Sitting of 27 June 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1! Oxford College Estates; Distillation from Rice; Court of Chancery (Ireland) (Sale of Estates); Court of Appeal in Chancery (Ireland); Incumbered Estates (Ireland).
2! Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Ireland); Metropolis Local Management Act Amendment; Marriage Law (Scotland) Amending.
3! Dwellings for Labouring Classes (Ireland); Coatham Marriages Validity; Smoke Nuisance Abatement (Metropolis) Act, 1853, Amendment; Court of Exchequer (Scotland).

OUR RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES—QUESTION.
MR. G. H. MOORE: I wish, Sir, to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, of which I have given him notice. It will, doubtless, be in the recollection of the House, and of the noble Lord, that I put a notice upon the paper, a few days ago, having reference to the American enlistment question, and that, subsequently, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) asked the noble Lord when we might expect to have laid before the House the answer of Her Majesty's Government to the last communication from the Government of the United States, the noble Lord stated that it would, in all probability, be laid upon the table in the course of the present week. In consequence of that intimation I consented to postpone my Motion until after the reception
2072
of that dispatch. From the expressions of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary on that occasion, deprecating discussion until the papers were in the hands of Members, and also from the gesture of the noble Lord himself at the same time, I gathered that he, while deprecating premature discussion, assented, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to that arrangement, and that they would, for the convenience of the House, assign no very distant day when the question might be fully discussed. We are now in possession of the required documents, and as it would be obviously inconvenient, if a discussion is to take place, that it should at this late period of the Session be long delayed, I hope the noble Lord will not think me unreasonably importunate if I now ask him to name some day in the course of the ensuing week when such discussion may come on. I think it right to add that, under the present circumstances of the case, my Motion will not be couched in exactly the words which I have placed upon the paper.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I hope, Sir, the hon. Gentleman will not suppose that it is from any want of courtesy towards him that I am obliged to say that I cannot accede to his request. My opinion is, that, in the present state of our relations with the United States, it is not desirable that there should be any such discussion as that which the hon. Gentleman contemplates. I believe it would not be conducive to that amicable settlement which I am sure it is the wish, as it is the interest, of both countries should take place—that it would not be likely to conduce to that end that the matters now pending between the two countries should form the subject of discussion in this House. That opinion, too, I find is equally shared by those hon. Members who do not agree with the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and with those who generally support that policy, therefore I am the more confirmed in thinking that it is correct. That being the case, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for saying that I am unwilling, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to assume any responsibility, direct or indirect, in regard to the proposed discussion of the question to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and must consequently respectfully decline to name any day for that purpose, inasmuch as to do so would be indirectly to sanction a discussion which they think

2073
might be prejudicial to the interests of the country. Of course it is open to the hon. Gentleman to make his own arrangements—he has the same means as all other Members of availing himself of the forms of the House to make an opportunity for calling attention to the subject, if, after this explanation, he thinks it advisable to do so.

GOVERNMENT ALLOWANCE TO REFORMATORIES—QUESTION.
MR. A. SMITHsaid, he would beg to inquire of the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he had any objection to state the amount which he was prepared to allow for the support of juvenile criminals in certified reformatories before the 30th day of June, on which day the quarter sessions would assemble?
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that representations had been made that the allowance of 5s. a week for each inmate was not sufficient to meet the cost of maintenance in those institutions, while at the same time it exceeded the maximum allowance in gaols. He was told, also, that there was great difference in the expense in these reformatories, and the difficulty was to fix any sum which should be applicable to all alike. He hoped shortly to be able to inform the hon. Gentleman what the allowance would be, but at present he was not prepared to state it.

ENTRY OF THE GUARDS INTO LONDON —QUESTION.
MR. NOELsaid, the noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated on Friday, in answer to the hon. Member for Marlborough (Mr. H. Baring), that on the entry of the Guards into the metropolis an opportunity would be afforded the inhabitants of welcoming them. The hon. Member for Marlborough had since written a letter to The Times, in which the object of his question was so clearly explained that he would beg to read a portion of it to the House. The paragraph was as follows:—
"Nothing could be further from my intention in asking from the Government for a public entry for the Guards into London, on their return from the Crimea, than the idea of casting the remotest slight upon other portions of the army. The Guards compose the ordinary garrison of London; on their return to their usual and (in time of peace) accustomed quarters, it was natural that the people of London should be desirous of welcoming home those troops whom they justly prize."
2074
He wished, therefore, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, as an early day would be fixed for the entry of the Guards into London, Her Majesty's Government would consider the propriety of bringing up other regiments which had arrived from the Crimea on that occasion, so that an opportunity might be afforded to the inhabitants of the metropolis of welcoming portions of the artillery, cavalry, and infantry-of-the-line also, and of testifying the sense they entertained of the services rendered equally by the whole army during the late war?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I can assure hon. Members and the House that nothing can be further from the intentions of Her Majesty, and of those whose duty it is to advise Her Majesty, than to make any distinction between the different portions of the troops who have performed such distinguished services on the shores of the Black Sea. It would be exceedingly unjust to make any distinction of that kind, because every regiment did everything in the power of man to do under the circumstances in which it happened to be placed. No greater compliment should therefore be paid to the Guards than to the regiments of the line, or the artillery, or the cavalry. It is not with a view to any special ovation triumph to any particular force that arrangements will be made for giving the inhabitants of the metropolis an opportunity of seeing those gallant regiments on their return from the scene of their glory, but it so happens that the Guards are the natural garrison of London; they return to London in the ordinary course of their duty. If there were any adequate necessity or occasion, a great assemblage of troops of different kinds—regiments of the line, of the artillery, and of the cavalry—might certainly be brought to London; although it would not be easy to find any space in which they could be spread, as even Hyde Park would be far too limited an area. Then there would be no accommodation for them, as there are no barracks in which they could all be placed. Unless, therefore, some great occasion really existed, we should not be justified in making an arrangement such as that which has been suggested, and I do not think any great occasion does exist. Her Majesty is, as she has always been, most anxious to welcome in person every branch of her army on its return from the Crimea. Her Majesty has seen and inspected every arm of the service—almost

2075
every detachment that has returned, within any reasonable reach of her residence, and she will undoubtedly see at Aldershot all the regiments which are destined to take up their quarters there. I am afraid it will not be possible to gratify the inhabitants of the metropolis by bringing the bulk of the Crimean troops to London merely for the purpose of being exhibited to them; but Aldershot is at no great distance, the access to it is easy, and there will be ample opportunity for those who take an interest in the matter, and whose means enable them to go, to be present when Her Majesty welcomes at Aldershot the troops of the line, and at Woolwich the artillery, on their return from the Crimea.

LEGION OF HONOUR—QUESTION.
MR. H. BARINGsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War why the insignia of the Legion of Honour had not been distributed to those officers of the Crimean army who had been long since selected by General Codrington for that decoration?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, a selection of the men belonging to the British army who were to receive the decoration had been made; and as soon as the Imperial decree containing their nomination appeared, and the insignia had been received from the French Government, steps would be taken for their distribution.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.
On the Motion that the House at its rising do adjourn to Monday,
MR. RAIKES CURRIEsaid, he was anxious to speak to this question, for the purpose of putting a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, of which he had given him notice, upon a subject that required some explanation. He wished to obtain from the noble Lord a decided and explicit answer as to the course the Government intended to pursue with regard to the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill—a Bill he need scarcely say as important as almost any measure dealing with domestic legislation that could accupy the attention of that House. The Bill proposed to interfere with the High Court of Appeal, and to change the constitution and organisation of that Court, and it dealt also—by inuendo certainly—but at the same time most effectually with the prerogative of the Crown, which was distinctly limited by the Bill. Now, as a friend of the Government, and one of their
2076
sincere supporters, he wished to inform the noble Lord what was said very generally about the measure. He knew not on what authority, but it was nevertheless the fact, that the public and many Members of that House had been led to consider that the Bill in question was the result of a compromise which he would not characterise because he disliked using hard words. Besides, it was generally rumoured that as the Bill was the result of a compromise so it was to be carried by means of a coalition. It was also generally rumoured—he was now speaking of what was talked of in the lobbies of Parliament—that the noble Earl who conducted the Opposition in another place had called his followers together and energetically impressed upon them the necessity of remaining in London during the oppressive weather, under which they were now suffering, to support the Bill, informing them at the same time that it was one in which he took a deep, not a political, but personal interest. On the other hand it was equally generally stated, that the Government was bound in some way—how, he would not say, but by some pledge or arrangement from which they would find it difficult to escape—to pass the measure in its present shape. He mentioned these rumours as mere rumours that had come to his knowledge; but, as a Member of Parliament who seldom troubled the House, but who spoke with the experience of upwards of twenty years in that House, he felt bound to say that he did see some very awkward signs in the horizon; and he could not but feel a certain degree of suspicion from the indefinite delay which had taken place in the discussion of a measure of such great importance, that there might be an inention somewhere, when Members wearied and jaded with the fatigues of a protracted Session could not be induced to remain longer in town, he would not say smuggle, but to "ram" the measure through the House. In fact, he had himself received from a certain quarter that very pithy admonition—it had been said to him, "it is of no use to oppose the Bill—it may be a very bad Bill; you may talk against it till you are tired, but it will pass nevertheless." He would not believe that the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) meditated any such course. He could not believe it. The noble Lord had received from that House a liberal and a generous support. [Viscount PALMERSTON: Hear, hear!] The noble Lord knew well that

2077
he might continue to count on that support, and if he would only deal, as he (Mr. R. Currie) believed he intended to deal, firmly and fearlessly with the House, he would be the most influential and popular, as he undoubtedly was the most able Minister the Crown had ever employed. The Bill he referred to had come down from the House of Lords, and what he wished to know was, whether the Government intended to adopt it as it now stood? He hoped they did not; but if they did, he wished further to ask the noble Lord, whether they meditated passing that important measure, dealing as it did with the High Court of Appeal in the last resort, and in that way affecting the property of every corporation, and of every individual in the kingdom, and dealing also with the prerogative of the Crown by Parliamentary enactment; and if the noble Lord was determined to press it, then he would request him to fix an early day, in order that the measure might be fully and fairly discussed.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, there is no doubt that the subject to which my hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the House is one of very great importance. My hon. Friend calls the measure a compromise. Well, Sir, nearly all the measures passed in Parliament are, in one sense at least, compromises, because they are the result of conflicting opinions, which lead at last to the adoption of a measure neither entirely in accordance with the opinions of those who proposed, or those who opposed the original measure. I do not mean to say that this Bill, in the shape in which it at present stands, is exactly according to the views which the Government, if they had entire power to deal with these things, and had not considered that they are the Ministers of a constitutional Government, might have proposed. It is, however, of the utmost importance, that the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords should as speedily as possible be placed on an efficient footing. It is not so placed at present, and this measure did receive the concurrence of those Members of the Government who are Members of the House of Lords. I, therefore, do intend, when the measure is discussed in this House, to give it all the support which I can as a Member of the Government, and I should undoubtedly be very glad if the assertion of my hon. Friend should be verified, and that in doing so I shall also receive the support of those who
2078
are generally opposed to the Government. I certainly think, Sir, that the measure is one of extreme importance, and I do not believe that the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords can, with advantage to the public interest, remain in its present imperfect state. I, therefore, accept this measure for the purpose of placing it on a more efficient footing. With respect to the day on which it should be discussed, it is certainly desirable that an early period should be fixed. There are, however, other measures of importance which will have to go up to the House of Lords, and which must therefore in some degree, necessarily have a preference in respect to the time of discussion, but no improper delay shall be allowed to intervene before the discussion of the Bill in question.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I think it is of great importance that on a subject of this nature there should be no mistake whatever by this House as to the circumstances under which a Bill of such moment is about to be introduced to its notice. Sir, it is unnecessary for me to say—for I should only express the feeling of every one present if I were to give utterance to that opinion—that the subject to which this Bill refers is one of paramount importance. No one can be more deeply impressed with that conviction than myself. Sir, when this Bill shall be brought before the House, certainly I shall vote for the second reading, because I think it is absolutely necessary that the House should consider the condition of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, and because we shall have an opportunity in after stages to consider the details of the Bill which it is proposed to us to adopt. However, Sir, it is not either on the purpose or on the details of the Bill that I would on this occasion venture to address you; but it is because I think the extraordinary terms in which his question has been put by the hon. Gentleman who commenced this conversation, and the answer of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to that question, have left the House in an ambiguous, equivocal, and unsatisfactory position. The noble Lord tells us that the Bill, which has not yet been brought under our consideration, is the result of a compromise, and that compromise is a part of our constitution. Sir, I am not prepared to demur in the abstract to this position and those principles of the noble Lord; but I do contend, Sir, that we cannot be influenced by those vague and

2079
general dogmas in our practice here. In our Parliamentary practice we must hold those responsible for a measure who introduce that measure. I understand that this is a measure of the Government—I understand that it has been introduced by a noble Lord of the highest authority on such subjects—a Member of the Government and a Member of the Cabinet; and when I am called on to consider it here, I assuredly shall have to consider it as a measure of the Government. Therefore, Sir, I do not clearly understand why the noble Lord should bring us behind the scenes of legislation, and tell us that the Government have adopted a measure which they consider a compromise, and that that is the spirit of the constitution. I hold, Sir, that the Government have adopted this measure, having, after a full consideration of the matter, come to the conclusion that it is, on the whole, the one most beneficial for the public interest. We are to consider this measure, then, as a Government measure, and as a measure which the Government believes to be best adapted for the public advantage; and in that spirit I shall have to consider it. I should be very sorry, important as this measure is, if it did not receive a fair and ample discussion. It would be a matter of very great injury if measures of such vast importance should be not only "smuggled," to use the language of the hon. Gentleman who has introduced this question, but "rammed" through the House. But allow me to remind the hon. Gentleman who is so pathetic as to the sufferings of the "jaded" Members of "independent" position, who are, however, "sincere friends" of Her Majesty's Government, that there is an easy remedy for this inconvenience. The constitution could never be more securely guarded than when "independent" Members "friendly" to the Government remain in their places, and I do not understand that the fatigues of this Session have been of so oppressive a character that the nerves of hon. Members of the most "independent" character, and the most "friendly" sentiments to Her Majesty's Ministers need be in such a "jaded" condition that they cannot remain at their posts—this being only the month of June—to do their duty to the constitution. Whatever, therefore, may be the excursions which the hon. Gentleman contemplates, I shall hold him responsible to his constituents and to the country if he and the Gentlemen opposite,
2080
of whom he appears as the representative to-night, are not here to argue this question on its merits, the measure being one of the utmost importance, and having been introduced by the Government, as I understood it, upon its responsibility, and being strictly and properly a Ministerial measure.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has entirely mistaken the import of what I said just now. He seems to imagine that I was letting the House into the secret of this Bill; that I was revealing to them something which had passed behind the scenes. But I only referred to those scenes which had been played upon the stage—acted, indeed, as one may say, up to the very lamps. I referred to those very active and animated debates in the House of Lords which have resulted in the measure which has now come down to us. Undoubtedly, in proposing this measure to the House, I propose it as a measure which the Government recommends to the House, and which it is anxious to see passed.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: I have not, Sir, been "behind the scenes," nor do I know anything about the "secrets" of this measure; but I agree with the hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me that it is impossible to exaggerate its importance, and I can only say that the country which does not like "coalitions," does not like "compromises" between great parties in respect of measures of this description. I agree also with my hon. Friend (Mr. R. Currie) that it is of the utmost importance that an early day should be appointed for the second reading of this Bill; and if I sought to illustrate the necessity of its discussion not being postponed, I would only refer you to what occurred last night upon the Motion for the second reading of the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill. A measure is brought forward by Her Majesty's Government which seeks to transfer the appellate jurisdiction of all the inferior Courts of England with respect to testamentary matters from the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, which, up to the present time, has proved itself a most satisfactory tribunal, to the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords. I ventured last night, in commenting upon that Bill, to remind the House with respect to this proposed transfer what is the position of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords at this moment. We have before us a Bill in which it is distinctly admitted that that

