Lords Sitting of 12 March 1886

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Fermoy)* (32).
NEW PUBLIC OFFICES — THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTON, in rising to call the attention of the House to the new Public Offices, more especially to the proposed new National Portrait Gallery, said, that on a former occasion he had brought the subject to their Lordships' notice; and it now appeared that a decision had been arrived at to build on the site next the Horse Guards. The Government plan for the new Offices for the War Office and the Admiralty had been examined by the Royal Institute of British Architects, and they had pronounced in favour of an alternative scheme. The plan proposed by the Institute was one which would utilize the fine site at Charing Cross to the utmost, and would, moreover, constitute a great public improvement. The additional expense would only amount to £200,000, half of which would be paid by the Metropolitan Board of Works. He did not know whether a site for the National Portrait Gallery had been selected; but he believed it had not. By the adoption of the plan suggested by the Royal Institute of British Architects a good site would become available. He would earnestly ask the Government to reconsider the matter, and to make up their minds to a slightly-increased expenditure in order to provide public buildings really worthy of the country, as well as make suitable provision for the National Portrait Gallery.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that there were three important questions raised by his noble Friend—(1.) the general plan; (2.) the elevation of the proposed building; (3.) the position and action of Her Majesty's Office of Works. The question was one of considerable importance, particularly as regarded the ground plan of the new Offices and the elevation; and he contended that there should be an alteration in the ground plan. He was sure that if their Lordships
  602
  had a full opportunity of judging the comparative merits of the plan, and had before them a large map of the proposed new building, there would not be the slightest doubt as to which plan would be decided on—i.e., the plan of the Government or that of the Institute of British Architects—they would select the latter, both as regarded light, space, and many other matters. Even Mr. Shaw Lefevre, in a letter to The Times, speaking of the comparative merits of these plans, said that there could be no doubt that a more perfect scheme could be made for the new Offices with the addition suggested. His (Mr. Lofevre's) objection was to the increased cost; but that, it appeared to him (the Earl of Wemyss), was a secondary consideration, for they should remember that they were trustees for those who came after them; and if, with a view to a small saving of money, they wished to destroy one of the finest sites in London, they would incur a heavy responsibility to posterity, whereas the alternative plan would deal with the site to the greatest advantage. Not only was the ground plan suggested by the Institute much better than the original scheme, but public opinion had now pronounced, strongly against the elevation of the proposed buildings. The new elevation would be destructive to the appearance of the Horse Guards, and out of harmony with all its surroundings. The Office of Works had afforded no guidance whatever to the architect who designed the proposed new buildings as to what their character should be; and they did not appear to care whether that character was Gothic, Grecian, Roman, Japanese, or Chinese. It was essential that the new buildings should be in harmony with the older ones which surrounded them. The present Horse Guards made an admirable centre to the Whitehall side of the parade, and the buildings on either side of it ought to correspond in character; whereas, if the proposed plans were carried out, the buildings on one side of the square would be wholly out of character with the Horse Guards, which they would dwarf and destroy. He regretted that the recommendations had not been carried out of a Royal Commission on which he had sat, to the effect that there should be a permanent Council to assist I the political First Commissioner of

