§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam) in the Chair.]
§ Question again proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works under any Act of the present session for the acquisition of certain land near the National Gallery in London, and for other purposes connected therewith."—(Mr. Akers Douglas.)
§ MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.)objected to the passage of the resolution on the ground that there were in the South Kensington Museum a number of Irish gold ornaments, which the Irish Members had on many occasions appealed to the Government to have removed to Dublin.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANOrder, order! The Bill is for the acquisition of certain land for the protection of the National Gallery in London. On that the hon. Member cannot discuss the question of the Irish gold ornaments.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYthought Irishmen had reason to complain that again and again motions of this kind were made with reference to the National Gallery in London, while nothing whatever was done in regard to the National Gallery in Ireland. Seventeen or eighteen years had elapsed since complaint was made 1235 of the purchase of a Murillo for £80,000 or £90,000, and a promise was given that the Vote for the Irish National Gallery should be increased, but although during that period enormous sums had been spent on art in this country, not a single sixpence had been so expended for the benefit of Ireland. The eyes of Londoners had been fixed solely on some metropolitan collection, and no thought whatever was taken for the advancement of art in the sister isle. When the Committee were asked to agree to such grants as that now proposed, it was only reasonable that Irish representatives should press for an equivalent grant to Ireland. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman had not said a word in explanation of the proposal. It seemed to be supposed that they knew all about the English National Gallery and the purposes for which this land was required, but he should certainly refuse to vote a single penny until some explanation was given.
§ THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,) Kent, St. Augustine'sI certainly did not intend to be rude to any hon. Member by not rising; in fact, I did rise, but I gave way to the hon. Member opposite. I fully explained the object of this resolution when the Bill came up for Second Reading. We propose to acquire, I think it is four buildings in Pall Mall and immediately behind, in order to secure the complete isolation of the National Gallery on the western side to protect it from fire. The Bill was introduced in pursuance of a promise that I made last year, when a fire occurred in a neighbouring building. We ask the House to give us compulsory powers for use if we cannot get the property voluntarily. The motion before the House is simply to authorise us to pay certain moneys for this purpose to be voted by Parliament hereafter.
§ MR. FIELDasked the right hon. Gentleman to inform the House how much money was going to be expended under this Bill. He thought that last year they voted an enormous sum of money for the National Gallery in this country, and he happened to know something about the Irish National 1236 Gallery, which was being almost starved out of existence. He thought that when they were asked to pass a Bill of this kind they were entitled to know how much money they were going to expend, and if hon. Members from Ireland allowed this money to be voted, they ought to have a promise that Ireland would get a quid pro quo.
§ MR. AKERS DOUGLASI have already pointed out to the hon. Member that I do not think it is desirable that I should be pressed to state the exact amount. [Nationalist cries of "Oh, oh," and an HON. MEMBER: This is the confidence trick.] I think it would be very unwise to do so.—[Cries of "Why?"]—because the matter is under arbitration at the present moment, and if I were to state the amount the price might be raised and the cost to the taxpayers increased. Of course, if this is insisted upon I will give the amount. [Ministerial cries of "No, no."]
§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)I am also very much interested in the National Gallery of Ireland, but the hon. and learned Member for North Louth has apparently forgotten that the Irish National Gallery is already an isolated building.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThere is nothing, worth burning in it.
§ LORD BALCARRESI differ from the hon. and learned Member. On the contrary, I think that the National Gallery of Ireland, which was formed by a great expert, the late Mr. Doyle, is one of the most interesting collections of pictures in the smaller capitals of Europe. The sum of over £20,000 has already been guaranteed by the Government towards the extension of the National Gallery of Ireland. The Government voted £10,000 last year for its extension, £9,000 for the same purpose is on the Estimates this year, and a further £3,000 is promised next year. I should have thought these facts were known to the hon. Member for North Louth.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)The noble Lord who has just sat down forgets that 1237 when this new thoroughfare was being made from Charing Cross to the northern portion of London that that was the time at which the Government ought to have done what they now propose to do.
§ LORD BALCARRESThis Bill is to deal with land in Trafalgar Square, nowhere near to the Charing Cross Road.