2081
appellate jurisdiction, as now exercised in the last resort, affecting the administration of justice throughout the United Kingdom, is, in the opinion of the House of Lords themselves, unsatisfactory, and no longer tenable; and that House appeals to us to aid them in rectifying its defects, and in rendering it an efficient tribunal. Now, I contend, Sir, that we cannot deal with any such measure as the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill until we have first decided that question as to the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords; and I therefore hope the Government will, without loss of time, fix an early day for the discussion of the second reading of the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill, which certainly, in my humble opinion, ought to have precedence of any further progress with the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill. Now, I know that towards the end of July there may be a very general disposition on the part of Members of this House to seek some amusements more agreeable than that of prolonging our discussions and our Session to the month of September. My noble Friend at the head of the Government, like myself, no longer takes the same interest in the 12th of August, or, perhaps, the 1st of September, which we used to do formerly; but, speaking generally of this House, I do not think that the disposition will be cordial on the part of hon. Members to remain here until either of the periods I have mentioned. Than my noble Friend at the head of the Government I do not remember, certainly in all my long experience in Parliament, any one who has been more constant in his attendance here, or more sedulously attentive to his duties as a leader of this House. He has always given us his presence and attendance to an extent of which I have never witnessed another instance. He is, therefore, peculiarly well qualified to call upon us to remain here so long as the interests of the country require it. Yet, Sir, there are limits to this; and I hope, therefore, that this important Appellate Jurisdiction Bill will not be postponed. There are one or two other topics to which, before I sit down, I would venture to call the attention of my noble Friend. A few days ago we had a measure before us with respect to charging the revenues of India with an annuity of £15,000 a year in perpetuity; and when, on that occasion, I said that this measure involved a great constitutional question, an hon. Gentleman observed, that I made use
2082
of words without meaning—that what I said about treating it as a constitutional question was as "sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal." But, Sir, what I stated then I repeat now: that measure did involve a constitutional question of the highest importance. I do not, at the same time, wish to revive that subject, or the merits of that measure. I gave to the question my most deliberate attention. I thought that, as a question of justice, it was indispensably necessary to read the Bill a third time since the compromise tendered was refused; and the passing of the Bill appeared to be the only avenue to justice that was left open. But I again repeat, that the constitutional objections to that Bill appeared to be very grave. By a Standing Order of this House no charge whatever can be imposed on the Crown property of this country, nor on the revenue of this country, without the previous consent of the Crown, notified by a Minister in his place. Nay, so jealous is this House in this respect, that no person is entitled to present a petition asking for the receipt of public money. The Stand-Order runs thus—
"That this House will not receive any petition for any sum of money relating to the public service, or proceed upon any Motion for granting any public money but that which is recommended from the Crown."
Now, the possessions of the East India Company are held by them in trust for the Crown; and the revenue of this country in the last resort is responsible for any deficiency in their revenues. I cannot see in principle, therefore, any difference between charging the revenue of the possessions held in trust for the Crown in India, and a direct Parliamentary charge upon the property of the Crown itself. Now, at the end of every Session of Parliament the Standing Orders of this House are revised by a Committee of the House appointed for that especial purpose; and I would ask my noble Friend at the head of the Government to consider the expediency of bringing under the review of that Committee the proposal of an extension to Indian revenue of the rule which is applicable to the direct revenue of the State and the property of the Crown itself. I am extremely anxious that no time should be lost in coming to such a Resolution upon the subject; for I am afraid that the tendency of measures of the description to

2083
which I have alluded is to degenerate into jobs. I am also afraid lest the example of this Session may be followed in future Sessions upon that rank soil of India, and that claims of this description may increase and multiply to an alarming extent. It is wise, therefore, while there is no particular question of this nature pending, to provide a remedy, and that remedy is completely within the power of the House. Having said so much upon this subject, I may perhaps be allowed to mention another which is exactly germane to it, and to make a suggestion to my noble Friend the Member for London (Lord J. Russell). I refer to the question on Addresses from this House requiring an answer from the Crown. That, too, is a matter, I consider, which might be advantageously brought before the Standing Orders Committee. I think, that whenever an Address is agreed to by the House which requires an answer from the Crown, the same precautions should be taken with regard to it as are taken at the opening of the Session—that the Address should be referred to a Committee, and that an interval of at least twenty-four hours should elapse before it is sent up for presentation to the Crown.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that both the points raised by the right hon. Baronet were very fit subjects for consideration by the Standing Orders Committee. The last point was already in the hands of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and, no doubt, when the Standing Orders Committee was appointed at the end, of the Session they would take it into their consideration. With regard, to the former question, he had before stated that his opinion entirely coincided with that of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) as to this being a great constitutional question. The East India Company being little more than trustees for the Crown, he thought that the Indian Government was entitled to the same protection as the Government of the Queen. He had mentioned the subject to his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee (Mr. FitzRoy), who said that he thought the Committee appointed at the end of each Session to revise the Standing Orders would take up the question without a Resolution of the House, and he (Mr. V. Smith) therefore thought that it would be better to leave the matter to be dealt with by that Committee.

THE ARMY—STAFF APPOINTMENTS, &o.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he rose to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War to the operation of the warrant of the 6th of October, 1854, relative to Staff Appointments being held for the term of five years only, except on reappointment. The duties of the higher staff officers, such as assistant-adjutant-general and assistant-quartermaster-general, were such that they were generally filled by field-officers selected on account of their great regimental knowledge and practice. According to the rules of the army now in force, no officer could hold a staff and regimental appointment at the same time, but must on his acceptance of the former go upon half-pay. Under the warrant to which he had referred, such an officer would, after the expiration of his five years' duty on the staff, have no prospect but a continuance on half-pay; and the effect of the warrant would therefore, in his opinion, be to confine the choice of the Commander-in-Chief for Staff Appointments to the half-pay list. It was true that there were in the warrant the words "except upon re-appointment;'' but that slender chance of a renewal of the Staff Appointment would not, he anticipated, be found sufficient to induce a staff-officer to give up his regimental commission.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he had no doubt that, were it permitted to fields officers to retain their regimental conjointly with their Staff Appointments, they would find many field-officers well qualified to hold Staff Appointments, and that thus they would have those appointments well filled and their duties ably discharged; but if that course were adopted the obvious consequence would be to interfere with the proper performance of the regimental duties. Accordingly, it had been the invariable rule to place field officers on half-pay when they accepted Staff Appointments. He could not acquiesce in the statement that any hardship was inflicted upon field officers in requiring them to resign their regimental appointments on receiving situations on the staff; and he believed there was no field officer likely to be appointed to a staff situation who would not willingly accept that situation, and at the same time resign his regimental appointment.
MR. MILESsaid, he wished to put a question to the hon. Under Secretary for War, as to the command of the depôt companies of the army which are to be formed

2085
into groups of consolidated depôts, with three regiments in each depôt, and to inquire whether the several lieutenant colonels who may be reduced will be placed in such command. He wished to point out that the second lieutenant colonels of the forty-one regiments coming home from the Crimea would be reduced, most of whom had done good service. There were forty-five of those lieutenant colonels who were subject to reduction; but as the regiment of one of them was ordered to India, he would of course go with it on the full establishment, but the remaining forty-four would be reduced on their regiments being put on the peace establishment. Of those forty-four second lieutenant colonels he found that there were four who had served upwards of thirty years; twenty-seven who had served above twenty and under thirty years; nine had served above fifteen years and under twenty; and there were only four who had served under fifteen years. No less than thirty-eight of them had been decorated, and had medals with one or more clasps; and they also laboured under the additional disadvantage that if they purchased out the other lieutenant colonels, their purchase-money would not go to their families in case of their death under the recent warrant. He, therefore, urged that these lieutenant colonels should be appointed to command the consolidated depôts which were to be formed at home.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he would also beg to ask whether a Lancashire regiment of militia had not received twenty-one days' back pay, being what that regiment was stated to have claimed as being entitled to under the Militia Act for the time that elapsed between the date of the warrant for embodiment and the day of actual embodiment; and if the regiment alluded to had received this back pay, why should not all other regiments be similarly allowed back pay in case of having similar grounds of claim?
COLONEL LINDSAYsaid, it would be satisfactory to the officers of the army if the hon. Gentleman would state what was to be the constitution of those depôts. He wished to know whether there was to be a field officer attached to the depôt of each regiment, to be under the orders of the officer commanding the consolidated depôt?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel North) was of opinion that when a field officer was appointed to the staff he ought
2086
not to be required to relinquish his regimental appointment.
COLONEL NORTH: I said quite the contrary. What the officers are anxious to know is, whether, if they are removed from their staff appointments at the end of five years, they will have only their half-pay to look to.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman stated that it was very hard that when a field officer was appointed to a staff situation, which he could only hold for five years, he should have to go on half-pay, either at the time of receiving the appointment or at the end of the five years.
COLONEL NORTH: Not at all. According to the rule of the army they must go on half-pay when they accept a staff appointment.
MR. FREDERICK PEEL: Then, what the hon. and gallant Gentleman complained of was, that when a field officer accepted a staff appointment, which was one that he could only hold for five years, he had to leave his regiment and go on half-pay, and, at the end of the five years, he had nothing to fall back upon but his half-pay-and that, therefore, the choice of the Commander in Chief was likely to be restricted to officers on half-pay, as no sufficient inducement was held out to regimental officers to leave their regiments. Now, he was of a different opinion. If field officers were permitted to hold staff appointments conjointly with their regimental appointments, you would doubtless find good officers for the staff; but, as he had previously stated, you would interfere greatly with the proper performance of regimental duty. For there were only three field officers, one lieutenant colonel and two majors, to a regiment, and neither of them ought to be away from their regiments, whether on full pay or on the staff, because it was a great hardship on those officers who carried on their duty in their absence. The rule was to put officers appointed on the staff on half-pay, and it was one which he was strongly of opinion ought to be enforced. The fact was, that no field officer was likely to be offered a staff appointment who would not be ready to accept it, and to leave his regiment. He would give an instance of a major of the 22nd Regiment, who was going out as military secretary to the officer commanding in Canada, and he was quite willing to resign his regimental appointment. It was

2087
quite a mistake to suppose that the present system injured the prospects of regimental officers. The explanation was that it was a great object with field officers to attain the rank of colonel in the army, and that could only he done by serving three years as a lieutenant colonel of a regiment. A major knew, therefore, that he could not be a colonel until he had first served three years as a lieutenant colonel with his regiment; but he could attain to the rank of lieutenant colonel in much shorter time by going on the staff, for some staff appointments were accompanied by a step in rank. For instance, a major appointed to be a military secretary became at once a brevet lieutenant colonel; and assistant adjutant generals and assistant quartermaster generals in three years' time became colonels in the army. The consequence was that, both as regarded the interests of the officers and those of the regiments, the rule as it now stood was the best. With regard to the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Miles), that the depôts about to be established would afford opportunities of employing the second lieutenant colonels of regiments about to be reduced, there could be no objection to that; but the consolidated depots already established were commanded by field officers, and it was not thought necessary that the depôt of each regiment should be commanded by a field officer. There were to be only twelve consolidated depôts, and it would not be right to remove the officers commanding them to make room for the second lieutenant colonels about to be reduced. If, however, any other depôts were formed, there would be an opening for employing those officers. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans), he had to say that it was true that a Lancashire regiment of militia had received twenty-one days' pay in the way he had described, and there was no reason why other regiments similarly situated should not be treated in the same way: he believed that two other Lancashire regiments had received twenty-one days' pay in that manner.

CHURCH RATES—QUESTION.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, that in rising to ask the question, of which he had given notice, of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he would avail himself of the Motion before the House to accompany
2088
it with one or two explanatory observations, when his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, on the second reading of the Church Rate Abolition Bill (on the 5th March), explained the grounds on which Government had decided to support the second reading; the right hon. Baronet stated also the Amendments which Government thought necessary, and the acceptance of which would be the condition of their future support. The Amendments of his right hon. Friend were laid on the table immediately before the Easter recess, and very shortly after the recess Government was informed privately by himself, and the House was informed by his reply to a question from the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord R. Cecil), that the Government Amendments would be accepted by the Member having charge of the Bill. On the one hand, therefore, there was the support of the Government given on certain conditions; on the other, the acceptance of those conditions by the promoters of the Bill. Now, those circumstances, in his opinion—and in the opinion, as he believed, of the House—in the opinion, as he felt certain, of the country—amounted to an adoption of the Bill by the Government. Looking to the fact that the Government had for two or three years past intimated their intention of bringing in some Bill on the subject of church rates—that they had not done so—that they gave their support to the Bill he had had the honour to bring in on certain conditions, and that those conditions were accepted—it seemed to him impossible not to suppose that they considered the Bill now before the House as the redemption of their pledges on the subject, and the best practicable mode of dealing with the question, the settlement of which was admitted on all hands and by all parties to be a matter of urgent and imperative necessity. Accordingly, as the question was not one to be trifled with, or lightly taken up and laid down, he had expected that Government would have afforded facilities for bringing the Bill, in its various stages, under the consideration of the House. He felt the more entitled to expect this, as the Amendments proposed by the Government, by introducing new and important elements into the measure, widened the field of debate and enhanced the difficulties of carrying through the various stages of the Bill. In fact, the attempt of a private Member

2089
to carry through the Bill as amended by the Government would have been hopeless and absurd. In these expectations, however, he regretted to say he had been disappointed. Three months had elapsed since Easter, and he had not yet been able to induce the noble Lord to name a day for the House to go into Committee on the Bill. When last (some fortnight or three weeks since) he asked the noble Lord a question on the subject in that House, he had understood him to say, that he would give a day whenever he could do so consistently with the progress of the Bills brought in by the Government itself. He presumed, however, he must have misunderstood the noble Lord—as he observed that the morning sitting of Tuesday next (a Government day), was given to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Marquess of Blandford) for the Committee on the formation of Parishes Bill. His noble Friend, in reply to the representations he had thought it right to make on his own part and the part of many Members of the House, was very kind in expressing his intentions to afford facilities for the progress of the Bill; but somehow it so happened that these kind intentions produced no fruit; and now, almost in July, and the end of the Session approaching, no day was named for taking even the next stage of the Bill. He felt himself called upon to state these facts in justification of himself, in order that he might stand clear with the large party, as well within as without the walls of Parliament, who had given him their confidence in this matter. He did not presume, of course, to dictate to the noble Lord the course he ought to pursue; but he considered that he was entitled to ask, or rather the House was entitled to know, what that course was. If the noble Lord would frankly and explicitly avow that he considered the Government bound to attempt to carry through the Bill,—then no doubt there was time to get through the remaining stages of the Bill before the time fixed by the other House, beyond which they would not receive Bills from the House of Commons. If on the other hand the noble Lord did not feel inclined or enabled to give that assurance, then it would be better at once to abandon the Bill, and not trifle further with the time and patience of the House and the expectations of the country.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, as my noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) has already addressed
2090
the House on the question of adjournment, I will answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets. It is the duty as well as the desire of the Government to press forward as speedily as possible the various measures which they have themselves introduced, and for the conduct of which they are directly responsible. One of them has already been referred to by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) as having an imperative claim on the attention of the House, namely, the Bill relating to the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords. There are other measures of a similar nature, for the discussion of which it is necessary that the Government should assign the earliest days at their command. I fear, therefore, that it will not be in our power at present to fix any day to be devoted to the consideration of the Bill of my hon. Friend. I can only assure him that, at the earliest period when an opportunity presents itself, the Government will be ready to set apart a day for the measure which he has introduced. At the same time, I must be permitted to observe that my hon. Friend is under a misconception in supposing that this is a Bill which has been adopted by the Government. All that has occurred is, that my right hon. Friend at the head of the Home Department has given notice that he will, at the next stage of the measure, move the insertion of certain clauses. That stage has not yet arrived; and no opportunity has been afforded my right hon. Friend for making that Motion. Therefore, until these clauses have been, engrafted on the Bill, with the assent of the House, it would be impossible, by the most liberal construction of the word, to say that the Government have "adopted" this measure. That is the explanation which the Government have to offer, and they are perfectly willing to appoint the earliest available day for the consideration of this subject.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, he would only say, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he should abandon the Bill.

THE ORDER OF VALOUR—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he wished to ask whether the arrangements for the distribution of the Victoria Order of Valour were completed, or nearly so, and whether it would be brought into operation at an early period? Nothing, he considered, was

2091
so bad in a subject of this kind as delay. The Baltic medals and the Crimean medals had been distributed much too profusely. All who were in the Baltic or the Crimea, whether they were worthy or unworthy, had received them. With regard to the Order in question, the rules were excellent, and he trusted they would be adhered to.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he believed the arrangements were all but completed; and as soon as they were, the Order would be brought into operation.