  603
  Works, so that there should be a continuity of policy and of idea in dealing with our public buildings. Sir Henry Layard had felt that want so strongly that he had appointed the late distinguished artist, Mr. Ferguson, Consulting Architect to the Department of Works. But he and Sir Henry Layard ended by resigning their appointments, as Sir Henry Layard, not being in the Cabinet, found himself powerless for good. Now they were dependent wholly upon the taste and fancies of the First Commissioner, and one generally undid or upset the plans of his Predecessor. Then, when designs were required for the Natural History Museum, a Commission, of which he was a Member, decided in favour of the design of the late Captain Fowke, and this design would have been adopted had the then Liberal First Commissioner of Works remained in Office; but before the building was begun he was succeeded by Lord John Manners, who, being of a Gothic turn of mind in architecture, threw over the Fowke plan, and appointed Mr. Water-house to make a Gothic design, which, greatly cut down by Lord John Manners' Successor, Mr. Ayrton, who boasted that he knew nothing about these things, was now the Natural History Museum. Again, a Royal Commission, of which also he (the Earl of Wemyss) was a Member, recommended that the present National Gallery should be handed over to the Royal Academy, and that National Collection of pictures should be transferred to Burlington House. This would have given ample accommodation to the National pictures, as galleries could have been built in the garden at the back of Burlington House as required. Now, there was great difficulty in finding space for our pictures, and it was not known where to house and exhibit the noble gift of his works which Mr. Watts was about to present to the nation. Lord Mount-Temple, when First Commissioner, adopted the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and proposed a Vote in Parliament, which his political rival, Lord John Manners, succeeded in inducing the House to reject. It was the same system which had removed the Wellington Arch to the side of a hill; and we had now presented to us the ludicrous sight of a triumphal arch erected on the side of a hill, with one long leg and one short leg, a thing quite unique in architecture, for
  604
  which they were indebted to Mr. Shaw Lefevre. He hoped that the whole matter would be reconsidered.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, the noble Lord (Lord Lamington) who has brought the subject forward deserves support from all who view it with anxiety. Since it came last before the House, the Institute of Architects have sent their deputation to the Government; Mr. Shaw Lefevre has endeavoured to reply to them; further correspondence has appeared this morning from the President and Secretary of the Institute calculated to impress on all who see it the error of the scheme involved in what is called the Public Offices Site Act. I only wish to-night to advert to a single ground on which the Government may be induced to pause before they carry out the measure. I have no reason to assume that the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) who has consented to preside over the Board of Works is anxious to precipitate it. The ground I wish to mention is the striking multiplicity of projects which ought to be collated before a final step is taken. You have the project of the deputation by which Drummond's Bank would be removed, a larger site obtained, and St. James's Park encroached upon more widely, a thoroughfare from thence into Trafalgar Square being ultimately contemplated. You have the plan of building on the Great George Street site, which the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale) has repeatedly defended, and which, at a humble distance, I no less thoroughly adhere to. But something else might be considered. It would be easy, instead of effacing Spring Gardens altogether, to rebuild the houses on a larger scale and with a higher elevation. In that way, in a year or two, without the hazard, or the outlay, or the time which a great enterprize demands, you might nearly double the accommodation they give to offices at present. Those upon the northern side might be thrown further back over the garden they look out upon; and those upon the southern side over the mews which they command. Under these circumstances, the Board of Works and the Treasury, with whom the question lies, should act upon the well-known principle, "Siste in dubiis." As to the War Office, I have already pointed out that if the demolition is

  605
  arrested its wants may be supplied to a great extent, although not to the full extent that we should wish for. As to a new Admiralty, the public would thank you more for a new Navy. They are more inclined to spend on ships than on the palatial residence of those who organize and guide them. What the Government might do with every advantage is to exhibit detailed plans of all the rival schemes during a twelvemonth, and thus allow opinion to mature as to the course to be selected. The scheme of Mr. Shaw Lefevre has no defence but the economy it claims, and which is far from being admitted. But as to economy, I cannot but repeat what has fallen from my noble Friend (the Earl of Wemyss) on the Cross Benches. When new Public Offices are in question it is not at all the first consideration. If you are bent upon economy there is no necessity for having them. If you desire to save money, not to have them is the easy mode of saving it. You are only justified in spending in order to increase, and not in order to reduce, the splendour of the Capital in future generations.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, that he mainly agreed with his noble Friend who spoke second in the debate; and with regard to what had fallen from the noble Lord who had just sat down, he would reply that it had been decided by Parliament, considering the wants of the Army and the Navy, that no further delay was desirable in the erection of a suitable building for the accommodation of both Services. He agreed in the opinion which had been expressed as to the alternative scheme of the Institute of British Architects. The original mistake made was that a larger area had not been taken. There was a time when the owners of Drummond's Bank might have been negotiated with; but nothing at the time was done. Drummonds said they were willing to wait two or three years until a decision was arrived at; but, no decision having been come to, they were in danger of marring the plan. If Mr. Shaw Lefevre's plan was adopted they would have a lofty pile of buildings erected, with an enormous tower overtopping and dwarfing the public buildings in the neighbourhood. He thought that a result of this kind would be a very unsightly object to contemplate. One advantage of the alternative
  606
  scheme was that both wings would be so low that they would not dwarf the other buildings in the same way as the other scheme would do if carried out. The elevation, too, was very poor. In regard to plans of this kind, he expressed himself as being unfavourable to a public competition. A limited competition would be far more suitable, or let the best architect that could be obtained be taken. The only good work ever obtained by public competition was Stephens' monument of the Duke of Wellington. He agreed with the view expressed in the Memorial of the British Architects that if they were to erect Offices of the kind proposed, with a wretched frontage and a tavern or two, it would be a disgrace to the nation. They ought, if possible, to have a wide vista, in order that an uninterrupted view might be had from the statue to the Houses of Parliament. He had not been converted by Mr. Trevelyan's letter in The Times, which evidently considered economy the first object. As to the cost, he was of opinion that if they were going to do a good work they had much bettor not spare the cost, because it was well known that the cheapest way was not always the best. And now he would say one word as to the proposed site of the new National Portrait Gallery. It was to be built on the open space joining the India Office, on ground belonging to the Government. It would have spacious galleries lighted from the top, extending from King Street to Delahay Street, with a handsome façade towards King Street. It would have four times the space now allotted to the pictures, and would be a very central gallery for the public. This was Mr. Plunket's plan, and he trusted the Government would adopt it.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (The Earl of MORLEY)said, that although the debate had been an interesting one, the only point really calling for the attention of their Lordships was whether the scheme of the Institute of British Architects or the plan of Her Majesty's Government was the better. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) condemned the elevation that had been approved by the Government. That elevation was chosen after competition, and the designs were selected by a competent Committee, on which Mr. Christian,