§ MR. FLYNNMy point is that it was not until there was considerable disturbance and alarm at South Kensington that the National Gallery authorities realised the defenceless position of the National Gallery. Then the owners of the adjacent land and property became aware that their property possessed an enhanced value. The whole thing could have been done when the county council were undertaking the widening of the road. The Government are doing this thing in the worst possible way, for they only realised that the National Gallery was in danger after this fact had obtained publicity, and after letters had appeared in The Times upon the subject, The value of the adjacent property has gone up enormously, because it is known that the Government will have to buy it. If the Minister in charge of this Bill will get up and explain exactly what the money is required for, a good deal of time will be saved, and the progress of the Bill will be facilitated. I think that the Government have shown a deplorable want of business tact in this matter.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, through no fault of their own, several hon. Members had fallen into an error with regard to the object of this Bill. The hon. Member who had just sat down did not appear to know that the widening of Charing Cross Road was carried out by the Metropolitan Board of Works at least twelve years ago, and it did not affect the side of the National Gallery dealt with by this proposal, because Charing Cross Road was on the north-east side. The reasons for bringing in this Bill were not due to any discovery which had been made by the South Kensington Committee, upon which he sat for nearly two years. It might interest Irish Members to know that the noble Lord opposite and himself had associated themselves with the claim 1238 of Irish Members that greater importance should be attached to the National Gallery in Dublin, and that a larger share of Imperial funds should be given to that particular part of the British Empire. The Bill had nothing to do with the transfer of the Irish gold ornaments from the British Museum to the National Gallery in Dublin. On the proper occasion he should not be indisposed to support the view that those ornaments should be so transferred, but the question was not now before the Committee. It would be a regrettable thing indeed if a fire did occur at the National Gallery, and probably in such an event Ireland would be the poorer by the number of pictures destroyed. The Government, as the custodians of the National Gallery, now came forward and declared that the existing conditions should continue no longer, but that the Gallery must be put in a state of "splendid isolation." It was proposed to run a 40-foot road from the north side of Trafalgar Square into St. Martin's Street. That would give complete isolation on that side, and allow the fire brigade free access from all points of the compass in case of an outbreak of fire. But better than fire extinction was fire prevention, and that would be achieved more effectually by this road running all round. He appealed to Irish Members not to delay the passage of the Bill. Many English Members were sympathetically inclined towards the contention of the Irish Members with regard to the gold ornaments, and were disposed to take the view that Ireland had been sadly neglected in regard to its museum and art gallery. On the proper occasion they would be willing to assist Irish Members in remedying that neglect, but any action in that direction would not be encouraged by such a reasonable project as that contained in this Bill being opposed. He believed the National Gallery to contain the finest collection of pictures in the world. He had visited nearly all the art galleries on the Continent of Europe, and, though some might have more masterpieces of certain schools, the National Gallery, taking it as a universal collection of art of all schools and countries, contained less rubbish than any similar gallery in the world. 1239 He hoped that some day certain of the best masterpieces would be sent on loan more frequently to other parts of the United Kingdom. The worst way to encourage lovers of art in Ireland or in England was to prevent this Bill from passing, or to subject, even for another twenty-four hours, the National Gallery to danger from fire.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsaid much had been made of the fact that last year Ireland got £10,000, and that this year she was to get another £10,000. But it was eighteen years since £90,000 was paid for a single picture on the distinct pledge that it should be shown round the three Kingdoms, and in that time the picture had not so much as crossed Trafalgar Square. In the Estimates of this year something like £200,000 was provided for art in England, Ireland receiving only £2,400, and Scotland £1,000 more. It was all very fine to say that the danger of fire from adjoining premises had suddenly been discovered. The National Gallery in Dublin was next door to a public house, and there was a dressmaker's shop on the other side, but that did not affect the consciences of English Members. Demands had been made for the last twenty years for an additional sum to be spent for the safety of the Irish art gallery and the purchase of a few more pictures, but those demands had been refused with contumely. He was a Philistine. He took no interest in London or in England. His interests were connected solely with his own country. He had no love for France, or Russia, or Germany, or the Philippine Islands. The Committee were told they must not press the inquiry as to the amount to be spent in this matter, as it would send up the price of the property. It would do nothing of the kind. The Bill was to put the Land Clauses Act into operation, and under that Act the matter would be settled by arbitration, and to say that an answer to that question would settle the standard of the award was absolutely absurd. The Irish Members were the representatives of the Irish taxpayers, and they had a right to know of how much the English were going to rob them over this matter. The hon. Member for Battersea had appealed to 1240 them on the ground of art. He personally had no art side. Ireland had no room for art; she was too poor. Potatoes and salt were her highest ideal, and she could manage to get along without a Murillo. But when she was asked to pay towards art for the English people she was entitled to ask for something in exchange.