THE ORDER OF THE MEDJEDJIE— QUESTION.
MR. KNIGHTLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury why the British officers belonging to the Turkish Contingent, on whom the Sultan had conferred the Order of the Medjedjie, were not permitted to wear that decoration.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Sultan had expressed a wish to bestow a certain honour, not alone on those officers who had commanded troops in the Crimea, but also on those officers who had rendered military service elsewhere to the Turkish empire. The question was now under the consideration of the Government; but he (Mr. Labouchere) believed that he might say that it was their opinion that the officers of the Turkish Contingent should be put on the same footing in respect to those Orders as the officers who commanded in the Crimea.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS, &c.—QUESTION.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade respecting the control over railway traffic vested in his department, and also to call attention to the inconvenience and danger incurred by passengers in consequence of the defective arrangements of the South-Eastern and the London and Brighton Railways. He had been somewhat startled on referring to the papers connected with the accidents on railways, to find the number of such accidents that were reported, and he did not hesitate to say that nearly all the accidents which had occurred on the South-Eastern Railway between September and December of last year might, in his opinion, have been avoided by the adoption of ordinary precautions. Indeed, it appeared from the Report of the officer employed by the Board of Trade to institute inquiries on the subject, that great laxity of discipline prevailed among the
2092
servants of the company, and that nearly every accident was attributable to negligence or mismanagement. The Reports to which he had referred, although they professed to give an account of all accidents occurring on railways, did not in fact do so. Last year he was in one of the tidal trains on the South-Eastern Railway, which ran into a coal-truck which was being shunted; one of the passengers, a gentleman, was very severely injured, having, he believed, had both legs broken; several other passengers were severely bruised; but no notice was taken of the occurrence in the Report. He wished to call the attention of the House to a somewhat singular arrangement, according to which accidents might be caused by the observance of strict punctuality on the part of a railway company. It appeared that a slow passenger train started from London on the London and Brighton Railway at eight o'clock, stopping at two stations—Forest-hill and Croydon, and being due at Redhill junction at a quarter before nine. At ten minutes after eight an express train was started upon the same line for Dover, which did not stop at any station, and was due at Redhill at sixteen minutes to nine, only one minute after the slow train to which he had just referred. He maintained that some interference was absolutely necessary in order to prevent the accidents which were rendered imminent by such extraordinary arrangements. He therefore begged to ask the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, whether that department had any power of control over railway companies with reference to those matters; and, if so, whether it was their intention to exercise such power?
MR. LOWEreplied, that the Board of Trade had the power of inspecting railways before they were opened, and that railways could not be opened until the Board certified that they were in a satisfactory condition; but after railways were opened the Board possessed no power with regard to them. He thought it was a very grave question whether the supervision of railways should be entrusted to the Board of Trade, because at present the responsibility of railway companies afforded some guarantee for the safety of the public; but if a Government department were empowered to interfere, although some immediate danger and inconvenience might be obviated, the responsibility of the companies would be materially diminished. He was, however, bound to state that it was his Opinion,

2093
as Well as that Of the Department with which he was connected, that the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman with reference to the London and Brighton Railway deserved serious attention. A train started from London at eight o'clock, and was due at Redhill junction at a quarter to nine; another train Started from London at ten minutes past eight o'clock, and was due at Redhill at sixteen minutes to nine. Now, it was all but impossible such an arrangement could be carried out without a collision, and he thought the subject deserved the grave attention of the Brighton and South-Eastern Railway Company; for, if any accident should occur after the matter had been mentioned in that House, their responsibility would be heavy indeed.
MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, that, having been long connected with the management of the South-Eastern Railway, he thought it right to state, that a rule was laid down by the company that no train should he allowed to proceed from any station on the line until a telegraphic signal had been received from the station in advance, intimating that the preceding train had not only arrived at such station, but had cleared it. If that rule were adhered to, the mere error in print to which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Otway) had called attention, could not affect the public safety.

OUR RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.
MR. G. H. MOOREsaid, he considered that it Was quite unnecessary for him to inform the House that he was not satisfied with the answer he had received a short time since from the noble Lord at the head of the Government with regard to the relations between this country and America. When he recollected that the noble Lord had already granted a day for the discussion of that question before the papers bearing upon it were completed, and When he recollected, also, that the Home Secretary thought proper to taunt the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) with anticipating a coming discussion by a premature expression of opinion, he (Mr. Moore) must say the answer of the noble Lord was as unexpected as it was unsatisfactory. He thought it right to state why he conceived that that answer ought not to be satisfactory to the House, and why he should deem it his duty to persevere in bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice,
2094
whenever he should have an opportunity of doing so. When the noble Lord stated that the Whole of the papers relating to the dispute between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States had not been laid upon the table, he (Mr. Moore) at once acceded to the suggestion, that the discussion of the subject should be postponed until the papers had been laid before the House in a complete form. He did not think, however at the time that the production of the papers to which the noble Lord referred could by any possibility alter or modify, in any essential particular, the nature of the question which the House would Ultimately have to decide, and he must say that opinion had not been changed by the production of the papers he had had the misfortune to read that day. They were told by the noble Lord that it would be unwise, even now, to stir the question, and that it might be injurious to the public service, in connection with the pending negotiations, if that House were to give expression to its opinions Upon a subject supposed to be connected with the matter to which those negotiations referred. It was his conviction that they had heard too much of Parliamentary discussion being injurious to the public service. They were told the same thing during the late war, and the country had, in consequence, drifted into war without knowing it, and in the very worst state of preparation. He did not believe that discussion would have been injurious then, nor did he believe that it would be injurious now. He thought, on the contrary, that, whatever had been done well during the late War had been done under the pressure of public opinion in that House and out of it, and that all the mismanagement had been worked out in the holes and corners of official intrigue. He was bound to say, explicitly, that he saw nothing in the conduct of the negotiations which ought to induce the House of Commons to pause in pronouncing an opinion, and that it would be unwise and injurious not only to the public service, but to the credit and honour of the country, to leave the management of the question to the undirected discretion of the Government. But there was a much more important question than this involved. What was the state of public opinion at the present moment? Why, there were tens and hundreds of thousands of men, not ignorant or unwise, but men of sound understanding, and with a right-minded

2095
sense of justice, who had a strong conviction that this country had been humiliated and wronged in the late transactions, and who thought that, although there was no case for present hostilities, yet that there was reason for a watchful and resentful jealousy of outrage upon our honour hereafter. Public opinion had been drifting, in fact, into a state which might be the prelude to war, since a feeling of national humiliation, and a sense of national exasperation might hereafter lead to hostilities. Was it wise and just, therefore, in the House of Commons to remain silent, and to leave the public to sit down and bite their thumbs in ignominious silence? Was it not their duty, on the contrary, to prevent such a feeling from growing and festering in the minds of the people of England; and was it not the duty of the House of Commons, as the guardians of the national honour and the representatives of public opinion, to pronounce a verdict upon this question which should be worthy of their reputation for justice, fair dealing, and good faith among other countries. Such a course would tend more to win respect than all the crafty circumlocution of all the protocols in the world. If the United States' Government had been "deceived, irritated, and offended," as an hon. Member on that (the Opposition) side of the House had asserted, was it not the duty of that House, not only to the Government but to their fellow-subjects, to pass its censure upon those by whom the interests of the two countries had been perilled? If, on the other hand, our representative in the United States had done nothing but what he had a right to do by the American laws, and what he was bound to do by the interests of the public service at home, it was the duty of that House to sustain and defend him as a faithful subject of the Queen, and all the more because he had been unjustly attacked. What would the House do with Mr. Crampton, with Lord Clarendon, with the Government itself? If Mr. Crampton had behaved properly throughout these transactions he deserved the thanks of the country, the failing arms of which he had endeavoured to recruit, and of the Sovereign in whose service he had suffered so much obloquy. But if, on the other hand, Mr. Crampton had been engaged in a secret conspiracy to violate the laws of the country to which he was accredited, then to defend, sustain and reward such conduct was a gross in
2096
justice to the interests and dignity of this country. But there was another course which it was impossible to reconcile with national honour. To say that a Minister had done his duty to his Queen and country, and to receive with open arms, the Minister of that power which had treated him with obloquy and indignity, was a course calculated neither to obtain the present respect of the people of that country, nor its future forbearance. It was inconsistent with the dignity of this country and of its foreign relations, and would be regarded by the people of America as the act of a Minister who had neither the heart to atone for an offence nor the spirit to resent an indignity. It would not do to say that Mr. Crampton had been dismissed because he had not been acceptable to the taste of the people of America. He had not been dismissed upon any such grounds, or from any fastidious fancy or caprice. The gravest allegations were brought against Mr. Crampton's character and conduct, and it concerned the honour of the country that inquiry should be made into the truth of those allegations, and that the House of Commons should pronounce such a verdict as would prove to the people of America and the nations of the world that, whatever blunders our diplomatists or Cabinets might make, the people of this country were not responsible for them. The House of Commons was, he thought, bound to pronounce an opinion upon this most important matter, and unquestionably, whenever the forms of the House allowed, he would bring the subject before them.

APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL:There is one question, Sir, which was mentioned in an early part of this discussion, upon which I cannot help saying a few words; I refer to the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill. My noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) said, that a very early day would be appointed for this Bill, but he said there were other Bills which it was necessary to consider before that Bill. Now, it would be a very serious evil if a Bill of that great importance should be passed at a very late period of the Session, and it would be a matter of reproach to us if it did not receive full consideration. My noble Friend says that the present exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of the Lords is not satisfactory. The Government are bound to show why that jurisdiction which has been so long

2097
exercised by the House of Lords, and so jealously guarded by that House, fails all at once, and why they propose to take it away. In the next place, this Bill affects the prerogative, for it surrenders, limits, and restricts one of the most important prerogatives of the Crown, namely, the creation of Peers for life. In the third place, if this Bill passes it will deeply affect the independence of the bench. I hope, therefore, that there will be no delay in bringing this Bill before the House, and that the House will have an early opportunity of discussing the subject in all its important bearings before it is asked to affirm the principles of the Bill on a second reading.
MR. MALINSsaid, that without expressing any opinion on the principle of the Bill he felt bound to say that it was absolutely necessary something should be done on the question. Such was the imperative necessity of something being done, that he had only to say that appeals from several of the Judges had been heard by the Lord Chancellor sitting alone; and that happened from the fact of one noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonards) declining to attend. Lord Lyndhurst, from his advanced age, had every right to decline attendance, and Lord Brougham, he was sorry to say, was unable to attend in consequence of ill-health, the Lord Chancellor, therefore, had to hear appeals sitting alone. To his mind, the Bill had many points that were most unsatisfactory, but be only rose to bear his testimony that something should be done at once, and to express a hope that the Government would not allow the question to be postponed.
Motion for the adjournment of the House till Monday was then agreed to.

SITE OF THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
On the Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply,
LORD ELCHOsaid, he rose in pursuance of notice to submit a Motion for the issue of a Royal Commission to determine the site of the New National Gallery. He was compelled to ask the indulgence of the House on the ground that he was still an invalid, and he must also state that he was in the anomalous position of being unable to vote for his own Motion, as, with the view of going abroad, he had paired off with an hon. Member for the remainder of the Session. Questions of this nature did not generally excite much interest or attention, but the subject to which he
2098
wished to draw attention was one of considerable importance, as upon its determination would depend whether a large sum of the public money was to be laid out providently or improvidently. He would first explain his reasons for bringing forward a Motion on this subject. By a Bill now before Parliament, called the National Gallery Site Bill, the House were called upon to affirm the proposition that the site of the National Gallery should be fixed at Kensington Gore. That Bill would have passed a second reading some time since had it not been for the watchfulness and perseverance of a few hon. Members who objected to the site proposed. Now, he was not prepared, and many other hon. Gentlemen were not prepared, to vote upon that proposition one way or the other. He had given notice of the present Motion because he thought the question required further investigation, and would be more properly brought before the House in that form than by the Bill; and he had to thank the noble Lord at the head of the Government for the courtesy with which he had postponed the second reading of the Bill until the Motion had been disposed of. The Motion naturally divided itself into two parts, as it raised the questions, first, whether a Royal Commission should be issued to determine the site of the National Gallery, and, secondly, whether that Royal Commission, if issued, should likewise consider the desirableness of combining with the National Gallery the fine art and archæological collections of the British Museum? The question as to the site was a very simple one—were the House prepared, without any further inquiry, to vote for the removal of the National Gallery to Kensington Gore. He for one certainly was not prepared so to vote. One reason why delay was imperative was the great difference of opinion upon the question which existed both in and out of that House. Some Gentlemen were anxious at all price, at all hazard, to remove the National Gallery to Kensington Gore; others thought that, of all situations which could be selected for a National Gallery, Kensington Gore was the worst; others, again, said that, if Kensington Gore was the only alternative, its removal there might, perhaps, be desirable; and that was the view taken by the Committee of 1853; and another class thought that, from the commanding and central position which the National Gallery now occupied, it ought not to be removed.

2099
Various arguments would no doubt be brought against his Motion by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had heard it argued in the first place, that Parliament was committed to the site of Kensington Gore by the Vote of £150,000 for the purchase of the ground Which had been moved by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Diaraeli), when Chancellor of the Exchequer; in the second place, it was asked what was the use of further inquiry when there had been Commissions and Committees on the subject without end? Thirdly, it was said that the Committee of 1853 had determined upon accepting the site of Kensington Gore by a Resolution embodied in their Report. With regard to the first objection, having carefully looked through all the discussions which had taken place on the subject, he thought that Parliament was in no way committed upon the question of the site. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) in an able speech explained his scheme, although he shadowed forth a National Gallery as One of the purposes to which the ground might be put, nothing specific was determined. On that occasion the late Mr. Hume objected to the removal of the National Gallery from its present central position, although he cordially approved of the industrial scheme proposed to be carried out at Kensington Gore. He (Lord Elcho) must here disclaim any intention to interfere with the industrial scheme proposed by the Royal Commission of 1851, of which Prince Albert was the able and active head, a scheme proposed in consequence of the deficiency of this country in the arts of design as applied to manufactures. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire, as well as Mr. Hume, raised his voice on the occasion to which he had referred against the removal of the National Gallery, so that nothing had then passed to commit the House. In 1854 the question was again brought before Parliament, as it was found that £27,500 beyond the sum already voted was required, and then an hon. Friend of his, now on the Treasury bench, whose vote he was afraid Would not now be given to him, but whose sympathies he knew were with him, he meant the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. D. Seymour), objected to money being voted for the removal of the National Gallery, and said, he (Lord Elcho) distinctly remembered that no pledge had been given on the part of the House that it should be removed. Therefore it was quite clear that
2100
they were in no way pledged or committed Upon the subject. With regard to the second objection he had mentioned, he certainly admitted that a number of inquiries had taken place, for there had bees no less than two Commissions (appointed by the Treasury) and five Committees. The Commission of 1850 inquired into the state of the pictures, and recommended, in consequence of the dust and dirt accumulated on them, that they should be covered with glass. The Commission of 1851, of which the present Duke of Somerset was a Member, reported in favour of one of two sites in Kensington Gardens—one, the end of the walk near the Bayswater Road; the other, the paddock, near Kensington Palace. The first Committee was appointed in 1836, but that only considered the question of the occupation of part of the building by the Royal Academy. There had always been something unfortunate about the National Gallery, it had been a ricketty child from its birth, for no sooner was it erected than a question arose as to its occupation, and a great part of it had always been occupied by the Royal Academy. The next Committee, which sat in 1841, merely inquired into the number of visitors to the gallery. The Committee of 1850, although they thought the site not as advantageous as it might be for the preservation of the pictures, could make no recommendation on the subject in ignorance of the site to which it was proposed to be removed. In 1847 and 1848 a Committee sat, of Which the late Sir Robert Peel, the Earl of Carlisle, the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell), and other distinguished men were members, and they came to the unanimous decision that the National Gallery ought not to be removed from its present site. The result of the various inquiries was not conclusive or satisfactory. Indeed, the Reports on the subject were most contradictory. He now came to the Committee of 1853, and he imagined that it was to carry out the views of that Committee that the Government now proposed to remove the National Gallery to Kensington Gore. He was quite ready to admit that that Committee came to a Resolution accepting the site of Kensington Gore for the National Gallery, but It was merely on the idea that there Was no other alternative, and the Resolution to that effect was only carried by a majority of one. A paragraph inserted in the Report for removing the National Gallery to

