not been able to induce the right hon. Gentleman to do that; but he (Mr. Bartley) hoped the result of this debate might tend in that direction. The rules of the Office were such that they did hamper the work to a great extent. He had urged that these collections should be lent freely, taking every precaution for their safety. He knew it would be said by some that he had an interested motive. It was always said, whatever one did, that one's motive was wrong; but if they were to be deterred from attempting to promote education, from attempting to promote local museums, not only in the Metropolis, but in the centres of industry and the large towns and villages, simply because the individual interested was of one political type or colour, it would be a bad thing for the country. This was an object for the attainment of which they ought all to combine, and he regretted there had been any Party spirit thrown into the matter by some hon. Members, because he happened to differ from them. If they would take charge of his own particular institution, he would be extremely happy to hand it over. He had shown conclusively that 30 years ago a step was made in the direction he suggested. What was wanted was that places of education and recreation, with specimens of art and industry exhibited at them, should be brought close to the homes of the people. It was no use telling the people of North London that they could go to South Kensington. They could not go to South Kensington in the evening after they had done their work. They could visit a small museum close to where they lived and study works of art and industry there, and if the collections were changed from time to time by a system of circulation immense educational benefits would follow. He thought he had shown that the Department had the means of making frequent changes in the specimens when exhibited. He trusted the view he took would be adopted, and although he knew that he could not carry his Motion to a Division he hoped the Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke) would give them some encouragement that he would frame such rules, and make such regulations, as would secure that the artizans resident in the large centres of industry might have the advantage of study, and the opportunity of comparing their works with the specimens of others. He hoped. that, in this matter, our country would not be handicapped as it had been, but that Parliament would offer to the people those advantages which other countries considered were essential to the welfare of the working populations.

THE. VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE) (Kent, Dartford)

said, he desired to express his thorough sympathy with his hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) and assured him that as long as he (Sir William Hart Dyke) was connected with his present Office he should always deem it his duty to extend the system to which his hon. Friend had referred, as far as that could be done, with due regard to efficiency and economy. His hon. Friend had traversed a large extent of country in the course of his remarks, and he did not think the House would expect him to pursue his hon. Friend through all his statements. He might observe, however, that he was at variance with his hon. Friend. in regard to the sum which he said had been expended in purchasing science and art specimens. The figure cited by his hon. Friend differed by about 50 per cent from that which he would presently state to the House. His hon. Friend seemed to forget that they must consider the parent as well as the welfare of the children. In other words, they must consider the primary object of the parent institution at South Kensington. His hon. Friend made it a great grievance that the Department in the time of Lord Spencer purchased some salt-cellars for a large sum of money. In point of fact, those saltcellars were specimens which were absolutely unique, and the purchase was made on the recommendation of some of the best and most responsible judges of art in this country. He maintained that within the last 30 years the system of circulating the objects at South Kensington had been developed to an extent to excite the envy of many large towns on the Continent, and to have been productive of enormous use in the instruction of the working classes. Now, what was the progress which had really been made in regard to the practice of circula- ting objects? The point which the House ought to consider was of a twofold character. First, were the present resources of South Kensington in regard to these specimens utilized to the fullest available extent; and, secondly, would it be safe to extend the rules and regulations now laid down for lending these specimens? The system at present adopted at South Kensington was as follows. They lent for a period of 12 months objects of science and art connected with manufactures, not only to museums under public authority, but also to temporary exhibitions when there was some guarantee that a museum would be ultimately established in consequence of those exhibitions. They also lent specimens for a shorter period of six months to schools of science and art. It had been urged by his hon. Friend that they should classify the specimens sent out, but he could conceive no alteration which would be more prejudicial than that. His hon. Friend suggested that minor objects should be lent out and the more expensive objects should be retained. To that he would say that if it once got abroad that we were only lending out second-class specimens there would be great irritation throughout the country. If specimens were to be supplied they should be the very best, and every effort should be made without distinction. With respect to the Metropolis, which his hon. Friend said had been badly treated, he would. say that South Kensington and the British Museum were practically in the centre of the Metropolis. The most urgent appeals had come to the Department from the large centres of industry and manufactures, and this he conceived to be the best proof of the success of the system. In Birmingham, for example, in 1887, there were 433 objects exhibited, and, the number of patents and drawings was 64, and these were opened to the public and inspected by 898,000 people. He contended that the system was a sound and proper one. The best specimens of each class of work were sent to the most important centre of the industry to which the work belonged, as ironwork to Birmingham, lace to Coventry and Nottingham, porcelain to Stoke-upon-Trent. In 1879 collections were sent only to seven permanent local museums, including Bethnal Green, and to 10 local exhibitions. In 1887 loans were made to 33 provincial museums besides Bethnal Green, and to 28 temporary exhibitions. These various museums were visited by no fewer than 4,900,000, exclusive of Dublin and Edinburgh; and in last year the total number of specimens lent for exhibition was 28,163 out of a total of 40,100. His figures did not tally with those of his hon. Friend as to the cost of these articles. During 30 years the total cost of art objects and reproductions was £370,000, whereas in last year alone the value circulated was £110,000, or more than a quarter of the total. He could be no party to relaxing the rules which at present regulated the loan of exhibits by the Department. There ought always to be someone on the spot to safeguard these treasures. He spoke feelingly on the subject, inasmuch as he had many years ago lent a collection of Sèvres china, which no money could replace, to the Alexandra Palace, of which only a heap of ashes remained after the great fire by which that building was destroyed. He fully realized that the loan of these objects of art was an enormous benefit to the people, and he would gladly do all in his power to carry out the system so far as it could safely and economically be carried out. Notwithstanding the criticism of his hon. Friend, he (Sir William Hart Dyke) ventured to urge that there had been an enormous advance, sure and gradual, as regarded dealing with the question which formed the subject of the Motion.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

said, he wished to answer the challenge which had been thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He had to charge the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) with having used the Science and Art Department at South Kensington for personal and electioneering purposes in his own constituency. He was prepared to substantiate that charge whenever he had an opportunity of doing so. In a book called "A Guide to Mr. and Mrs. Bartley's Institution and Social Works in North Islington," the name of the hon. Member occurred two or three times on every page. This was clone for the purpose of self-advertisement, and for the purpose of getting from the South Kensington Museum those works of art of which the hon. Member had just been speaking. If the Department were compelled to make the terms of lending its treasures more severe, he hoped gentlemen who so used the liberality of the Department to their own purposes would suffer thereby.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK (Whitehaven)

said, he was of opinion that no works of art ought to be allowed outside the Museum, except under the most stringent precautions. He believed no advantage to education would be gained by merely sending out specimens, and that was why he could not agree with that part of the Notice. He was of opinion that there ought to be exhibitions of this kind, where the working classes, and the professional classes as well, could take advantage of them. He could not agree with his hon. Friend (Mr. Bartley) that technical education would be promoted by his proposal. They had these Museums, containing specimens, and they turned a lot of people into them without any education at all. No doubt they appreciated the exhibitions, but they did not understand their meaning. Therefore, in his opinion, these collections were valueless on that ground. One thing he would like to see done, and that was the teaching of principles. lie advocated the employment of lecturers where these collections were displayed, so as to educate the people who inspected the works of art, as to the different objects, forms, and periods. If they could get lectures and information founded on principles they would do far more real good than by efforts at haphazard selections from Museums. They had a collection at South Kensington which was not surpassed by anything in the world, and, notwithstanding some mistakes made, he took that opportunity of bearing his testimony to the admirable manner in which the Museum had been formed and managed.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLY—Committee upon Monday next.