§ MR. O'MARAsaid that, like the hon. Member for Battersea, he had visited many of the art galleries in Europe, and the conclusion he had come to was that the pictures on the walls of the National Gallery were a lot of rubbish. They were now asked to spend Imperial money to safeguard this collection at the National Gallery. He objected to spending Imperial money to which Ireland contributed for any particluar English purpose. He did not see what advantage his constituency would derive from the expenditure of this money, and Ireland had a right to benefit in some way by the expenditure of money for Imperial purposes authorised by this House. But even if those buildings were bought and an open space was made all round the National Gallery it would not do away with the risk of fire. He thought that the excellent fire brigades which London possessed were quite sufficient to safeguard the National Gallery from any risk of destruction by fire. This money authorised by the Bill before the House was to be spent to acquire land and buildings compulsorily. When the Irish Members asked for a compulsory Bill to acquire land in Ireland, those who sat on the Treasury Bench held up their hands with horror, and called it confiscation and interference with the rights of private property. He submitted that the compulsory buying of land in London was a dishonest means of acquiring the property of other people, and depriving shopkeepers of their means of livelihood. He was glad to hear from the noble Lord that £20,000 had been spent on the Irish National Gallery. The hon. Member for Battersea had asked them not to oppose this Bill, but he wished to know what benefit Ireland was going to get out of it. If a portion of the money they were voting was going to be spent in Ireland, then they would get some benefit from it 1241 It had been said that the people in Ireland had not got artistic souls—
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANOrder, order! The hon. Member must confine himself to the question of the acquisition of land in London.
§ MR. O'MARAsaid he would not proceed any further with that point, although other hon. Members had been permitted to discuss it.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)The debate has been allowed to go on for quite an hour on general lines.
§ MR. TULLYsaid he should support his hon. friend who had opposed this Bill. They had been asked to vote a large sum of money in the dark without any data being furnished to them. This was not the time to vote large sums of money for fads of this description. The Government were continually borrowing money for the war, and this was certainly not the time to vote large sums of money in order to gratify some nonsensical ideas about the National Gallery. The hon. Member for Battersea was rather menacing in his tone towards Irish Members if they dared to criticise this Vote. The hon. Member for Battersea was very glad to have Irish votes, and he did not know what some English Members would do without the votes of Irishmen. The hon. Member for Battersea said that the National Gallery was one of the finest art galleries in the world, and that, although he had seen most of the European art galleries, he had never seen anything to equal the National Gallery in London. He wondered if the hon. Member had ever been in the National Gallery in Amsterdam. It was said that the snail always thought that its own snail box was the grandest in the world, but he was not going to vote any money for this huge snail box in Trafalgar Square. The noble Lord opposite was a great authority on these matters, and he had told them that Ireland was to get £20,000 for the extension of the Irish National Gallery. He wished to point out that for the British Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, and the Wallace Collection Parliament voted something like £196,500 1242 per annum, while the paltry sum of £2,486 was the amount voted for the Irish National Gallery. There was no proportion whatever between these sums, and Ireland was not treated fairly in this matter. How was it that this danger of fire from adjoining premises had remained undiscovered until now? The time to have come forward with a proposal of this kind was when Charing Cross Road and Shaftesbury Avenue were being constructed. As to the compulsory purchase of land, he did not object to the principle, whether in England or in Ireland.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANThe hon. Member will have an opportunity of discussing the clauses of the Bill later on.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANI have allowed the hon. Member a considerable amount of latitude. This is merely a resolution empowering the Committee of the Whole House to put certain financial provisions into a Bill which is not now being discussed. I cannot allow the hon. Member to pursue that line of argument any further.