2101
Kensington Gore was, undoubtedly, carried by six against five, but if the substantive motion had not been carried by a majority of one the Committee would not have affirmed the acceptance of the site. He was in the minority, and he was supported by the hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) who was the financial secretary of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) at the time when the decision was arrived at. He was also supported in the minority by the late Sir William Molesworth, and he thought that all that he had stated showed that the opinion of the Committee on this subject was anything but unanimous, and that too much weight must not be attached to a decision accepting the Kensington Gore site as the only alternative. The Chairman of the Committee on the occasion was Colonel Mure then Member for Renfrewshire, and there was no doubt that if he had had occasion to give a casting vote on the subject he would have voted against the Kensington Gore site, for he drew up a draught Report condemning it. He (Lord Elcho) therefore could not help thinking that the case of those who based their views in favour of the removal of the National Gallery to Kensington Gore on the Report of that Committee was not very strongly supported. The Committee, he repeated, adopted the Kensington Gore site because they believed there was no other alternative, but if hon. Members looked over the Parliamentary papers and documents they would find that not less than thirteen other sites were suggested as available or desirable for the National Gallery. It was not, therefore, on the supposed want of alternatives that the House was obliged to adopt the proposed site. Those were the reasons which induced him to desire that there should be some further inquiry to determine the site of the new National Gallery, But besides this there was a larger and wider question, to which he should shortly call the attention of the House—namely, whether it would not be desirable to combine with the new National Gallery the fine art and archæological collections at present in the British Museum. The subject had frequently engaged the attention of Parliament, and it would, no doubt, be in the recollection of the noble Member for London (Lord J. Russell), who moved the Vote in Supply for the British Museum, that the question as to what should be done with the collections in the British
2102
Museum was more or less brought before the House. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) when Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave what was a true account of the origin of the difficulties connected with the collections in the Museum. Since those collections, formed by Sir Hans Sloane, came into the possession of the nation continual additions had been made to them, until the Museum had become a perfect Noah's ark, containing birds, beasts, fishes, and other things, arranged without system, while each department appeared to be in a state of chronic congestion. He was told that two cases which had arrived from Edinburgh must remain in the cellars along with a hundred others, and that when a new bull came from Nineveh a stable was obliged to be built for it in some out-of-the-way place. With regard to books, however, he was told by Mr. Panizzi that in consequence of the Vote of £140,000 for a new reading-room there was space for £1,500,000 volumes. The Committee of 1853 were in favour of combining with the new National Gallery, the fine art and archæological collections of the British Museum. Now, assuredly if the collections were to be moved, they must be moved as a whole. When the question came before the Committee of 1853 he had hesitated to give an opinion upon it, and he had moved to recommend the appointment of a Commission on the subject. The eleventh Resolution of the Committee was to that effect. He was happy to say that in this proposition for the appointment of a Commission he had the concurrence of Lord Ellesmere, whose opinion oh such subjects was entitled to the greatest weight, and with the permission of the House, he would read a letter from that nobleman:—
"My dear Elcho,—Our conversation, yesterday, set me thinking, and the result of my reflections is that the time is arrived when the whole subject is ripe for the consideration of a Commission, but not for immediate action. There are many questions which seem to me to deserve mature consideration before a brick is laid for a National Gallery, or for any permanent building. The said National Gallery is the pivot round which all these questions may naturally be made to turn.
"There are at least two primary points respecting which rational men may, and probably do, differ. What will you put into it? and, where will you place it? The settlement of the first may much influence the decision on the second. Will you confine it to a place of exhibition for the choice collection of old masters now in Trafalgar Square, and its contingent accessions of the same kind, which may be considerable, but will never

2103
be enormous, i.e., if anything like a high standard of merit is to be preserved? Will you adjoin to it the proposed portrait gallery, drawings, &c.?
"Sculpture? If so, will you make any distinction between works of excellence as models in an artistic sense, and those in which antiquarian and historic considerations predominate—between Greece and Rome, and Egypt and Nineveh?
"Will you relieve the Museum at all, either in this way, or by removing to some cheaper (?), but better lighted and more suitable building, the natural history, or any special branch of the same, such as fossil bones?
"Having seen your way through these questions, will you keep your gallery where it is, lodging the academy elsewhere, or move it? To Kensington Palace? To Gore House site? To the Botanic Gardens, Regent's Park?
"I do not think there is one of these questions which does not deserve consideration, and which has, as yet, sufficiently received it.
"Move for a Commission.
"yours,
"EGERTON ELLESMERE."
The question of site depended not only upon whether it should be determined to combine our collections, but on the manner in which that was to be carried out; whether it was to be done in a handsome manner, worthy of the arts, or whether it was to be done economically. It might be done in such a manner, he apprehended, as to keep both considerations in view. He had had considerable delicacy in mentioning Kensington Palace as a site, because that was a Royal residence, and he spoke in utter ignorance of the intentions or wishes of Her Majesty with regard to it. It must be remembered, however, that the gardens of Kensington Palace were now open to the public, and the privacy of the palace as a Royal residence was therefore destroyed. In the time of William the Third and the early Georges the gardens were closed to the public except on Saturdays, but gradually they had become perfectly free. Still, if it were determined to erect on that site a palace worthy of the arts it would not preclude Her Majesty, or any future Sovereign who might feel so disposed, from erecting a Royal residence in close connection with the gallery. That was the case in Paris, in Berlin, and in Florence; and there would be this great advantage, that on State occasions the two might be thrown together, as was done with the Tuileries and the Louvre Gallery, so as to form one magnificent suite of rooms. If Her Majesty should consent to such a sacrifice as giving up Kensington Palace for the benefit of the public, sure he was that Parliament and the country would be ready to offer any equivalent
2104
which Her Majesty at any future time might desire. Another way in which it had been suggested that this combination could be carried out was to give Burlington House to the Prince of Wales, to clear away St. James's Palace and Marlborough House, which would give a frontage of 1,100 feet, and there to erect a National Gallery in connection with a new suite of Royal reception-rooms, which hon. Members were well aware were very much needed. Whitehall had also been mentioned as possessing capabilities for a National Gallery. Another site was that of Kensington Gore, where, although there was ample room in the lower part of the ground, the frontage was somewhat restricted, and where no one who had given attention to this matter believed that there could he erected a building which would be an ornament to the metropolis. Immediately in front of this site there were two parallel dusty roads, and the low ground behind looked towards Brompton and parts of London little frequented except by those who were in the habit of going to Cremorne Gardens. There was was one plan by which the proposed combination might be both satisfactorily and economically carried out. He had already referred to the crowded state of the British Museum. Now, if they sent the botanical collection at the British Museum to Kew, that of zoology to the Zoological Gardens, and the minerals and fossils to Burlington Gardens, where it would be in close vicinity to the learned societies, which were, he understood, to be lodged in Burlington House, and in the immediate neighbourhood of the Geological Museum in Jermyn Street, there would then be in the British Museum three sides of the quadrangle for the reception of paintings and sculpture, a space greater than this country was at all likely to require. It would be desirable, therefore, in order that all these questions might be set at rest, that there should be a Commission appointed. If that Commission should report against the desirableness of combining the various collections, he, for one, should be opposed to the removal of the National Gallery from its present site. A great deal had been said of the extent to which the pictures in that collection suffered from dirt and dust; but in that respect they were no worse off than were the various private collections in the heart of London, such as those of the Duke of Northumberland, Lord Ellesmere, the Marquess of Westminster, the late Mr. Rogers, Mr.

2105
Hope, and various others. He believed that the pictures might, to a great extent, be protected against these evils by improved ventilation, by the use of doors to check the entrance of dust, which had only lately been introduced into the National Gallery—and which, by the bye, when he went there the other day, he found carefully tied open—and by covering the pictures with glass. He was himself one of the majority of ten to one which voted for the removal of the National Gallery; but he voted for that removal only with a view to the combination of the collections, such as was to be found at Paris, St. Petersburg, Berlin, Naples, Florence, and other continental cities. If that scheme were not carried out he should be very much tempted to keep the National Gallery where it was. The Committee of 1847 and 1848 said in their Report, which was drawn up by Lord Carlisle, the Chairman—
"After careful deliberation, they unanimously concurred in the opinion that, taking into account the commanding nature of the site occupied by the present building, to which it would, perhaps, be difficult to find a parallel in our own or any other capital; its accessibility and nearness to the chief thoroughfares and centres of business, which are fed by what has been described in a well-known phrase as 'the fullest tide of human existence;' the aids to economy which, without sacrificing the beauty of effect which a new front and additional height may confer on the structure, would be furnished by the rare circumstance of only one ornamental front being rendered necessary from the disposition of the ground, and by the means which are at hand for making use of the whole of the present interior, due regard being paid to the convenience of the Royal Academy in procuring suitable accommodation elsewhere; the space for further enlargement which, in the process of time, and concurrently with the exigencies of the collection might be supplied by occupying the uncovered ground now in the occupation of public establishments in the rear of the present buildings; for all these reasons your Committee would recommend that whenever it is undertaken the enlarged and improved National Gallery should be on the same site as at present."
Another point on which it was essential that the House should be informed was, what were the intentions of the Government as to disposing of the present National Gallery, and as to the accommodation of the Royal Academy. If that society were to be permanently lodged at the national expense, it became a question whether there ought not to be an inquiry how far it fulfilled the objects for which it was established, and a decision ought to be come to as to whether it should be a
2106
self-elected or a representative body, or whether its members should be nominated by the Crown. He was convinced that the best way of dealing with this question would be by the issue of a Royal Commission; but at least he hoped that the House would not assent to the Bill for marking out the site of the National Gallery, which was the next order on the paper. Either that Bill was premature, or there was something behind it of which the House was not aware. Unless the Government had plans and everything ready they could not mark out the site, and if they had such plans prepared the House ought to see them. In reference to the production of plans he confidently anticipated the support of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), who, in supporting the vote of £150,000 for the purchase of the land, said that all further plans must be submitted to the House, which would not, he was certain, consent to the erection of any building without a very rigid scrutiny into all the arrangements, and without taking care that all the talent of the country should be brought into competition. With reference to this public competition, he (Lord Elcho) was of opinion that designs ought to be received from the whole civilised world, and that they ought to be publicly exhibited. If such a plan were pursued we should not be likely to make such mistakes as we had hitherto done, and instances of which were to be found in the statue of the Duke of Wellington, placed in a position in the like of which no statue ever before found itself, the front of Buckingham Palace, which needed repairs almost before it was completed, which, finally, required to be painted, and which now looked as if it was stucco instead of stone. Then there was the National Gallery, and the fountains in Trafalgar Square, which gave to foreigners the impression that these things could not be managed except under a Gevernment having somewhat of a despotic character. It, therefore, behoved the House to take care that in this instance no similar mistake should be made. He was not prepared to admit that the country which had produced a Reynolds and a Wren was wholly destitute of a taste for the fine arts, and he trusted that the Government would refrain from coming to any hasty decision on this matter by acceding to the Motion which he ventured to submit to the House.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from

2107
the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—
"An humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to determine the site of the new National Gallery, and to report on the desirableness of combining with it the Fine Art and Archæological Collections of the British Museum, in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on the National Gallery in 1853," instead thereof.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, as a member of the Committee which reported in favour of accepting the proposal of the Commissioners of the Royal Exhibition, to erect at Kensington Gore a building to contain the works of art which were to be transferred from Trafalgar Square and other places, he perhaps might be permitted to explain to the House the reasons which then actuated him, and the reasons which induced him still to adhere to his former opinion. He thought that his noble Friend had allowed his imagination to run wild, and, indulging in every conceivable supposition, had sketched out a magnificent edifice for the fine arts, the basis of which rested on his own prolific invention, while its completion was not likely to be realised during the life of any man among them. Beginning with the hypothetical surrender on the part of Her Majesty of two of her ancestral palaces for the purposes of a National Gallery, the noble Lord went on to fill up a large portion of one of those parks which the inhabitants of the metropolis so highly valued; and, not content with these extensive projects, he must needs also knock down a portion of Pall Mall, with a view to the erection of his imaginary structure. It was obvious that, unless, they dealt in a less fanciful spirit with the question, they could never hope to arrive at any practical decision upon it. The scheme of the Government appeared to possess many advantages, the foremost of which was the removal of the pictures contained in the National Gallery from the existing building. His noble Friend had slurred over the consideration of the damage done to the pictures by their retention in their present position, alleging that they were no more liable to injury than the paintings at Northumberland House, and in other private collections, similarly situated. But it should be borne in mind that the uniform testimony of the witnesses examined before the Committee, of which both his noble Friend and himself had the honour to be members, went to show that there was no analogy in this respect between a private gallery and
2108
a public exhibition. The evidence of Mr. Dyce especially met this argument of his noble Friend, and it must be obvious to every one that a place of public resort, with its exigencies of ventilation and the other arrangements requisite for a crowd of visitors, could not be included in the same category with a private gallery, the pictures of which were exposed to comparatively slight deterioration. He had the highest respect for the authority of Lord Ellesmere, but when that distinguished nobleman said that the frequent inquiries which this subject had undergone only made it ripe for further investigation by a Commission, he (Mr. M, Milnes) must be permitted to remark that, if councils of that kind were to prevail, the present generation at least must give up all hope of seeing any practical result attained in this matter. In asking thus publicly for the concessions from the Crown which he had named, the noble Lord had adopted a course hardly consistent with constitutional precedent. Proposals as to concessions of that nature ought to be initiated by the responsible advisers of the Sovereign, for it was hardly consistent with the practice of that House to deal with the property of the Crown of its own accord. If the Government were inclined to substitute the proposal of the. noble Lord to select Kensington Gardens, he should be delighted to accept the arrangement, but at present he thought he was precluded from taking it into consideration. He hoped the question was so far removed from difficulty, that it was agreed, by all lovers of art, that the pictures in the National Gallery must be removed if they wished them to be preserved. The pictures which Mr. Rogers had bequeathed to the nation had lost half of their charms since they had been hung up in those apartments. He was astonished to hear his noble Friend suggest, as a means of preserving the pictures from injury, that they should be covered with glass. It was well known that by interposing such a medium between the spectator and the productions of the painter's genius the beauty of such works of art was materially diminished. No one who had visited the splendid gallery at Dresden, and gazed on the magnificent picture by Raphael which adorned it, and which was covered with glass, could for a moment doubt the truth of his assertion. He did not think Kensington Gore was too remote a site for the National Gallery. That situation, while it would be sufficiently removed from the crowded parts of the

2109
metropolis, would yet be within easy walking distance from them. He would not, however, object to the appointment of another Commission to examine into the subject if he thought it would lead to any more definite conclusion than had followed the series of inquiries which preceded it. But the proposed Commission would be just as much at sea as those that had gone before—it would have ten or a dozen different sites placed before it, from which it would have to choose one. The scheme proposed by the Government possessed certain definite advantages, one of which was its cheapness. The Great Exhibition had proved so remunerative that the Commissioners, under the superintendence of Prince Albert, had been enabled to make the country a magnificent gift of one-half the land necessary for a site, He did not agree with his noble Friend in the opinion that the locality was a disadvantageous one, but, on the contrary, it possessed this important advantage, that it was expansive. The frontage might be narrow, but there was a large extent of ground in the rear which would afford opportunities for enlarging the building, if it should be thought desirable to do so, to such an extent as to realise his noble Friend's expectations, and to render it a fit receptacle, not only for the pictures, but for all the works of art belonging to the nation. The military authorities had refused to give up the barracks at the back of the National Gallery, and it was therefore impossible the present building could be extended, and the objection of want of room for expansion would equally apply to the suggested site in Pall Mall. The advantage of expansion would of course be obtained if a building were erected in any of the parks, He remembered that the late Sir Robert Peel contemplated the erection of a splendid building in Hyde Park, which should contain all the national treasures of art; but that hope was entertained in those legendary days when there was an annual surplus in the Exchequer, and it was impossible to say when the country would be restored to the same fortunate position. His noble Friend had said that the opinions of the Committee were much divided on the subject, and that might have been the case before the question was discussed; but after prolonged discussions and repeated divisions his (Mr. M. Milnes's) Motion that the proposition of the Commissioners should be adopted was agreed to without an opposing voice. He contended, then, that the Government were
2110
fairly justified in supposing that the question was to a certain degree concluded, and in acting upon that decision to the extent they had done. The question of the division of the collections in the British Museum still remained, and on that point he was much inclined to agree with his noble Friend. The present system was destructive at once of those collections themselves, and of the objects for which they were brought together.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think, Sir, that the House will agree that my noble Friend (Lord Elcho) has done good service by laying before them the ample and clear exposition of his views upon this subject, and by assisting them in the consideration of the question he has brought under their notice, not only by criticising the plan proposed by the Government, but also by submitting to them—with a candour for which I cannot sufficiently commend him—the various alternatives he recommends for their adoption in preference to the plan of Her Majesty's Government. We have not selected any one of those plans, but, unless some one of them should appear preferable to that adopted by the Government, I apprehend that the House will be prepared to accede to the proposition we have submitted to them. In approaching the examination of this question, I think the House will see that it resolves itself into two branches. The first question we have to consider is, whether the National Gallery shall or shall not be removed from its present position in Trafalgar Square, Upon that point I fully admit to my noble Friend that this House is perfectly free to come to any decision it may please. It is not precluded by any previous decision upon that subject; but, on the other hand, as the purchase of a part of the estate at Kensington Gore has been made—a purchase which originated with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli)—and as this House voted a grant in augmentation of the purchase-money, I must say that I think the House at the time it made that grant contemplated its application to the purposes of a National Gallery. If hon. Gentlemen refer to the debates which took place at the time, I believe they will see, from the language used in proposing the grant, that such an application of it was within the distinct contemplation of the Government and of the House. For my own part, after having given a most careful consideration to the subject, I must confess