  607
  President of the Institute of Architects, sat. The noble Lord (Lord Lamington) who introduced the discussion quoted a reply of his own to an interesting deputation from the Institute of Architects which waited on him the other day. He admitted that in some points the scheme proposed by the Institute of Architects would be an improvement. No doubt it would open up Charing Cross, as well as one of the façades of the building; but he did not think their Lordships could entirely put aside the question of cost, as one noble Lord had done. As to the estimate of additional cost, he had seen it placed as high as £1,000,000 sterling, and the lowest estimate was £200,000. Making a rough estimate of the extra expense, he believed it would be little short of £400,000, which would include the rebuilding of Drummond's Bank and the additional area given by the Institute of Architects. The noble Lord seemed to have an idea that the Metropolitan Board of Works would contribute in some way to the expense; but he possessed no information leading him to the belief that the Board would contribute anything, and he doubted very much if they would do so. He acknowledged, from an aesthetic point of view, that the question of opening up Charing Cross and Trafalgar Square would be a considerable improvement on the present aspect of things; but if their Lordships looked at the convenience of traffic at Charing Cross they would find that there was no block at that point. Having, therefore, all the area they wished for the Public Offices, and when they did not require as a necessity to widen the thoroughfare, he did not think they were justified in spending an additional large sum of money. In considering these rival schemes it was absurd to put aside altogether the question of expense. He could not say more at present than this—that the whole question was under the earnest consideration of the Government. He could not, however, forget that Parliament had already decided the site question, and the property had already been purchased. He should receive any suggestions with pleasure, and he would not at present commit himself to an opinion upon the question, or to the plan of the Institute of Architects, although he admitted that
  608
  there were certain advantages connected with that plan. With regard to the new National Portrait Gallery, he regretted that he was not in a position to afford their Lordships any information upon the subject. The National portraits, as the noble Lord had remarked, were removed from the very dangerous building in which they were deposited at South Kensington last August to Bethnal Green Museum, where they were perfectly safe. When their Lordships considered the great value of the Collection, they must be heartily glad that the pictures were safely housed. At the same time, he quite admitted that they ought not to remain at Bethnal Green. The question of their future destination was one which must be left for future careful consideration, and it would, no doubt, shortly occupy attention.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he hoped the Government would obtain and lay before the House an Estimate of what the scheme suggested by the Institute of Architects would cost before altogether discarding that scheme. So far as his information went, he understood that it would not cost more than £200,000, instead of £350,000 or £400,000, as mentioned by the noble Earl, because the question of compensation to the Messrs. Drummond could be got over by the erection of new offices for them, which would be ready before they would be asked to move out of their present premises. If that were so, then he thought that a matter of £200,000, if that were the outside, should not be allowed to stand in the way of their securing suitable buildings.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that his figures of £350,000 to £400,000 had not been given at random; but were based on a rough estimate which had been made of the cost of the scheme.

THE NATIONAL MUSEUMS—EVENING OPENING.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY, in rising to move—
  "That a tumble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will be pleased to direct that the National Gallery, the British Museum, and the Natural History Museum shall be open to the public weekly on three week-day evenings till 10 p.m., in order that Her Majesty's subjects whose occupations during the day prevent them from visiting