§ MR. TULLYcontended that no justification had been given for bringing forward such a proposal at the present time. The present state of affairs had been good enough for twenty years, and it might very well have been allowed to continue until the war in South Africa had been brought to a conclusion.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid it was to be regretted that the hon. Member for Battersea had concluded his speech with something in the nature of a threat to the Irish Members. The hon. Member had stated that if the Irish Members of posed this Bill, it might influence him and other English Members in the amount of support they would give to the endeavour to obtain justice to Ireland in regard to the gold ornaments.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSexplained that what he said was, that it might deter a number of Members who were sympathetic towards the Dublin Gallery from taking the course they otherwise would take.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDthought he had not done the hon. Member any injustice. He regretted the nature of that portion of the hon. Member's remarks all the more because he agreed to a large extent with the remainder of his speech. No man who considered the matter impartially could blame the Irish Members for calling attention in the most marked way possible to the fact that while large sums were constantly being paid for art purposes in London, very small sums were voted for similar purposes in Ireland. In the matter of art, Ireland had not in the past received as much as she ought from the Imperial Exchequer. Holding that view very strongly, he thought his hon. friends were perfectly justified in raising and pressing the question as they had done. For himself, however, he did not intend to vote against the resolution. He did not agree with the view that Ireland had no concern in art. It was true that she was a poor country, that her art had been stunted and starved, but he took the view that the Irish people were essentially an artistic people, and that their country was interested in the preservation of art, and of great examples of art, not only in England, but in every country in the world. He did not believe it would be in accordance with the general sentiments of the Irish people to take any course which would militate against the preservation of works of art in the National Gallery in London. As an Irishman he should be sorry to give any vote which might be construed into an attempt to prolong a state of things in which that collection of art was endangered or threatened by fire. He, therefore, did not propose to vote against the resolution, and, if he might be allowed to express an opinion, he thought the protest which had been made against the small sums given for purposes of art in Ireland would have its effect, and that that effect would not be enhanced by taking a division on the subject.
§ MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid a plain question had been put to the right hon. Gentleman as to the amount of expenditure involved in this proposal, and he had expressed his willingness to give the information if pressed. On the occasion of the Public Offices (Sites) Bill the Irish Members opposed the passage of the measure. The estimate in that case was only about £300,000, but he now understood that that piece of legislation had cost nearer £5,000,000. In the face of that circumstance, he thought it would be a great mistake on the part of the Committee to pass the present resolution without some definite statement on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill proposed to acquire this land, the price of which was to be settled by arbitration, and therefore, he did not think any harm would be done by giving the House some idea as to the cost. He agreed with his hon. friend the Member for South Kilkenny that they were providing no security against fire by removing those buildings. If they were to place a green field all round the National Gallery they would be liable to have a fire inside the gallery just the same. This was not a time to place additional burdens upon Ireland, more especially when Ireland got no extra contribution herself. The noble Lord opposite had stated that quite recently a sum of £20,000 had been voted for the National Gallery in Dublin. He did not think they would get a guarantee of fair treatment unless some responsible official of the Government gave them some promise of equivalent treatment to Ireland. He was disposed to divide against this Bill as a protest against passing legislation in the dark.
§ MR. O'MARAsaid they were not in the humour to be treated with contempt by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. His hon. friend had asked what was the amount of money which they were going to vote. They were being asked to vote an indefinite sum for a purpose in which they had no interest. Unless they were told the amount he should move that they report progress. He did not agree with the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. He agreed with him that the Irish were an artistic people, but he thought that the 1245 place for the Irish people to gratify their artistic instincts was in the Art Gallery at Dublin, and not in London. He could not see his way to vote for this money, and if the matter went to a division he should vote against it. He trusted that the First Commissioner of Works would see his way to state what was the probable amount which would be spent in purchasing this land.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYWe are subject in Ireland to the scandal that we have to maintain our Art Gallery by a system of annual bazaars, to which we are asked to take tickets at 5s. each. We have to maintain the Irish National Gallery in this way, whereas in England you vote tens of thousands of pounds for this purpose without giving us anything in the nature of an equivalent grant. I do not want to criticise what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. We have been denied the opportunity of discussing this matter in Supply, and therefore we have been obliged to take this opportunity of bringing the matter forward. We have failed to get the least consideration of our demands in regard to Ireland, and I am surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not thought it worth his while to come down to the House while this matter is under discussion. I think this is a fair opportunity of bringing this matter forward. Upon former occasions the Minister in charge has always been willing to state what is the exact amount of the money to be voted. I have in this House been voting money for the benefit of English art for the last twenty years, and I must confess that I can see no
§ improvement at all either in the art or in the manners of the British people. I think under these circumstances that we are quite justified in asking what advantage we shall get for voting these large sums of money. If you were French or Italian people who had shone in these matters you might reasonably appeal to us. I do not think that any case has been made out for the present Vote, and if the Government insist upon putting this matter forward, let them state the amount, and then we can move to reduce it by the extent to which Ireland is affected. I have looked over the Estimates, and I have failed to find the £10,000 which my noble friend opposite says is to be voted to the Irish National Gallery this year.