2111
it seems to me that the arguments in favour of the removal of the National Gallery from its present position in Trafalgar Square greatly preponderate. It is true, as my noble Friend has stated, that the Commissions which have instituted inquiries on this subject have arrived at different conclusions; but the last and most complete inquiry was that of the Committee of 1853, of which Colonel Mure was the Chairman. That Committee investigated the subject with a full knowledge of the results of the inquiries of previous Commissions and Committees, and they came to a distinct Resolution in favour of the removal of the National Gallery from its present position, which they embodied in these words,—"That the site of the present National Gallery is not well adapted for the construction of a new gallery." Now, these words are perfectly unambiguous. They apply not only to the present gallery, but to any possible gallery that might be erected on the same site. I find, on referring to the account of the division, that ten members of the Committee voted for the Resolution which was moved by Lord Seymour, now Duke of Somerset, and the only Member who voted against it was the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Baring Wall). Now, Sir, there can he nothing more distinct than the finding of the Committee on the removal of the gallery from Trafalgar Square. The grounds of that Resolution are, I think, quite satisfactory, and are borne out by the great preponderance of the testimony of competent witnesses. Almost all the witnesses examined before that Committee gave it as their opinion that the impurities of the atmosphere and other influences render that site very unfavourable to the preservation of pictures in a perfect state. Now, that might therefore be assumed to be a proposition which was incapable of being controverted. I quite concur in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. M, Milnes), that it shows the desperateness of the remedy my noble Friend proposes when he recommends the use of glass in front of the pictures. I can only say that if my noble Friend is reduced to the necessity of recommending, that the pictures should be covered with glass, that is a practical admission that Trafalgar Square is unfitted for the site of a National Gallery. My noble Friend resorts to a somewhat inconsistent answer to this argument. He asks whether there are not many great
2112
collections of pictures in private houses in this metropolis, the circumstances of which in regard to situation are no better than Trafalgar Square. But it is to be observed that private gentlemen, whatever their income may he, have no option but to keep their pictures in their own houses. A private gentleman cannot afford to build a picture gallery at Kensington Gore. Where his house is, there must be his picture gallery; and if his house is not distant from the centre of the metropolis, his picture gallery must labour under the same disadvantages. If the nation had no other alternative, my noble Friend's argument would be conclusive, but as it is, this argument appears to me to be wholly irrelevant. Well, Sir, that being the case, the House will, I think, come to the conclusion that the weight of reasoning and authority is in favour of removing the National Gallery from Trafalgar Square. I am quite aware of the fondness of this House for inquiry. But still, in my opinion, there ought to be some limit to inquiry. We, cannot be always delegating our judgment to Committees and Commissions, and if hon. Members will refer to Reports and documents which they will find upon their tables, and if they will go through the necessary process of examining the evidence which they already possess, they will be as capable to judge for themselves upon this question as they ever can be if the House appoint a series of Committees and Commissions for ten years to come. I think the House may come to a conclusion without further delegation or inquiry in favour of removing the pictures from Trafalgar Square to some spot in the vicinity of the metropolis in which a purer atmosphere prevailed. Supposing that question decided, the next question—and what I admit to be the chief difficulty—is, whether the site of Kensington Gore is preferable to any other. If I satisfy the House that that site is decidedly preferable to any other site that has been suggested by my noble Friend—and I cannot complain that he has not suggested sufficient—the House will, I trust, not hesitate to vote in favour of a second reading of the Bill which stands upon the Orders for to-night. Let me state the principal reasons for selecting the site at Kensington Gore. Now, the first consideration, which my noble Friend passed over lightly, and which I fear, from some portions of his speech, is but a slight consideration with him, but which, looking particularly to the

2113
office I hold, appears to me of some importance—is the consideration of expense. The site which is offered to the country is a site of which half the expense has already been defrayed by funds not paid out of the Exchequer, but offered and tendered by the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851. The estate at Kensington Gore consists of eighty-six acres. These eighty-six acres cost £342,000. Of that sum £177,000 was paid by the Government, but the remaining £165,000, or nearly one half, was paid by the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 out of the residue of the receipts of that great undertaking. The value of the site is certainly greater now than it was when the purchase was made, and from the progress of building westward the House will perceive that it must receive an annually increasing value. The nation may therefore consider that it has made an advantageous bargain with the Commissioners in accepting that site to be applied to public purposes. The National Gallery Bill, which now stands for second reading, will enable the Government to take from the Commissioners of 1851 so much land from that estate as shall be required for the purposes of the site of a National Gallery. The Bill does not go beyond the acceptance of half their share of the estate, which it vests absolutely in the Commissioners of Woods; but it does not pledge the House to the grant of any specific sum of money or a specific plan in accordance with which it is to be constructed. It accepts a portion of that land for a site of the National Gallery, and it vests that site absolutely in the Government. Well, Sir, that being the state of the case as to the cost of the site, I cannot understand what doubt bon. Gentlemen can have, or what ground there can be for the opinion that the locality which has been selected is not admirably adapted for a National Gallery, provided we come to the conclusion that it ought to be taken out of the centre of the streets, and placed on the edge and outskirts of the town. With regard to distance, it is close to the spot on which the great Exhibition of 1851 stood, and we know from the crowds that flocked to that Exhibition that the distance is not so great as to prevent persons who are desirous of seeing the pictures from accomplishing the distance. Then, the number of acres upon this estate offers ample room for the construction of a building of the size required for a National Gallery. It also admits
2114
of additions in future years, if it should be the pleasure of Parliament to make additions hereafter to such a gallery for other purposes, and, although the frontage of the estate in the Kensington-road is narrower than the width of the estate behind, yet the frontage will be fully sufficient for the purposes of a National Gallery, and there is in the breadth of the site ample space for the construction of a splendid and ornamental building. My noble Friend indulged in a remark that, I cannot avoid saying, astonished me. My noble Friend talked of the Brompton marshes, and said that the lower part of the estate was a swamp and a marsh. Now, I have had some local acquaintance with this part of town, and I should as soon expect to hear the sands of Arabia described as a marsh or a swamp as the district in question. I think my noble Friend must be aware that Brompton has been long celebrated for the salubrity of its air. Before the town had spread to its present extent our ancestors used to send their sick relations to Brompton for their health. My noble Friend no doubt remembers that at no great distance from the site of the proposed National Gallery stands the hospital for consumptive patients, which no doubt was chosen by medical men for its remarkable healthiness. Another class of persons reside there who are considered to be very nice in their choice of a situation. It is said that wherever you see a convent you may be sure that the founders have selected an advantageous site. Now, the Oratorians belonging to the Church of Rome have built a large establishment on the very edge of my noble Friend's swamp, and any person who visits that site will see the building of the Oratorians occupying a very conspicuous situation. The more the subject cornea to be examined the more, in my opinion, it will be found that this large estate at Kensington Gore, whether we regard it on the score of expense, extent, or situation, offers the most eligible site for the new National Gallery. I do not ask the House to take that on my statement. I will follow my noble Friend through the long list of alternatives that he proposes. He has said that there are not less than three—I am not sure that he did not say four—different sites in Kensington Gardens. First and foremost, my noble Friend proposes to pull down Kensington Palace, and to build a National Gallery on its site. Now, considering that there is a great deal of

2115
vacant land in the neighbourhood of the metropolis which is admirably situated for such a purpose, it does seem to me to be a strange and wanton choice that my noble Friend should select the site of an existing building in order to construct a new one, and that he should insist upon pulling down an edifice, which may not, indeed, be remarkably beautiful, but which is still an imposing and extensive pile, and to replace which, if it were demolished, would involve the outlay of a very considerable sum of money. My noble Friend treats such a building, which has stood for so long a period, and which was erected at a great cost, as if it were a mere cottage or a hut to be swept away at will. One word with regard to the very summary way in which my noble Friend deals with the property of the Crown. He seems to assume that the property of the Crown is the property of the public, whereas he must know that it is only ceded for the life of the present Sovereign, and that, when the nation takes for any purpose Crown property, it is bound to purchase it in the same manner as if it were the property of a private individual. That occurred last year with respect to a portion of the vacant ground near Downing Street; and, if my noble Friend takes possession in a summary manner of Kensington Palace, he must purchase it from the Crown. The cost at which that purchase could be effected is not not a matter altogether free from doubt, but it is quite clear that before my noble Friend would be in possession of the site on which his new National Gallery is to be erected he would have a very large sum to advance to the crown. That I consider to be a most formidable objection to one of the plans of my noble Friend. Then, he has other plans of cutting out parts of Kensington Gardens, and making roads and approaches through the gardens to his National Gallery, for no other purpose that I can see which would not be answered by adopting the site proposed by the Government, which is only on the other side of the road, and is nearer to the metropolis. Really, after all that we have heard of the sanctity of the parks, and remembering how much was said upon the erection of the Great Exhibition building of 1851, for a temporary purpose, I am lost in astonishment at the very quiet manner in which my noble Friend proposes to appropriate a large portion of Kensington Gardens in order to erect a
2116
new National Gallery. I think that precisely the same objections apply to his plan of building a National Gallery in different parts of Hyde Park; for my firm conviction is, that if the Government had acted upon the advice of my noble Friend, and had proposed a plan for building the National Gallery in the centre of Hyde Park, they would have gone into the division lobby with scarcely a single Member to follow them. My noble Friend then says, "Sweep away St. James's Palace; sweep away Marlborough House, and erect a row of buildings which shall combine under the same roof a National Gallery and reception rooms for levees and drawing-rooms." Now, Sir, I am very much at a loss to know what reason there can be for combining two such dissimilar objects under one roof. I must say, that this plan, including as it does a proposition to shut up the road which the House only a few nights ago determined to open, appears to me to be more extravagant even, and less likely to be acceptable to the House, than the other plans which my noble Friend has proposed. At present the national Gallery stands at one end of Pall Mall, and we are told that the smoke and dust wholly unfit the site for the purpose of a National Gallery. Well, my noble Friend says, "Go to an enormous expense and build the National Gallery at the other end of Pall Mall, at the bottom of St. James's Street." Now, Sir, I cannot understand what object is to be gained by that small change of positions, and how it remedies the objection to the present gallery on account of the preservation of the pictures, it surpasses my comprehension to perceive. Indeed, I agree with the conclusion at which my noble Friend arrived towards the close of his speech, that if we are to have no other alternative than the transfer of the National Gallery from Trafalgar Square to St. James's Palace, it would be infinitely preferable to leave it where it is. Here, again, my noble Friend deals not only with the property of the Crown, but also with the property of the Prince of Wales, in what I certainly consider a somewhat unceremonious manner. As far as I understand, Marlborough House was purchased for the Prince of Wales, and was appropriated, with the assent of Parliament, to his use when he came of age. It is at present, I believe, vested in trustees for his benefit. Now, without the smallest communication with any person, my noble

2117
Friend proposes to take that property and to transfer the Prince of Wales, as if he were a picture or a statue in a gallery, from Marlborough. House to Burlington House, without his having any reason to know that such a transfer would be acceptable. I am at a loss to conceive what benefit could, under any circumstances, be derived from such a change of position, of the expense involved in which my noble Friend seems to take such little account. I must warn the House that persons who make propositions upon these subjects without the wholesome fear of the "Estimates" before their eyes, and who are not in the position of responsible Members of the Government, deal with them with an exceedingly light and easy hand; and I would caution the House against accepting too readily such propositions as those of my noble Friend. My noble Friend mentioned one or two other sites, the exact situation of which I was not able to catch. One, I think, that he proposed was Whitehall.
LORD ELCHO: I did not propose those sites mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, I only referred to them to show how many sites had been proposed, in order to prove the difference of opinion which prevailed, and the necessity that there was for further consideration.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, if my noble Friend did not consider them worthy of the serious consideration of the House, I do not see what advantage there was in his mentioning them. He called upon the House to agree to an Address to Her Majesty for a Commission to determine whether those sites were not preferable to that which had deliberately been proposed by the Government; and I say that he has been trifling with the House, and merely wasting its time, if he did not propose those questions seriously to its consideration. However, with regard to the site of Whitehall, I am at a loss to know where he would place the National Gallery; and I think we may consider ourselves extremely fortunate that my noble Friend did not propose to eject the Houses of Lords and Commons from their present building, in order to appropriate it to the purpose of a National Gallery. Let us look now for a moment at the terms of the Motion. My noble Friend proposes that a Commission should be appointed "to determine the site of the new National Gallery, and to report on the desirableness of combining
2118
with it the Fine Art and Archæological Collections of the British Museum, in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on the National Gallery in 1853." Now, Sir, I wish to call the attention of the House to the recommendation of that Committee. With respect to the appointment of a Commission, their recommendation was confined exclusively to the question of combining the various artistic and archæological collections now in the British Museum with those of the National Gallery. The Committee clearly recommended that the National Gallery should be removed from its present site, and on the whole they suggested the adoption of Kensington Gore for the site, although I must add that they did not do so without some hesitation and qualification. They said nothing, however, about any Commission upon, the question of the site, and clearly they did not consider that any advantage was to be gained from a further inquiry into that question; because, having recommended one subject for the consideration of a Commission, they did not include that of the site, and expressio unius, est exclusio alterius. They did express their opinion that it would be desirable to have an inquiry into the question of removing the collections from the British Museum; but, in making a specific recommendation to that effect, they excluded the idea that they wished to make a similar recommendation with respect to a site. I do not charge my noble Friend with any want of candour; I merely regret his inattention to grammar, for anybody who reads his Resolution would suppose that the recommendation of the Committee applied to both those objects. My noble Friend said a great deal about the British Museum. I quite admit that it is a question well worthy the consideration of this House at some future time, when perhaps the Exchequer may be more overflowing than it is at present or is likely to be next year, whether it would not be advisable to take some steps for removing a portion of the collections from the British Museum. Let me, however, call the attention of the House to the state of that institution. The British Museum at present, with the addition which has recently been made, contains ample accommodation for the library and the reading-room, and for any extension of those departments which are likely to take place during the next century. But the Museum consists of two other departments, one of antiquities,