  609
  these institutions may have the advantage and enjoyment of studying the national collections,"
  said, he hoped their Lordships would consider this question carefully, because it seemed strange that so beneficial a change, which was recommended by the House of Commons 26 years ago, should not have been adopted. He did not wish to reflect upon the conduct or action of the Trustees of the British Museum and the National Gallery, who were perfectly right in taking great care of the all-important and priceless treasures committed to their charge; but the question which he had brought to the notice of their Lordships was one for Parliament and for the Government of the day to consider. He hoped it would be decided that the time had come when the great boon of opening the National Collections on week-day evenings should be conferred upon the hundreds of thousands of people in London. The late Government, he might remark, had no opportunity of carrying the proposal into effect; but the noble Marquess, who was absent from the House (the Marquess of Salisbury) had instructed him to adopt every means in his power to secure the opening of the Museums and Galleries on week-day evenings. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Plunket) who had held the Office of Chief Commissioner of Works in the late Government was in favour of the proposal, and his noble Friend (Lord Iddesleigh), when First Lord of the Treasury, spoke strongly on the question, advocating the opening of the Collections to the public on two or three evenings a-week, He trusted that in time such collections as the Royal Academy would also be opened on week evenings to the public either free or at a nominal charge, and that there would be no difficulty in throwing open some parts of the Tower by night to the large population around it. He submitted that to carry the proposal into effect would confer a great benefit upon artizans, mechanics, and people who were employed in banks, counting-houses, warehouses, and workshops, and especially would it be an advantage to the young. Such people had a great deal of leisure at their disposal. They had the whole of their evenings to themselves, and one of their greatest difficulties was how to dispose of them. He believed the long evenings
  610
  hung very heavily on the great mass of the population. There was one very curious and encouraging fact which their Lordships ought to note, and that was that if they inquired of the great employers of labour, as he had lately had to do in connection with another matter, they would find that a great number of young men employed in labour had now some cultivated pursuit quite independent of their daily work. It would be found that some took up theology, others botany, birds, or shells; and among many there might be found a great taste for drawing and painting. That was one of the most encouraging signs of the age, and it was for that large and he believed increasing class of men that he particularly pleaded with their Lordships. He believed it would afford great delight to these young men to have these great Halls and Galleries open to them from G to 10 o'clock in the evening—just the hours that hung most heavily on their hands; just the hours they would otherwise have to spend in their sometimes, he was sorry to say, not very pleasant homes. He believed that the advantage, at any rate, to the younger rising generation of London would be really untold, and it was on their behalf he especially asked their Lordships to consider this matter. It might, perhaps, be said that he was a dreamer on this subject; but to that his simple answer was—What had happened at South Kensington and Bethnal Green? South Kensington Museum had now for nearly 30 years been open to the public for three nights in the week, and during that time some 7,000,000 of people had visited the Institution in the evening. The total number of visitors, day and night, during the same period, was 17,000,000. These figures then showed that the proportion of evening visitors was very much larger than that of day visitors; and, of those evening visitors, Sir Henry Cole stated that he observed that a large number of them were what were called working men—that is to say, they were of that class whose evening meal was tea or supper and not dinner. Bethnal Green Museum, too, had been opened since 1872 for three nights in the week, and nearly half the total number of the visitors to that Institution came during the 12 evening hours of the week. I When they considered those facts, he confessed it did seem very strange to

  611
  him that these Galleries could not be opened. Let them look at the authorities in favour of his proposal. On March 27, 1863, a Select Committee of the House of Commons recommended—
  "That institutions such as the British Museum and National Gallery should be open on week-day evenings to the public, and that as the opportunity thus afforded of bringing the instruction and pleasure to be derived from visiting them within the reach of those who are occupied during ordinary working hours would be appreciated by them, it is desirable that they should be thus opened between 7 and 10 in the evening, at least three days in the week."
  Then, on May 6, 1870, after a debate on the evening opening of Museums, Mr. Lowe, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in regard to lighting the National Collections—
  "We might be on the eve of some scientific discovery which would remove the present risks and objections; besides, sooner or later, we should have to build a new National Gallery and a Museum for the reception of our natural history collections. These new buildings, of course, could be constructed in such a manner as to be safely lighted with gas."
  On May 19, 1874, the House of Commons adopted the following Amendment, moved by Mr. W. S. Allen, M. P.:—
  "That the House is of opinion that all possible facilities should be afforded for the moral and intellectual recreation of the people by opening Museums, Libraries, and similar institutions on week-day evenings."—(3 Hansard, [219] 508.)
  In 1883 and 1884 their Lordships also passed Resolutions, urging the desirability of opening the British Museum and National Gallery on week-day evenings. The only difference between those two occasions and the present was that he had now to ask their Lordships to go a little further and to address the Crown upon the subject. During the last Parliament, in August, 1881, 191 Members of the House of Commons memorialized the Trustees of the National Gallery, asking that the Gallery should be kept open to the public till 10 o'clock at night on every week-day. In March, 1882, 200 Members of the House of Commons memorialized the Trustees of the British Museum with the same object. Then Sir Henry Cole said—
  "I cannot conceive why the National Gallery should not be lighted up at night if properly prepared, and if the ventilation were made what I presume it could be made."
  But there were still greater authorities than these. In May, 1882, he found,
  612
  from a letter from the Trustees of the British Museum to Mr. Daniel Grant, M.P., that the former body had taken the matter up. In that letter they said—
  "The Trustees have, during the last three years, made trial of the electric light in the reading room of the Museum, and for the purpose of lighting it in dark weather, and keeping it open for students until a late hour, and this has been done with very satisfactory results."
  On July 19, 1883, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the London University (Sir John Lubbock) also said, in reply to Mr. Daniel Grant—
  "The same objections, however, do not apply, or apply with much less force, to the electric light; and subject, of course, to security being taken for the safety of the building and its contents, and on satisfactory arrangements being made with reference to electric lighting in the district, the Trustees will be prepared to apply to Government for the funds necessary to enable them to open portions of the Museum in the evening."—(3 Hansard, [281] 1882.)
  And on February 28, 1884, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the London University (Sir John Lubbock), who was one of the Trustees of the British Museum, said, in reply to a Question asked by Mr. Daniel Grant, M.P., that—
  "The Trustees of the British Museum have applied to Her Majesty's Government for the funds necessary to supply electric light in the new Natural History Museum. This application has been refused so far as the present year is concerned, and it is therefore impossible for the Trustees to open the Museum in the evening."—(3 Hansard, [285] 62.)
  That brought him down to August of last year, when the Trustees of the British Museum made a formal application to the Treasury to be allowed to use the electric light. It was true that he was asking by his Motion, that not only the Museums but also the National Picture Galleries might be opened. He did not think that would be considered very daring, when he referred their Lordships to a Memorial addressed, on January 28, 1885, to the Trustees of the National Gallery, and signed by 57 out of 73 Royal Academicians and Associates, in which they urged the Trustees to take into consideration the best means of lighting the great National Collections of pictures, so that they might be opened to the public on three evenings in each week till 10 o'clock. He could not believe that a body of men, who were specially interested in pictures, would