§ LORD BALCARRESIt comes under the building grants.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYthought they were entitled upon an occasion like this to the information they were asking for. They said that London was a great Imperial centre, that they must have their dockyards in England, and their cordite from Birmingham. Therefore, when they were dealing with art he thought they were entitled to say they ought to be more Catholic and less Protestant in their action towards Ireland, and give them a sum fairly proportionate to the amount you expend in England.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 170; Noes, 6. (Division List No. 348.)
1247| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood,CaptSir.Alex.F. | Bond, Edward | Condon, Thomas Joseph |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Brassey, Albert | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Brigg, John | Cranbourne, Viscount |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) | Crossley, Sir Savile |
| Ark wright, John Stanhope | Bullard, Sir Harry | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Arnold Forster, Hugh O. | Burns, John | Dalrymple, Sir Charles |
| Asher, Alexander | Butcher, John George | Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Caldwell, James | Dickson, Charles Scott |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Dorington, Sir John Edward |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Duffy, William J. |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.) | Duke, Henry Edward |
| Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds | Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Charrington, Spencer | Edwards, Frank |
| Bignold, Arthur | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Elibank, Master of |
| Boland, John | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Evans Samuel T. (Glamorgan) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) | Purvis, Robert |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Lawson, John Grant | Randles, John S. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Finch, George H. | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Ridley,S.Forde(Bethnal Green) |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Rigg, Richard |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. | Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Bristol, S. | Russell, T. W. |
| Gardner, Ernest | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Lucas Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn | Lundon, W. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Smith,JamesParker(Lanarks.) |
| Gore,HnG.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop | Macdona, John Cumming | Smith,Hon.W.F.D.(Strand) |
| Gore,Hon.S.F.Ormsby-(Linc.) | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Spear, John Ward |
| Goschen, Hon George Joachim | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Stanley, Hn. Arthur Ormskirk |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) | M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W | Stroyan, John |
| Gretton, John | Majendie, James A. H. | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Guthrie, Walter Murray | Malcolm, Ian | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Hamilton,RtHnLordG(Midd'x | Manners, Lord Cecil | Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.) |
| Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry | Maxwell, WJH. (Dumfriesshire | Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr |
| Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robe rt Wm | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Valentia, Viscount |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Hay, Hon. Claude George | Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow | Wason,JohnCathcart(Orkney) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh) | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | Morrell, George Herbert | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F. | Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne |
| Heath, James(Staffords.,N.W | Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport) | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Hope, J. F.(Sheffild Brightside | Mount, William Arthur | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Hoult, Joseph | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Wills, Sir Frederick |
| Howard, John (KentFaversh.) | Murray,RtHnA.Graham(Bute | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) |
| Johnston, Wm. (Belfast) | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) | Nicholson, William Graham | Wodehouse,Rt.Hon.E.R.(Bath |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,Mid | Wrightson, Sir Thomas |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Wyndham,Rt.Hon.George |
| Keswick, William | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | |
| Lambert, George | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Lambton, Hon. Frederick W. | O'Malley, William | |
| Lawrence, Joseph(Monmouth) | Pretyman, Ernest George | |
| NOES. | ||
| Clancy, John Joseph | Murphy, John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Tully and Mr. O'Mara. |
| Healy, Timothy Michael | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | |
| Kennedy, Patrick James | Sullivan, Donal |
§ Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all Expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works under any Act of the present session for the acquisition of certain land, near the National Gallery in London, and for other purposes connected therewith.
§ Resolution to be reported to-morrow.