2119
the other of natural history—for which I cannot say that there is quite adequate space. Nevertheless, there is very considerable space, and if any one department were removed, a large portion of the Museum would be unoccupied. At present, therefore, there is no very strong reason for making the change referred to in the Report of the Committee. But it has been proposed to divide the collection of antiquities upon this principle—to leave in the Museum that portion of the collection which is interesting only on archæological grounds, find to combine with the National Gallery that portion which is interesting as works of art. My noble Friend, who is evidently familiar with the arguments upon that question, has referred to an able paper which appears as an appendix to the Report of the Committee—a paper written by Mr. Charles Newton, of the British Museum, and which I would strongly advise every Member of this House to read for himself. Whoever peruses that document will find, if he is not altogether convinced by it—which I confess myself to have been—that very serious objections exist to the project for dividing the collection of antiquities upon the principle which I have mentioned; and for the present, at all events, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to entertain any such proposition. I admit, however, that the plan for removing some portions of the collection of the British Museum to other buildings is one which may reasonably be considered, although I do not approve the scheme proposed by my noble Friend for sending the zoological collection to the Zoological Gardens, which would be taking it out of the custody of the nation and handing it over to a private society. The same objection equally applies to his proposal to transfer the geological collection to the Geological Society. I am altogether adverse to any such arrangement. I would wish to keep the collections of natural history, now under the able superintendence of Professor Owen, not separately, but, if possible, in combination. Again, I must remind the House, that all propositions of this sort involve a large expenditure of money; and, unless the House is prepared to go to great expense for the purpose of providing buildings, I think it will scarcely he disposed to assume as a foregone conclusion that it has decided upon that step, and issue a Commission to inquire by what means it ought to be carried into effect. My noble Friend quoted, in support of his recommendations, a letter
2120
from the Earl of Ellesmere, which deservedly carried with it great weight, and I may take this opportunity of mentioning that, since the discussion which took place some time ago on the subject of a gallery of historical portraits, the noble Earl has presented to the Government, for the use of the nation, the picture known as the "Chandos portrait of Shakspeare." That munificent donation, I hope, may be regarded as a good omen for the commencement of a national historical portrait gallery. I fully admit the weight to which the Earl of Ellesmere's opinion is entitled, nor do I at all say that Her Majesty's Government would not be prepared at the proper season to issue a Commission to inquire into the expediency of making some alteration in the distribution of the collections now in the British Museum. They think, however, that no advantage would arise at the present moment from the issue of such a Commission, though they may may be prepared at the proper time to issue one; and they deem it desirable that a plain proposition should in the meantime be laid before the House, of which the first part is embodied in the Bill that now stands for a second reading, and the different portions of which I will now submit for your consideration. What the Government propose is, that this House should decide to remove the National Gallery from the present building in Trafalgar Square. They propose that the whole of that building should be assigned to the Royal Academy. It would be used during the season for exhibitions, and at all times as a school of art, and for the lectures which are delivered at the instance of the Royal Academy, and for which the present accommodation, during the period of the exhibitions, is insufficient. The trustees or governing body of the Royal Academy have at their disposal a considerable sum of money, and in the event of this House deciding to give them the use of the entire building, they would be prepared to expend a large portion of that fund in putting a new facade to the edifice, and thus greatly improve its architectural appearance. With regard to the site of the new National Gallery, all we propose at present is, that the nation should consent to take from the Exhibition Commissioners a half or some part of the ground which they possess at Kensington Gore. As to the plans of the building, it would be nugatory for the Government to cause plans to be made, to ask for tenders, or to frame estimates, until Parliament has

2121
decided the material question, whether the site at Kensington Gore should or should not be devoted to the construction of a National Gallery. If by passing the Bill, to which I have already referred, Parliament should decide that preliminary question, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to take the necessary steps for obtaining by the most ample competition—by a competition not limited to England, but extended to foreign countries—plans made according to certain prescribed conditions. We do not intend, in the first instance, to go beyond the erection of a national gallery of pictures. I must not omit to mention that the main objection to the present site is, not the impurities of the atmosphere, but the narrowness of the space. The space is insufficient for a National Gallery, and besides, does not admit of extension; whereas, the proposed site admits of a gallery of unlimited extension, and on that account it has strong recommendations. When the plans have been received, we shall submit them, if thought desirable, to a Committee, and when one has been selected we shall cause estimates to be prepared, and the whole matter to be laid before the House in the most distinct manner. It appears to me that in this way the House will be able, with the greatest satisfaction to itself, to come to a decision on the subject. But I hope they will agree with me that it would be a mere waste of time and labour to refer such a matter as the selection of a site to the investigation of a Commission. Suppose, for instance, a Commission were to come to a conclusion in favour of some one of the numerous sites suggested by my noble Friend, when their recommendation had to be acted upon, it would perhaps be found that there were insuperable objections to the obtaining of such a site. This is a question which is not merely one of abstract speculation; it is a question which can only be with advantage entrusted to the hands of a responsible Executive Government; and I trust that, after the explanations I have given, at a length which I am afraid has wearied the House, they will come without difficulty to a vote against the Resolution of my noble Friend and in favour of the second reading of the Bill to which I have more than once adverted.
MR. TITEsaid, that he regretted that the question of the site and the building to be erected on the site could not be taken up together and considered as one question. It appeared from the papers before
2122
the House that the Commissioners themselves were of the same opinion, for in the answer of their secretary, Mr. Bowring, they reserved to themselves the power of considering the appropriation of any site for which application might be made to them with reference to its requirements. It was with regret that he was forced, on consideration of the evidence contained in the Blue-book, to come to the conclusion thst the existing site of the National Gallery could not be maintained. He apprehended that no one, after reading the evidence which had been taken, could doubt the necessity of removing the pictures. The same necessity had occurred in Dresden, and from the same cause—the injury done to the pictures by smoke and dust; and at Dresden, also, some of the best pictures were protected by glass. The propriety of removal being admitted, the question arose, where could the gallery be best placed? He entirely agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord, that the site of Kensington Palace would be the very best in London, if it could only be procured; and he would recommend the House to defer its decision on the subject until they should have had an opportunity of ascertaining whether there was any possibility of obtaining possession of that site. It was placed on high ground, was convenient to the two main roads leading out from that part of the metropolis, and its principal facade towards Kensington Gardens would command a position of great beauty. There was another site on the corresponding eminence in Hyde Park, and facing the same great avenue, which was well worthy the attention of the House. The Commission which sat upon this subject called in an eminent German architect, Baron von Klenze, architect and Privy Counsellor to the King of Bavaria. His Report, which appeared in the Blue-book in French, was the best resumé of the whole subject, but on the particular question of sites his attention was directed to two—the one at Kensington Gore, and the other in Hyde Park. On a comparison of the two he expressed a fear, with reference to Kensington Gore, that the whole of the low ground there would soon be covered with houses, thus rendering it undesirable for a picture gallery, and he thought that the ground in Hyde Park would be freer from that contingency. The noble Lord seemed to think that architectural beauty could not be obtained

2123
in any building erected at Kensington Gore, but in that he could not agree with him, for he thought that the ground there was sufficiently elevated and sufficiently well situated in other respects, to permit the erection of a building of great extent and great architectural beauty. The space proposed contained fifty acres; its height at the lower end was only twenty-four feet above high water and forty-four feet at the upper, whilst Kensington Palace was sixty-six feet above that level. He did not, however, think that it afforded in all respects a convenient site, inasmuch as there was not, at present at least, any commodious access from the northern parts of London, the only access being the distant one of Park Lane. Last year a Vote of £15,000 was taken to erect a temporary building on part of that land, and the other night the House voted £10,000 more. He must say that money had been very strangely expended. The most extraordinary building had been erected he ever saw. This was of course a matter of taste, but if gentlemen, while riding towards Rotten Row, would ride round in that direction, they would see such a piece of architecture as, he believed, they had never witnessed before. He wished the House to consider well what they were doing before they decided on the proposed new edifice. They were now embarking in an outlay of at least a million of money. Now, though no man would regret that such a sum should be devoted to artistic purposes, yet it should not be entered upon until the House understood what they were doing. They should have some precise understanding of what they were about. His opinion was, that they should construct a great Art Gallery, which should contain not only all the pictures belonging to the nation, but all the specimens of architecture and sculpture we possessed, and also the archæological department of the British Museum. Sooner or later it must come to that. He believed that if we were to confine our exertions at the commencement to the formation of a picture gallery, we should be imitating that short-sighted policy which had already led to so much waste of money and such a want of harmony and grandeur in the public works of this country. With regard to the competition for the building, he earnestly hoped that it would be a European competition. During the last few years there had been three such competitions, two in Hamburgh, and one in France; the latter for the
2124
cathedral of Lille, and every one of them, he was proud to be able to say, had been won by Englishmen. All wished that something creditable to the country should be produced in the present case, and he trusted the House would not proceed hastily in the matter, but that they would carefully consider it in all its details before they committed themselves to an irrevocable decision. The question could be taken up by the Board of Works, as to the total expenditure, and the Commission might determine what should go into the building they proposed to erect, and the site it should occupy. There was no necessity to hear any further evidence on the subject, but the evidence which had been adduced ought to be collated by some competent body of men who would come to a satisfactory conclusion. They might see, in the case of the very building in which they were then assembled, the unfortunate consequences of which a rash choice in the site of a great building might be productive. Every one gifted with artistic taste must admire the great architectural beauty of the new Houses of Parliament, but must at the same time regret that so fine an edifice had been raised on so low a site, just along the border of the river, where it was necessary to pull down a bridge in order to render it visible from one quarter. He believed they ought to receive a warning from that mistake not to fall into an error of a similar character, with reference to the selection of a site for the new Art Gallery.
MR. CUBITTsaid, he considered that the question which the House had to consider was what was the best site for a building for the preservation and enjoyment of works of art. Hyde Park the public would never consent to give up for such a purpose; the project could not be entertained for a single moment; the people would never submit to any diminution of the open spaces, even now too limitedly appropriated to the maintenance of public health. The decision then must be between the two other sites proposed, Kensington Gore and Kensington Palace. As to the latter, he doubted if they could get it; and with regard to the former, although the land was honestly worth the money that was paid for it, if it were abandoned he doubted whether they Would ever realise that sum. We should in all probability continue to receive contributions, donations and bequests of works of art from time to time, if we had the means of exhibiting

2125
them and properly taking care of them. To provide a proper receptacle for such a purpose a large space would be requisite, and the question, as he had just stated, appeared to be as between Kensington Palace and Kensington Gore. If there were the same amount of available space at Kensington Palace as at Kensington Gore, he confessed he should prefer that. But it was not so, while at Kensington Gore there was ample ground for all the purposes of a National Gallery. Another point of consideration was the convenience of the public. He might call himself one of the working class. He should like much to go often to see what was worthy of being seen in works of art. He should like every day to go to the Crystal Palace, but he was sorry to say that so great was the pressure upon his time that he had only been able to go there once during the present year, and if the National Gallery were placed at Kensington he very much feared he should not be able to visit it more frequently. But he could very often, when passing down the Strand, call in at the National Gallery at Charing Cross, and look at the pictures and works of art there. At the same time, to obtain ground enough for such a building as would afford a suitable receptacle for the national collection of works of art for an empire like this at Charing Cross was impossible. But why should they not retain something at Charing Cross which persons like himself might visit when they had a few minutes or half an hour to spare, and have a large supplementary exhibition at Kensington Gore, where those who studied art, and those who were not artists, but were admirers of art, might go occasionally and find such a collection of the works of the best masters as should be worthy of the country? Under all the circumstances he gave his opinion in favour of the Kensington Gore site, but at the same time he hoped that the establishment at Charing Cross would not be abandoned. He thought that in conjunction with the Royal Academy, who, he understood, were most anxious to retain their present apartments, there would be no difficulty in arranging for the continuance of a National Gallery of art there as he had suggested.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that having been a Member of the Committee of 1853, he was unwilling to give a silent vote upon the question. That Committee, coinciding with previous Commissions, came to the almost unanimous conclusion that it was
2126
most desirable that the collection of pictures in the National Gallery should be removed from their present situation to one where the air would be purer and the influences of the atmosphere less deleterious. With regard to the spot to which the removal was to take place there was, however, a great diversity of opinion. But, after a full inquiry, in which they were assisted by the results of the labours of former Committees and Commissions, and by the evidence of artists and of persons acquainted with the habits of the working-classes of the metropolis, they came to the decided conclusion that the offer made to the public of acquiring, under very advantageous circumstances a portion of the ground possessed by the Commissioners for the Great Exhibition near Kensington Gore ought to be accepted, and that to that site the pictures might properly be transferred. The first point they had to consider was, whether any of the sites which had been suggested were open to the principal objection urged against the present site—namely, that it was exposed to the smoke and dirt of London. It would be a fatal error to go to the expense of removing the pictures without securing that, in the situation to which they were removed, they should not be exposed to injury not merely from smoke and dirt, but also from the deleterious influence of those gasworks, breweries, and distilleries, the tall chimneys of which were so numerous in the neighbourhood of London. But, on the other hand, if the pictures were removed too far from the metropolis the object of a National Gallery would be altogether frustrated. He should regret to see them placed in any position in which they were not perfectly accessible, not only to persons who were accustomed to use carriages and horses, but to the public at large and the working population in particular. Undoubtedly there were other sites besides Kensington Gore which in many respects were tempting enough. For instance, there was Hyde Park. No doubt a German architect, seeing a fine place vacant in the middle of Hyde Park, would ask—"Why not erect your building here?" But such a recommendation betrayed a want of knowledge of the feelings of the people, particularly of the people of London. There would be the greatest objection to any encroachment upon those parts of Kensington Gardens or of Hyde Park which were now open to the public. Some hon. Gentlemen had talked of the site of

2127
Kensington Palace, but that was too limited in extent, and, therefore, to have a proper building there the gardens of Kensington Palace must be largely encroached upon, and roads and approaches must also be made. In short, the nature of Kensington Gardens must be totally altered, and he, for one, should hold any advantage from a National Gallery being placed there dearly purchased by infringing on that space which was now open to all. When he heard Gentlemen talk of a taste for the fine arts, he must say that a man must be little sensible to beauty who did not derive as much satisfaction from the aspect of Kensington Gardens—which constituted not only the pride and ornament of the metropolis, but which, perhaps, formed the one thing they had to oppose to the rival attractions of Paris and other continental cities—as from a new building, stored with the finest masterpieces of antiquity, erected at a sacrifice of the peculiar features of the place. A most vigorous opposition had at first been made to the construction of even so temporary a building as the Crystal Palace in Hyde Park, and that opposition had not been overcome until a distinct assurance had been given that the building should be pulled down as soon as ever it should cease to be wanted for its original purpose. The fact was, that the parks formed the finest and most pleasing spectacle in this metropolis; and no one, gifted with the slightest artistic feeling, could wish, under any circumstances, for their destruction. He alluded to these things to show that in reality the choice of sites was very limited, and it was brought before the consideration of the Great Exhibition Commissioners how little unoccupied space could be had for the purpose in view without infringing on the parks. The Commissioners, thinking it extremely desirable that there should be a site devoted to the purposes of the arts and sciences, and finding this space of ground in the neighbourhood of Kensington Gore, thought that they could not apply the surplus in their hands, amounting to £150,000, more usefully than by securing it for the public in future. That decision led to the subsequent offer made to the public, and thus the public had the benefit of the cheap acquisition of the ground for the proposed object. He could only say that his opinion remained unaltered, and he still thought, on reviewing all the circumstances of the case, no site was more unexceptionable than that of Kensington
2128
Gore. Though near London, it was out of the smoke of London, and there was abundant room there for a structure fit to contain a proper collection of pictures. He would, however, earnestly advise the House, whatever it did, not to encroach on the parks; therefore he trusted that the House would not sanction any proposal for the erection of a building, however beautiful, which should encroach on the parks or Kensington Gardens. The real object of the present Motion was to defeat the Bill which the Government had introduced. By that Bill the House was not asked to do more than to sanction the transfer of the land to the Government for the purpose of erecting a National Gallery. Undoubtedly it did pledge the House to the opinion that, under all the circumstances of the case, this site at Kensington Gore ought to be taken advantage of for the erection of that gallery. But for forming an opinion on that point there was ample information in the possession of the House, and there would be an opportunity afterwards for considering any plans for the building and investigating the estimates if the House should deem it necessary to refer them to a Select Committee.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he should vote for the Motion of the noble Lord as a means of preventing the passing of the Bill. He was not prepared to sanction the removal of the National Gallery from the centre of the town, neither was he prepared to assent to the proposition that Kensington Gore was a proper site for the National Gallery. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) had told the House that this proposition involved the expenditure of £1,000,000 of money, and he thought the House ought not rashly to enter upon such an expenditure without having the whole of the plans before it, and without being more satisfied of the eligibility of the proposed site than it could be at present. It was said to be desirable that the National Gallery should be removed out of the smoke and dirt of London; but as a near relative of his had formerly resided in Gore House, he could state that even before the buildings had increased so much as they had done of late in the neighbourhood, in the spring months, during the prevalence of the north-east winds, the dirt and dust were most severely felt on the site now proposed for the National Gallery. He publicly expressed, at the time, his disapprobation of the purchase at Kensington Gore made by Lord Derby's