  613
  have made that request if they had believed there could be the slightest danger in it. 2,400 working-class organizations had asked for it, through Mr. Broadhurst, and the Trades' Union Congress of last autumn adopted a resolution in favour of it. He thought he had now satisfied their Lordships that there was really a real consensus of opinion and authority in favour of the Motion. It was remarkable how rapidly the authorities were increasing in its support. As to the difficulties that existed, there was, first of all, the question of light. Of course, if it were simply a question of gas, there might be a risk of fire, though he thought gas might safely be used in the great buildings if it was used from the outside, or if there were properly constructed roof arrangements. But now electricity was in use, and in that there was a great advantage, for, as pointed out in a letter in The Times of March 11 from Mr. Robinson, there were many pictures which would not bear the light of day for any length of time, but might safely be exposed to the light of gas or electricity. He thought there must be very much more danger to these Public Institutions from heating apparatus than could possibly accrue from the use of electricity. It had been urged against his proposal that damage might be caused to the pictures by the breath and dust that would be caused by a large assemblage of people; but he could not understand why that danger should arise specially in the evenings. But even if that were the case, it would be very easy to complete the glazing of the pictures in the Public Collections. Only 89 now remained unglazed. Another more serious objection had been urged—namely, that in times of anything like popular disturbance danger might arise in respect of these priceless works of Art from outrage; but he thought that the risk was very much greater on a foggy day than when the Galleries were lighted with the electric light. The last objection in regard to the National Gallery was that there was a danger of the disreputable persons who infested the neighbourhood going into the Gallery at night. He could not believe, however, that our police regulations were so bad that we should not be able to prevent any outrage against propriety in our National Gallery. He did not think we ought to give up this great boon to respectable
  614
  people in consequence of a panic fear lest some bad characters should come in. Of course the change would cost a certain amount of money. The great library of the British Museum was lighted by electricity, and he was informed that the estimate for lighting the whole of the Museum was something like £14,000. Of course there would be the cost for additional attendants on three nights of the week, but that would not be very great. He trusted that the public would be amply supplied with seats in these great Galleries, so that they might have opportunities of resting. If the difficulty of money really stood in the way, he would make a suggestion which would perhaps shock those who were connected with these great Institutions—namely, that for two or three years the grants for fresh buyings should be somewhat diminished. He submitted his Motion with confidence to their Lordships, because he believed they would rejoice if it were possible to bring to an end the struggle of the last 26 years; and he felt sure it would be satisfactory to them if this great boon should come owing to the action of their Lordships' House.
  Moved, "That a humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will be pleased to direct that the National Gallery, the British Museum, and the Natural History Museum shall be open to the public weekly on three week-day evenings till 10 p.m., in order that Her Majesty's subjects whose occupations during the day prevent them from visiting these institutions may have the advantage and enjoyment of studying the national collections,"—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, the question raised by the noble Earl was one of great interest, and one which it was impossible to approach except with feelings of the strongest sympathy and with an earnest desire to see the proposal carried out. There could be no doubt that if it were possible, with due regard to the expense involved and the safety of our priceless Collections, to enable any large number of the working classes to spend the evening in our National Galleries and Museums, an enormous blessing would be conferred upon all concerned. The noble Earl had stated these benefits with great force and clearness; but he had passed over the objections very lightly. This, of course, was no Party question; it was purely a social problem, and whichever Government