2129
Government; and all that had since occurred confirmed him in the opinion that it was an improvident outlay of capital. Although his right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) might call him a Vandal, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might term him a Democrat—while the public finances showed a deficiency, and an income-tax was levied upon every man who had £100 a year, he would not consent to begin a large expenditure without some better information than the House at present possessed. In all buildings undertaken by the Government the estimates were invariably exceeded; and in the case of the Houses of Parliament they did not now know to a million or two what they would cost. The Government, ought to present a detailed plan, and he would then move a Resolution pledging the House not to pay a single farthing more than the estimate presented with it expressed.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, it was rather difficult to say what was the immediate question before the House, because, if they were to judge by the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, the question was whether they should spend any more money at all upon buildings for intellectual pursuits or the promotion of the fine arts. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the great increase of the Estimates ought to induce them to forbear voting any money for such purposes; but that was not the proposition of his noble Friend (Lord Elcho). On the contrary, from the suggestions thrown out by the noble Lord about St. James's Palace, Marlborough House, and Kensington Palace, he really believed that, if his noble Friend gained a majority, the House would be committed to a much greater expenditure than was now proposed by the Government. He took it for granted that if it appeared desirable to take one of the Royal Palaces, and Her Majesty—as no doubt she would-abstain from offering any objection, still they would not think of asking for one palace without furnishing Her Majesty with another in lieu of it. He recollected that upon a question which arose in the early part of his Administration, his hon. Friend the late Mr. Hume expressed a wish that another palace for the Queen should be built in Hyde Park. He represented the opinion of so eminent an economist as Mr. Hume to Her Majesty, but Her Majesty at once said she did not wish to put her people to further expense with respect
2130
to palaces; she should be quite content with Buckingham Palace with such additions as were necessary, and a largo palace at a great additional expense elsewhere would be not at all in accordance with her desires. With regard to the proposition before the House, he thought they had already had inquiry enough. There had been several Commissions and Committees, which had, either incidentally or directly, touched upon the subject, but none had come to any positive opinion, and he saw no reason why, if there were another Commission, that Commission would have any better chance of coming to a positive opinion than the others which had preceded it. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), wishing to defeat the scheme, inconsistently argued that Kensington Gore was infested with smoke so that all the pictures would be spoilt, and yet, at the same, time, he stated that it was too far removed from the centre of the town. If any change were made in the site they could hardly avoid incurring such objections. If the National Gallery remained near the present situation, it would obviously be exposed to smoke and influences deleterious to works of art, and if it were taken to any distance, those who wished to see the works of art would be subjected to great inconvenience. It would not do to go into either extreme. The picture gallery ought not to be placed exactly in the centre of the town, where it would be exposed to deleterious atmospheric influences, neither ought it to be at such a distance that it would be inconvenient for the public to visit it. Now, in his opinion, the situation of Kensington Gore exactly met both those requisites. It had the great advantage, too, of not being far removed from a great thoroughfare, and so far, therefore, as site was concerned he did not think they could do better, after all the inquiry which had been made, than fix upon that which had been recommended by the former Commission and by the last Committee. But after fixing the site came the further question—what was to be placed there? The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) had told the House with the authority that belonged to his opinion, to which he added that of several architects of eminence, both foreign and English, that a very beautiful architectural building might be raised upon the site of Kensington Gore, and any one who visited the site, particularly the south side, must acknowledge the justice of that opinion.

2131
Then came the question, what extent should be given to the National Gallery, and what sort of objects should be placed there? He quite agreed that, before commencing an expenditure which might be large, some decision ought to be arrived at as to what the gallery was to contain, so as to avoid a perpetual change of plan. It was therefore of considerable importance to decide whether the fine arts collection and the archælogical collection in the British Museum should be removed to the new National Gallery. His noble Friend who had made this Motion had put opinions into his (Lord J. Russell's) mouth on this subject which he did not remember ever to have expressed. He had never said that these collections ought to be removed, but he thought it was a subject upon which the opinions of a number of competent persons ought to be asked before any step was taken. The collections on the Continent were generally collections of fine arts, and, though it might be desirable to remove our fine arts collection and the archæological collection from the British Museum to the new gallery, he had never proposed that, because he believed there was room enough in the British Museum to hold all the collections which were now placed in it. These collections, too, illustrated each other in a manner most suitable for the student of books and the student of art. After mature deliberation he was not disposed to say that any of these collections ought to be moved, and, having once got these collections together, it would be, in his opinion, a great act of folly on the part of the Government and of Parliament to send the minerals to one place, the botanical specimens to another, the archaeology to a third, and the birds and beasts to a fourth. He therefore considered that it was not wise to have any further Commission appointed. It would be well to consider the Bill proposed by the Government, but before any vote of money was proposed it was to be hoped that the House would also well consider what it was which was to be built, and that the opinions of competent men, both in this country and on the Continent, should be taken on the whole subject. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had said that we had no money to spend on such a building; but that, of course, would very much depend on the condition in which the country might be in two or three years time, and he cordially hoped that the report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
2132
would be that we were very rich. At present the space in the National Gallery was far too small to hold the gifts which no doubt would be made to the nation if there were any place to put them, and therefore, as a mere matter of economy, it would assuredly be very desirable to have a larger building.
MR. GRANVILLE VERNONagreed with the hon. Member for Bath that this subject ought to be considered as a whole. They ought not to decide rashly upon a site for the new National Gallery without having previously come to some decision as to what that gallery was intended to contain. They should avoid falling into the error which had been committed with regard to the British Museum, which had been built on a scale wholly inadequate to its requirements, the consequence of which was that fresh ground had to be purchased, and additions constantly made to the building quite inconsistent with its original plan. He would only very briefly notice the speech of the hon. Member for Huntingdon, who proposed to have two National Galleries—one on the present site, containing a selection of the best pictures,—and to have another supplementary collection of inferior works for idlers and artists His proposition appeared to be to keep the best pictures exposed to those influences which, it was supposed, were likely to deteriorate, if not to destroy them, and to send the artists, with the idlers, to study the inferior works of art as their models! He (Mr. Vernon) should support the Motion of his noble Friend, but he must take leave to dissent from some of his arguments. His noble Friend, in part of his speech, seemed to doubt whether the pictures need be moved from their present site, because, he argued, the pictures in private collections, though in the heart of the town, did not suffer. He (Mr. Vernon) denied that they did not suffer—but he still more denied that there was any analogy between the rarely-visited collections of a few individuals, and this public collection, exposed as it was to dust and effluvia of all sorts. Why, upon this point the Committee had been almost unanimous. Had the noble Lord changed his opinion? or, if not, what had been the meaning of his vote? The noble Lord suggested that glass ought to be put over all the pictures. He (Mr. Vernon) had little doubt, upon good authority, that glazing pictures was injurious to them to some extent. Pictures, like human beings, wanted free circulation

2133
of air—and, at any rate, the result would be, that when you looked at a picture thus protected, you would frequently see little else than the reflection of your own face. Surely, if once the necessity of covering the pictures with glass were admitted, a stronger argument was not needed in favour of removing them to some freer and purer atmosphere. He confessed that he should rejoice if the site of Kensington Palace should be found available for the purpose. One of the arguments used by the Secretary of State for the Colonies was, that the gardens would have to be cut up and roads made across them; but even if Kensington Gore were selected, a road would eventually have to be made to it from Bayswater across the gardens. His right hon. Friend had been eloquent, too, in defence and praise of Kensington Palace; but only twenty-five years ago an eminent architect had reported that it was not worth repairing, and he (Mr. Vernon) was informed that one of the first acts of the present active Chief Commissioner of Works was to direct that the Palace should be surveyed, which showed pretty clearly that there were screws loose somewhere—and he should like to know what had been the report made to the right hon. Gentleman. A very competent authority had stated to the previous Committee of 1850, that the present site of the National Gallery was the worst for the pictures, but the best for the convenience of the public. No doubt the convenience of the public was a very important consideration, but the preservation of the pictures themselves was of still higher importance; and it was, perhaps, better that the public should have further to go to see the pictures than that the pictures should be so injured as not to be worth seeing. The Government said with plausibility that they were only carrying out the recommendation of the Committee of 1853; but it must be borne in mind that that recommendation was of a peculiar character. It differed materially from ordinary suggestions of the same nature. Recommendation generally implies a preference; but in this case the majority of the Committee, assuming the choice of site to be limited to three or four spots in or about Kensington and Hyde Park, was impressed with the difficulty of formally recommending sites which were not, for obvious reasons, within their control, and therefore expressed themselves willing to accept the Kensington Gore site, though it
2134
was avowedly placed by them lowest in the scale. But his own (Mr. Vernon's) vote had been given in favour of Kensington Gore, only upon the express condition that these words should be introduced into the final paragraph—"If all the objections to the other sites should be found to be insuperable." It was, in fact, adopted as a pis aller. He (Mr. Vernon) could not admit that, because the purchase of the Kensington Gore estate had been, very judiciously no doubt, made, therefore necessarily it was to be adopted as a site; and he thought, at all events, they ought not to be bound hand and foot by the plans of the architect of the Board of Works. Among other sites which had been suggested to the Committee, there was one to which he must allude, as it was not, he believed, an unpopular one. He alluded to Regent's Park. They had been deterred from including the Regent's Park among the recommended sites, by certain very serious though not insurmountable difficulties. He believed that there was a clause or condition inserted in the leases of all the Houses round the Park to the effect that no building should be erected within the enclosure. The Secretary for the Colonies had laid great stress upon the impropriety of any encroachment on the parks, upon what he called the enjoyment of the parks by the people. Why, surely the right hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere) would not pretend to say that the substitution of a very handsome building for a very ugly one, available, moreover, for the enjoyment of the public, would not be a very great ornament to the Park, as well as a great general advantage. The whole subject was one which ought to be approached with great caution, and with deference to the feelings of the highest personage of the realm. The fittest instrument for the purpose would be a Royal Commission. Nothing would be lost by the delay of a few months. Let there be no more buildings constructed of stone so perishable as to require painting for their preservation—no more statues stuck crosswise upon arches which were not intended to support them. He hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would take a personal interest in the matter, and that the result might be that we should, after due consideration, construct an edifice which would be a lasting memorial of the liberality and good taste alike of the Sovereign, the Minister, and the Nation.
MR. DISRAELI: As I have been referred

2135
to several times in the course of this discussion, and as I had something to do with the transaction which has led to the present position in which the question before us is now placed, I hope the House will not consider it intrusive on my part if I ask permission to make a few observations. First of all I would endeavour to ascertain precisely the issue before us. We are not now going to decide whether the Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Ministers with reference to the National Gallery shall be read a second time, or whether we shall vote any money in order to forward the views of the Government. There is such a Bill upon our paper to-night, and when it comes on it will be competent to any hon. Gentleman to offer an opinion or to record his vote upon that issue. The question now before us is the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Hadding-ton (Lord Elcho), calling upon the House to address Her Majesty, praying Her to issue a Royal Commission to determine the site of the new National Gallery, and to report on the desirableness of combining with it the fine art and archæological collections of the British Museum. After the numerous criticisms which have been made by so many hon. Gentlemen, I will dwell but briefly upon the question of a new National Gallery. I think it will pretty generally be admitted that a new National Gallery is necessary. There are, I know, some hon. Members who think that the present Gallery is a sufficient depository for the national pictures. The reasons which have been alleged against the suitableness of the present Gallery are various, and may not all be approved by every one. It is not necessary to enter into a discussion as to the deleterious influences of the atmosphere, or of other circumstances connected with the present site; but there is a broader view, which should not be absent from our consideration—I would almost say from our conviction at this moment—namely, the present depository of the national collection of pictures cannot he a permanent one, and that on the present site there is not space sufficient for the formation of a Gallery worthy of the future of a great country like England. Nor are there any practical means by which that deficiency can be supplied. You may expel the Royal Academy, and you will thereby extend the boundaries of the National Gallery; but I maintain that you will not even then have space at all adequate to its wants. Long before the
2136
present National Gallery was built there was a prevalent feeling in this country that some ample and adequate means ought to be supplied by the State for a collection of pictures worthy of the nation. This feeling was forced upon the country by the fact, that we were periodically losing magnificent collections which would otherwise have been given to the country. Before this Gallery was built we lost the Dulwich and the Fitzwilliam collections. Since the building of this Gallery we have lost other valuable collections, and at this moment there are other such collections which will not become the property of the country unless the nation be prepared to provide for them such accommodation as possessions of such rare value deserve. Can we be surprised at this when, within the last few years, two donations of invaluable works of art have been made to Great Britain, and the Government have been compelled to admit that it was not possible to accommodate these magnificent legacies? The Vernon collection was for a long time in a cellar, and the unrivalled pictures of Mr. Turner—pictures which in future days will vie in beauty, in value, and in reputation, with any which the artists of the middle ages have left to us—are still stowed away in some unknown corner, to the disgrace of the country and the great disadvantage of Her Majesty's subjects. I think, therefore, that I am not indulging in anything like exaggeration when I say that the prevalent feeling of the House and of the country is that a new National Gallery which shall afford adequate accommodation to those treasures of art which we possess, and which I trust we shall greatly increase, is necessary. Having arrived at that point, I need touch but very briefly upon those which have been already noticed in the course of the debate, and I shall refer to them only that it may not be supposed that I shrink from meeting the objections which have been urged. First, with regard to the site. Where is there a site upon which a National Gallery of adequate size can be erected? Upon this matter we have had prolonged researches, continued investigations, numerous suggestions. The most accomplished men have given their attention to the subject. The wisdom of Parliament has been bestowed upon it, and tonight we have heard from the noble Lord who introduced this question (Lord Elcho) a summary of all the alternatives which could be brought forward to meet the proposition

2137
of the Ministry. Now, I ask any hon. Gentleman who has listened to those proposals whether any one of them was a really practical or practicable suggestion? It is not necessary for me to go through the list; and it is only because there are Gentlemen present now, who may not have been here when the noble Lord addressed the House, that I venture to recall to the House what an extraordinary catalogue of expedients it was which was introduced by him to our notice. The great plans of the noble Lord might generally be ranked under two heads—destruction of Her Majesty's palaces, and appropriation of Her Majesty's parks. Indeed I listened with astonishment, which was only checked by a feeling which sometimes amounted to terror, while the noble Lord informed the House of the means by which adequate accommodation was to be found for an institution which of all others should form the manners, mitigate the habits, and elevate the tastes of the people. Why, Sir, it was not only a catalogue of confiscations, it was a catalogue of revolutions. Her Majesty's palace at Kensington was to be destoyed; Her Majesty's palace of St. James's was to be demolished; and, not content with outraging the hearth of Her Majesty, another Royal generation was brought forward as a victim to public taste, and the mansion of his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales—which we understand is now preparing for his advent—was also thrown into the caldron of destruction. How did we fare with regard to the parks? There used to be a story—which Members of Parliament cannot forget—that there was once a Sovereign who consulted his Prime Minister as to what would be the cost of appropriating one of the parks to his private use; and we all know what the answer was. But it seems that we live in happier days, and that the parks are no longer to be considered as the great sources of public health and public pleasure, but that sites in them are to be seized upon by a dilettante Committee of the House of Commons; and difficulties, which for a long series of years have perplexed the minds of the most thoughtful men, in the most responsible positions—questions, which, when they are more narrowly examined than they have been, I think, by the noble Lord, really involve interests of a much more important nature than the mere possession of a beautiful work of art—are to be settled in a moment. We are to have
2138
a fanciful gallery in one of the Parks, and the whole thing is to be settled in a month—which, if practical, would be very convenient. It is not necessary to criticise these plans. I shall come at once to that point in which there is a difference. I think the House has agreed that there is to be a new National Gallery, and that it will very generally agree that the suggestions thrown out by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) are not practical and practicable ones. For instance, the suggestion of Kensington Palace. I do not think it is fair that we should discuss that proposal. It is not open to us to fix upon a palace of our Sovereign, and to say, this is a site which we will advise; it will give us all that is necessary, without duly considering the responsibilty of such advice. And when my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire tells us that by this Vote, to-night, we perhaps shall be entering upon a course of unlimited expense, I would remind my hon. Friend that, in supporting such a suggestion as that proposed by the noble Lord, he is, in fact, entering into an expenditure to which no person can draw a limit, and that by the selection of such a site, independently of the destruction of one of the Queen's palaces, which would involve a large expense by way of decent compensation for the outrage so calmly proposed to us, he would lead us to an expenditure infinitely greater in all probability than any Minister would call upon this House to sanction. Well, Sir, let us for a moment consider the site which has been suggested by Her Majesty's Ministers; for I can hardly say that it is formally before us, but which, in deference to the course of the debate, I look upon to be the issue now under consideration. What are the allegations brought against this site? No one denies that at least the atmosphere is pure as compared with that from which the pictures are to be taken. No one denies that it is a site which offers much ampler space. Some will say that its position is not so convenient. Well, that is a question for the House to discuss. When a public building is concerned—when a building to be dedicated to public purposes is in question, nothing is more difficult than to settle what is generally convenient. The hon. and worthy Alderman (Alderman Cubitt) who addressed us this evening told us what is a convenient site. A convenient site to him is Charing Cross. He lives near it, and when he goes into the