  615
  were in power would gladly assist in solving it. Unfortunately, it was a matter which could not be dealt with without serious consideration. In the first place, the main question to settle was this—Would the working classes attend these places if opened as proposed in sufficiently large numbers to warrant the expense incurred? Many high authorities doubted whether people who had been working all day would to any extent be likely to visit these Galleries in the evening, however much they would be willing to go on a Sunday. It was true that at South Kensington Museum, where the experiment of having three free days in the week had been tried over a number of years, it had to a certain extent been found successful, and that about 20 per cent of the total number visiting the Exhibition were there in the evening; but this percentage was after all very small in actual number. He found that in 1885 the total number of visitors to South Kensington was 900,000, of whom 169,000 went in the evening. These numbers had somewhat fallen off during the past three years, probably owing to the Exhibitions in the Gardens. It was a question, however, whether if the National History Museum were opened in such close proximity the number would not be further reduced, and be divided between the two Museums. At the Jermyn Street Museum in 1885 the total number of visitors was 45,000, of whom 17,000 went in the evenings. But the Museum was only open on two evenings in the week, and those attending the lectures were included. At Bethnal Green in 1885 the total numbers were 450,000, of whom 209,000 went in the evening. These statistics certainly showed that a fair amount attended in the evening; but the number was absurdly small, taking into consideration the enormous population surrounding the Museums. Taking the three Museums now open at night, it meant that about 2,500 were divided among them during the evenings they were open. Whether, if more Museums were opened and greater facilities given, these numbers would largely increase, remained the problem to be solved. Of this there could be no doubt, that if the Gallery and Museums were open at night, there must be a satisfactory attendance to justify the expense. To solve this problem, and to ascertain
  616
  what that number would be, it seemed most desirable that further experiments should be made. The Memorandum which had been presented by the Trustees of the National Gallery, but which had not yet been printed, showed that there were several difficulties besides expense which stood in the way. Some of their objections could undoubtedly be met and overcome; but it was perfectly clear that those distinguished gentlemen, who were the custodians of the priceless treasures of this country, looked upon opening the National Gallery as an experiment which could not be tried without a considerable amount of risk. In the objections raised they pointed out a probability of the Galleries becoming the resort of idle and immoral people from the neighbourhood who now infested the Hay market, and who would drive respectable people away. This, on the other hand, it was argued, was purely a question of police management, and was one which was got over at the Exhibitions at South Kensington, Jermyn Street, and Bethnal Green during the last few years. A few police in plain clothes had been found sufficient to stop all nuisance in this respect. Danger from fire seemed now to be greatly diminished by the introduction of electric lighting, as if properly carried out there could be no question that this system was much less harmless and dangerous than gas. With regard to the danger of the light going out opinions differed; but it was stated that if electric lighting were arranged with duplicate plant, and the buildings were illuminated by two distinct circuits, all possibility of the danger of the rooms being left in darkness was entirely removed. Even working with a single circuit at South Kensington and Bethnal Green no trouble whatever had arisen from this cause. Whether these objections could be removed he knew not; but the Trustees of the National Gallery were bound to emphatically point out every conceivable danger that could arise, and no Government would be justified in agreeing to the opening without fully considering the matter in every possible light, and seeing that the objections raised were fully met. It must not be forgotten also that the National Gallery was open for more hours than any other Gallery in Europe. On the Continent he believed he was

  617
  right in saying that there was no single Gallery which was lit up after dusk. The greatest difficulty in connection with the whole matter was undoubtedly the question of expense. The opening and illumination of these Galleries and Museums at night would mean the laying down of a considerable amount of plant for the electric lighting, together with its working expenses and annual maintenance; and also the employment of additional attendants and police. The total outlay in putting down this plant was very roughly estimated at £65,000 per annum; and to this had to be added the annual maintenance and the cost of attendants and police. It had been argued that as this sum would in a great measure come out of general taxation these Institutions should, as far as possible, be made self-supporting by charging a small entrance fee; but the experience of the South Kensington Museum Authorities was directly opposed to this, as it was found that even a small fee had the effect of almost entirely stopping people from coming. At South Kensington so great was the dislike to pay a fee that it had been found that even people coming up on payment days in their carriages would frequently drive away on finding that an entrance-fee of 6d. was necessary. If, however, it could be proved that the working classes would make use of these Galleries to a satisfactory degree, he did not think that anyone would wish that the question of expense should outweigh what all agreed would be a great national benefit. He was informed that the late Government were considering the subject shortly before they went out of Office, and that the noble Earl the late First Lord of the Treasury (the Earl of Iddesleigh) took a special interest in the matter, and made many inquiries on the subject generally. He felt sure their Lordships would have been extremely glad if he had been present, as he could have given them the benefit of his impressions on the question and what conclusion he arrived at. So far as the Government were concerned, they had been in Office but a few weeks, and had not yet had time to give the full consideration which the subject necessitated. It was, however, their intention to go thoroughly into the matter, with every hope that it might be found possible to carry out some
  618
  portion of the programme, though, of course, at that early stage of the matter they could not give any pledge.
  LORD NORTONsaid, it seemed to him that the argument of the noble Lord representing the Treasury (Lord Sudeley) against the proposal was a new one. He had never before heard it contended that if practicable it was not desirable to open Museums in the evening; but the noble Lord seemed to think that there would not be sufficient attendance of the public to make it worth while. That argument was very like that with regard to railways before they were begun. It was gravely urged that the traffic upon roads by the old modes of transit was not sufficient to justify any expectation that there would be enough traffic on a railway to pay the enormous cost of forming it. How did the noble Lord know what number of people would visit Museums if they were opened in the evening? Those who now came in the day did not in any way represent the numerous classes which would avail themselves of the evening to visit the Galleries and Museums. Besides the working classes, there was in London a very numerous population of clerks and intelligent trades people whose occupations precluded them them from going to Galleries in the day. Then it should be remembered that the bulk of the people were more educated now than they used to be, and were better able to enjoy Museums and make good use of them than they were a few years ago. If the noble Lord doubted whether the public would use the Galleries and Museums in the evening let him try the experiment, however gradually he liked. If only a few people availed themselves of the privilege, in his opinion, it would justify the expense. It was part of the national education of the day. The Prince Consort, who was the founder of South Kensington, meant it to be the climax of the new Art development of the country, which it would fail to be if not available by the working classes.
  LORD NORTHBOURNEsaid, that there were many objections to opening the National Galleries in the evening, and that gas was very injurious to works of Art. As to the social aspects of the question, they had been stated very fully by the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby), and were perfectly true;

  619
  but they must not forget that the Collections were invaluable, and that, if lost, could not be restored to the nation. Under all the circumstances, he should vote against the Motion.
  THE EARL OF NORTHESK, in supporting the Motion, said, he hoped that if noble Lords voted for this Motion it would not be used as an argument to weaken the case of those who were in favour of opening Museums on Sundays.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Earl Granville)said, he must appeal to the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) not to press his Motion to a division. The noble Earl had introduced this Motion in a comprehensive speech, and had put in a very clear and able manner the arguments in favour of opening these Institutions on week-day evenings. He (Earl Granville) was not prepared to argue against the noble Earl's proposal. Indeed, his own feelings were strongly in favour of making their Art Collections available in every possible way for the instruction and enjoyment of the great body of the people. At the same time, he could not help observing that the noble Lord (Lord Sudeley) had given the assurance that, although the Government had not come to any decision on the subject, they thought that it was their duty to consider all the bearings of the question before coming to a final decision. He could assure the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) that it was the intention of the Government to consider the question with the greatest possible attention, and that without loss of time. The matter was before the Earl of Iddesleigh, but no memorandum had been found as to the decision to which he came. He was unwilling by his vote to go against the noble Earl's Motion; but, on the other hand, he did not think it right that so soon after the Government had entered into Office they should be expected to have come to a decision with regard to the question. He hoped that the noble Earl would be satisfied with what had been stated, and that he would not oblige them to vote for or against the Motion.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he was anxious to fall in with the suggestion of the Leader of the Government in that House (Earl Granville); but he must remind their Lordships that this
  620
  matter had been 26 years under consideration, and that during the seven months the late Government were in Office he was instructed by the Prime Minister to do all in his power to push the question forward. Everyone was in favour of the proposal; but by some extraordinary means or other there was a kind of dead opposition to it which prevented it coming forward. He felt, therefore, that he should be betraying the cause if he did not press forward the Motion—which was a substantive and not a mere abstract one—to a division, with the object of strengthening the hands of the Government in any action they might take.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Earl SPENCER)said, that as the noble Earl had not responded to the appeal made to him, he might be allowed to state what the Government proposed to do. If all the authorities in the late Government were unanimous in favour of opening the Museums, it seemed strange that they were not able to come forward at once and make the proposition. He thought that showed that there must have been some difficulties of a real kind which were not so very easy to be overcome. But there was another matter. The present Government had not had time to consider the subject, and it was due to the distinguished bodies concerned in the maintenance of these valuable Collections that their views should be carefully considered. He agreed very much with the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby), and should be glad to see the privilege conceded in Dublin and South Kensington extended to other National Collections. As far as his own feeling went, he confessed it was very much that of the noble Earl behind him (Earl Granville)—namely, that if it were practicable, then the privilege asked should be conceded; but, at the same time, the Government were not now prepared to accept the Motion, and, therefore, he begged to move the Previous Question.
  Previous Question moved (The Lord President of the Council).
  EARL COWPERsaid, he had come down to the House that evening to support the noble Earl who had brought this subject forward. He had not heard an argument advanced by any noble Lord to induce him to change his opinion.

  621
  There were two principal objections put forward against the adoption of this proposal. The first was that of expense, which he regretted to see referred to. He trusted it might be withdrawn as an argument against the opening of the Gallery. Considering that the taxpayers of the country had recently to pay the enormous sum of £75,000 for one picture, he thought that to raise as an argument against the opening of the Gallery the comparatively small sum required to enable the mass of the population to enjoy these Art treasures was likely to be viewed with disfavour by the lower classes. Another objection was raised on the ground of morality. He was inclined to look with suspicion on questions in which morality was put prominently forward as a governing consideration. There seemed to be a tinge of hypocrisy about it. It was well-known that nothing in the shape of free evening amusements of any sort in London was exempt from the danger of some doubtful persons taking advantage of them. But he thought they ought to trust to the police. Vice was a creature which flourished in dark nooks and corners, and not in a lighted room where everything that went on was subjected to general supervision. Another argument advanced was that the opening of the Gallery at night would be injurious to the pictures by reason of the amount of dust raised and general wear and tear. Large crowds with muddy boots frequently visited the buildings in the day time; and if the argument was to hold good these crowds ought to be excluded for fear of injury to the pictures. But the authorities did not shut out these people in the day time. They were willing to incur this infinitesimal amount of risk; and nothing had been shown that evening in any way leading to the opinion that a large amount of risk was likely to be incurred from crowds at night. There were Trustees of the National Gallery who sat in their Lordships' House, who, no doubt, had carefully considered this subject, seeing that it had been before the country for 26 years, and Resolutions approving the opening of the Gallery at night had been twice adopted. These noble Lords ought, therefore, to say what the real danger of opening at night was, in order that the House and the public might
  622
  form an opinion as to what was the danger to be guarded against. He believed that many of the noble Lords who sat on the Government Bench were, in their hearts, in favour of this proposal, but that, owing to some official reason, they were obliged to oppose it. He hoped, therefore, the noble Earl the Leader of the House would excuse him if he voted with noble Lords opposite that evening.
  On Question?
  EARL SPENCERintimated that, after the reasons adduced by Her Majesty's Government against adopting the proposal, they would not put their Lordships to the trouble of dividing.
  Previous Question affirmed.
  Original Motion agreed to.

EGYPTIAN WAR MEDALS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, in rising to ask, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the officers, seamen, and soldiers of the naval, marine, and military forces employed at Suakin between March, 1884, and May, 1886, shall be disentitled to the medal about to be distributed for services during that period in the cases of such amongst the number as had already received the medal for 1882? said, he claimed that the operations at Suakin were distinct from others undertaken in Egypt, and ought no more to be classed with them than the campaign in Burmah could be classed with the Afghan Expedition.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord SANDHURST), in reply, said: I understand from the Question of the noble Viscount that he wishes to know whether a second medal is to be granted to certain portions of the forces serving at Suakin at certain dates. This question was fully considered, and it was decided that there should only be one medal for all war service in Egypt and the Soudan from 1882 onwards, and that certain clasps should be given for certain specified actions with the enemy. Full Regulations will be found in General Orders of His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief for the years 1884 and 1885. I may add that, as regards the sailors and

  623
  marines, this decision was arrived at by the Board of Admiralty of the last Government, and this opinion is concurred in by the noble Marquess the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Marquess of Ripon).

MERCHANT SHIPPING—LIGHT AT PORTLAND BREAKWATER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD COLVILLE OF CULROSS, in rising to call attention to the inferior nature of the light now exhibited at the north end of Portland Breakwater, and to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, considering the importance of Portland as a harbour of refuge, it is intended to replace the existing red light by one of greater power? said, the breakwater was a work of which the nation might justly be proud. It included a very large area which was sheltered from almost every wind. It was much resorted to, and, as a harbour of refuge, it was made use of by vessels caught in bad weather in the Channel. The harbour was easy of access in clear weather; but at night, with bad weather, the reverse was the case. The red light at the north end of the breakwater was said to be visible at a distance of eight miles; but a short time ago, when he was on board a vessel running to Portland during what sailors called a dirty night, they were within two miles of the light before they could see it. On another occasion he was within a mile and a-half of the end of the breakwater on shore, when it was hardly possible to say whether the light was a red or a white one. Of all places in the world there ought to be a fine light at the point to which he had referred; and in any alteration which might be made this particular light should be distinguished from other lights in the harbour. He hoped the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Marquess of Ripon) would give his attention to the matter.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Marquess of RIPON)said, it was no doubt the intention of those who established the light in question that it should be visible at a distance of eight miles. He thought the noble Lord would allow that that was a sufficient distance if the light fulfilled the objects intended. He understood that a light of this nature was affected more than a
  624
  white light by atmospheric influences; and it was possible that, on a bad night, the red light at the north end of Portland Breakwater would not be visible for eight miles. At the same time, the light should be visible at a very considerable distance from the point. If it could not be seen as it ought to be, there must be some defect in the light itself rather than any mistake as to the character or magnitude of the light adopted. Since his noble Friend had mentioned the matter, directions had been given to the harbour master to report fully on the character of the light; and if it appeared that it was in any respect defective, he would take care that it should be made a good and efficient light. He fully admitted the necessity of having such a light. It would not do to put a very strong white light in that position, as it might not be distinguished from other lights.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (FERMOY) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Town of Eermoy—Was presented by the Lord President; read 1a; tote printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 32.)
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.