2139
city he has the advantage, if he likes, of looking into the National Gallery, and of refreshing his mind, and relieving it for a moment from the cares of business; with the aspect of some of those divine productions which are there deposited. But a person who does not live near Charing Cross would not consider that Trafalgar Square was the most convenient site. What we have to do, then, under such circumstances, is to see whether the site is, in the first place, adequately suited to the purpose, and, if that he the case, whether it is, generally, conveniently accessible to the great population of the metropolis. In the first place, then, I say, if Kensington Palace is the model site—and that appears to be the general opinion of those opposed to the proposal of the Minister—the grounds of controversy between those who are in favour of Kensington Gore and those who are in favour of Kensington Palace are extremely narrowed. The site of Kensington Gore is nearer than Kensington Palace; therefore, so far as all those who recommend the site of Kensington Palace are concerned, I think the issue is extremely narrowed. We are debating a question which concerns the future, and a long future. How are we, then—not rashly, not precipitately, not from our present habits and feelings—to decide what is the most capital site and the most commanding position for a building for such a purpose? At this moment there are great complaints from the learned societies that they have been disturbed in their position at Somerset House. They were invited to go to Kensington Gore; but they protested against the situation and against the distance. They have been accommodated at Burlington House; but I believe they would rather have remained at Somerset House. But 100 years ago, or less, the same learned societies protested against being insulated at that very House, and said it was very inconvenient to have to go so great a distance from their usual place of gathering, and to a place so remote from their residences, and from what was then the fashionable part of town. I remember when Belgrave Square was first planned the objections raised against that site. It was said that nobody could possibly go and live there; it was in the marshes, and nearly two miles from London; and that it was impossible that any person who took an interest in society and in the multifarious movements of this metropolis could live in
2140
that region. But we have lived to see, in a comparatively short space of time, a rich and splendid city formed there, and which is not so remote as that very spot which is so strongly recommended by many persons as the site of the new National Gallery. Let us see what is the character of the site at Kensington Gore. The soil of that spot, which has been described to be a marsh, we know by the evidence taken before the very Committee that sat upon the National Gallery, is a gravelly soil. The site which has been selected for the National Gallery, if the House sanctions that building, is an elevated spot. I therefore cannot understand, whether we look at the character of the soil, or at the character of the site, or at its distance from the metropolis—I cannot, I say, understand what sound objections can be urged against that particular spot. It is not so far as Kensington Palace, which those who oppose Kensington Gore prefer, but which they know it is impossible to obtain. In all probability it will be surrounded in time by a new town, and some may think will suffer from the same circumstance which has already proved so deleterious to the pictures in the present building—namely, from the atmosphere. But I will just observe, that from no probable circumstance can it be inconveniently close to any surrounding buildings. It will always have a space of 700 acres—the area of Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park—before it; and it will always have in its own gardens a considerable area free behind it. The houses which will rise in its vicinity will probably be houses of that high class that will never exercise upon this building that injurious influence which has been so generally acknowledged and expatiated upon. I do not see, therefore, so far as the proposed site is concerned, that these are objections which can be urged against it with any plausibility. But there is one point to be regarded in this case—where can you find a space sufficient for the purpose if you do not avail yourself of the offer before you? It would be delusive to indulge the idea of appropriating the Royal Palaces or of taking away the best sources of recreation from the people. Every man, therefore, who has studied the subject of providing a sufficient and adequate site for a public building of this kind, wants to know where it is possible to obtain an area of this extensive nature so advantageous as that which is before you. These are questions which

2141
ought fairly to be answered by those Gentlemen who interfere so much with the settlement of this question; because I apprehend that the question as to where our National Gallery is to be placed, and the building of a National Gallery, is of very pressing necessity. These points, therefore, ought to be taken into mature consideration. If we are to have another Royal Commission which is to enter into every wild suggestion that might be made, years may be lost before the result of that Commission can be laid before the House. I need not dwell upon what would be the probable result of such a proceeding. Every hon. Gentleman can form an estimate of that; but no bon. Gentleman can form an estimate of the injuries which we should be doing in the meantime. I would oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, so far as it proposes an Address to the Crown to retard a decision of this House with regard to a site for a National Gallery, upon the more merits of the question, and upon his own statement an obvious answer to which must occur to every one. But I confess I oppose it upon another ground, and one which has great influence upon me in the course I feel it my duty to take. The noble Lord has referred to what he calls the industrial scheme, which was intended to be carried into effect upon this area, the grounds of which scheme to a certain degree I was instrumental in bringing before the House for its consideration. The hon. Member for Warwickshire on this, as on every occasion, with stern consistency has taken every opportunity of depreciating that which the noble Lord calls the industrial scheme. But I may remind my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, who seems offended that I should have called him a Vandal, that in the first place, if I did make such an observation it was not in debate, but in the confidence of friendship. It was entirely a private communication. I would also say to my hon. Friend as an extenuating circumstance, that there have been very great men who were Vandals; but I would not seriously have applied that term to my hon. Friend, who is one of the most consistent and one of the most influential opponents of that which the noble Lord calls the industrial scheme at Kensington Gore. I would remind my hon. Friend that his opinions are not shared upon the subject by those among whom he lives, and once had the honour of representing; because I remember that the district which first placed
2142
itself in communication with the Royal Commission and expressed the most lively and complete sympathy with those principles which that Commission was designed to promulgate, and which I believe to be calculated greatly to elevate the taste, knowledge, and fortunes of the people of this country, was the town of Birmingham, That great community of 200,000 persons and the inhabitants of the surrounding district applied to the Royal Commissioners for advice respecting plans of their own devising for the promotion of a knowledge of practical art and science among their fellow countrymen; and in consequence of that movement the Birmingham and Midland Institute—an association which does honour to the enterprise of Englishmen—was founded. The landowners of the neighbourhood subscribed, if I recollect rightly, the sum of £10,000 for the site of this institution; and the people of Birmingham and its vicinity meeting them with reciprocal liberality, such an impetus was given to education in practical science and art in that locality, as makes me think that in the county of Warwick my hon. Friend will find no sympathy for the opinions which he has so scrupulously advocated in this House. But I wish hon. Members calmly to consider the grounds on which I shall venture to oppose the Motion of the noble Lord. I cannot help regarding the Motion as an attempt to rescind the policy introduced to the notice of this House in 1852, and which was the consequence of the Great Exhibition of the year preceding. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that there are involved in this subject considerations far higher than the mere dilettante sentiments that have entered into this debate. Let me recall for a moment the circumstances under which the Great Exhibition of 1851 took place; but before doing so, I may, perhaps, briefly remind the House of the manner in which the proposition for establishing that Exhibition was received in this country—of the suspicion, of the jealousy, the cavil, the constant opposition from almost all classes which its first announcement encountered. It was looked upon as a design to injure the industry of this country. ["No!"] The hon. Gentleman who cries "No" has not, perhaps, seen, as I have, the public memorials presented to that effect; he cannot possess, as I do, a collection of the squibs and pasquinades written upon the subject; he forgets, which I do not, that

2143
at the last moment a Peer of Parliament, holding one of the highest offices of State, moved the Upper House, I believe, even when the building had been raised, to prevent its being opened. It was with the greatest difficulty that the Great Exhibition was established. Those who promoted it were obliged to apply to private individuals to guarantee even the expense of the structure. Remembering all this, I ask the House to reflect on the vast and beneficial influence which that Exhibition has exercised on the industry of the country, and to contrast the feelings with which it was originally welcomed with the public sentiment which the retrospect of it now inspires. I however mention this only in passing. What I want the House to consider—and it is a point the importance of which cannot he exaggerated—is this. What was the cause of that memorable Exhibition which has given a tone to Europe, and produced such extensive effects on our manners and our industry? It had been known for a long period to men of study and experience, that the industry of England was about to encounter not only a severe, but, as those capable of forming an accurate judgment believed, a fearful and increasing competition. Under those circumstances Parliament thought fit (and I state the historical fact without now questioning the wisdom of your counsels) to change the whole commercial policy of the country. The productions of England were brought into competition with foreign productions, not merely in your colonial, but even in your home markets. These things were known to philosophers and to statesmen—they were discussed in literary treatises and in solemn councils; but the people of England—the most industrious and ingenious people in the world—were not aware of the fact that, with the exception of a better command of the raw material, there was no single point in which their industry was superior to that of the foreigner. How could they be taught this? Only by inviting to our capital all the specimens of the ingenuity and invention of other nations—by collecting under one roof all the raw materials, mineral, vegetable, and animal, which supplied the processes and manufactures of our rivals. And it was necessary by an exhibition of this kind to convey a great lesson to the most manufacturing community in the world. The consequence of the Great Exhibition of 1851, when it had experienced its immense
2144
success and its results were recognised, was that those who had undertaken it, fortified by public opinion, and supported by all statesmen of all parties who were cognisant of the condition of the country, arrived at the conclusion that some decisive measures ought to be taken by which an education in practical art and science should be given to our working classes, so that they might be enabled to maintain the ancient supremacy of their skill and defy the effects of that fearful competition which, if successful, would have proved so injurious to our wealth and our reputation. It was felt to be necessary, therefore, to establish a great institution of art and science in this country, in spite of prejudice so strong and obstacles so formidable, that they could never have been overcome, unless those who undertook this difficult task had been animated by a paramount sense of duty. Let the House only consider what has already been achieved under this head. Before the year of the Great Exhibition, you certainly had a partial system of education in practical art in this country, but it was very limited in its character and very slight in its resources. You had twenty local schools of design in a certain degree dependent on a central authority. That was the foundation you had to build upon; and on this basis, since the Exhibition of 1851, you have established a Metropolitan School of practical Art, an invaluable Museum of practical Art, and no less than 700 local and parochial schools of practical art in connection with the metropolitan school. So far as practical science is concerned you had nothing to build upon. Yon have now, however, in London, a school and museum of practical science, and you are establishing corresponding institutions in every part of England. You wanted space for these establishments. Hon. Gentlemen talk with great coolness about sites. They are ready to vote the public money, and wisely so, to encourage scientific collections; but let the House of Commons night after night vote what funds it may, it will produce no effect while you have no buildings in which to place those collections. The truth is, that until this moment, you have never had the space offered you on which the required building could be erected. You have, indeed, buildings and schools in obscure streets and disadvantageous situations—none of them aggregated, but all scattered about—one in one place, and another in another—and

2145
the whole from mere want of union producing the smallest possible result at the largest cost. The idea was, therefore, formed, that you should obtain the first indispensable requisite for imparting a complete education in practical science and practical art to the workmen of England—namely, the space on which the necessary buildings should be collected together; and that there you should concentrate the various museums and schools now dispersed throughout the metropolis. An hon. Gentleman talked of destroying Marl-borough House—does he know how it is occupied at the present moment? Through the kindness of Her Majesty, in that establishment you have now a school and museum of art in which the men are educated who are to be the future teachers of England, and from which—as from a metropolitan centre—accomplished and capable instructors are sent to the chief seats of our manufacturing industry. In another situation you have a school of science—a place by no means adequate to the occasion, in which experiments in agricultural chemistry are made by men who have produced, and will continue to produce, the greatest effects upon that important branch of industry. It was thought advisable that some attempt should be made to bring all these museums and schools together, in order that it might be understood that a great though gradual change in the condition of the country was at last recognised by its rulers, and that it might be seen that practical science and practical art are, to the working community of these kingdoms, quite as important as those political and civil rights which we have so long enjoyed and which we so highly prize. Now, I ask the House, how is this to be done? How are you to produce an effect upon the opinion of a nation, if you admit practical art and science to be most valuable necessities, unless you place them in such a position that their importance must be recognised by the country? You have placed your political institutions and your great offices of State in buildings which show to the country that you have recognised their paramount importance; and, when you place your museums and your schools of practical art and science upon this great site of eighty or ninety acres, when you resolve that the raw material shall no longer be an abstraction to the people of this country, but that it shall be seen in all its forms in your museums—when you determine that your
2146
working men shall have opportunities of instruction in those processes which will enable them to acquire the powers of design and colour—matters in which they are now surpassed by foreign artists—I ask you, where can you find a better locality than this? And why should the gallery of galleries, the National Gallery, be wanting in such a situation? When you are seeking to educate a nation in art, and when you have a site at your command, why should not the National Gallery of the people be the crowning ornament of the scene? There is nothing more fallacious, nothing more shortsighted—nay, I will say there is nothing more mean and sordid, than to suppose that you can raise and refine the taste of a people by second-rate models and by second-rate means. Her Majesty's Ministers have recommended that in the place to which in time you will attract all the sympathies, the curiosity, and the conscious pride of the community, you should also raise your National Gallery; and I am of opinion that that is a wise and proper recommendation. I should entertain the same opinion if there were sites that could be placed in competition with it; but as no more eligible position can be suggested, and as this magnificent site is available, I think it most desirable that amid your museums and schools of science and art you should raise, as a crowning and consecrating ornament of the scene, the Gallery of the Nation. I believe you would thus produce an immense effect upon the public mind; that you would raise and refine the taste of the country; that you would give an impulse to the national spirit that would enable our artisans to meet successfully the competition they have to encounter; and, above all, that you would add weight to the central authority which must regulate and guide all the local schools of design. These are considerations which I think we ought to bear in mind; and when we are told, as we were told to-night, by the noble Lord, that the National Gallery is to be distinguished from what he sneeringly called the industrial scheme of the Royal Commissioners—
LORD ELCHO: I beg pardon for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. I totally deny having sneered at the industrial scheme.
MR. DISRAELI: Well, at what the noble Lord, without a sneer, styled the industrial scheme of the Royal Commissioners—I would take the liberty of impressing

2147
upon the noble Lord and upon the House that, in a full and fair development of that industrial scheme—namely, the complete education of the people of this country in practical art and science—are involved the future wealth and welfare of this community.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, some subjects have been adverted to in the course of this debate which I wish the House to keep entirely out of their consideration in the vote they are about to give. We have been told by some hon. Gentlemen that this is the first step towards the expenditure of £1,000,000; and the question has been argued as if the Bill of Her Majesty's Government involved a large expenditure of money. Sir, the vote is no such thing, the object of that Bill, which is really and substantially the topic now under discussion, is, on the contrary, to enable the public to accept a present. Other hon. Gentlemen have argued that this is a question of taste, that we ought not precipitately to adopt a plan which may lead us to imitate errors that have previously been committed, and that the House ought to pause before it assents to the proposition of the Government. But the House, Sir, is not called upon to adopt any plan; on the contrary, all we propose is, that the House should accept a site for a building that may be erected at some future time; but what shall be the form or the extent of that building, what shall be its ornaments or its arrangements, or what shall be the expense of its construction, must be the subjects of subsequent deliberation in this House; and the House will not pledge itself upon any one of these topics by adopting the Bill which has been introduced by the Government. When we are told that former transactions with reference to public buildings justify my noble Friend (Lord Elcho) in recommending another Commission of Inquiry; and when we are told, as we have been, that we ought to take warning from the example of the edifice in which we are now assembled, I would remind hon. Gentlemen that this great building was the result of many Commissions and Committees. I think, therefore, that the multiplication of Commissions is not a very happy remedy for the evils my noble Friend desires to avoid. The starting point from which we ought to proceed has been accurately described by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. It is simply this:—Is it fitting
2148
that we should continue to lodge the national collection of pictures in the building in which they are now contained? Why, Sir, I think no man who reflects upon the subject would entertain that opinion. The present building is objectionable on account of its situation: it is too small even for the collection of pictures we possess; it cannot be extended in such a manner as to afford accommodation for pictures which may either be purchased or accepted as gifts; and, as has been well pointed out by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, not only have we lost most valuable collections, which might have been the property of the nation if a fitting place had been provided for their reception, but we have now collections which have been given to the country which it is impossible to exhibit because our gallery is not sufficiently capacious for the purpose. An hon. Gentleman—I think the hon. Member for North Warwickshire—suggested that the National Gallery might be enlarged by turning out the exhibition of the Royal Academy. [Mr. SPOONER expressed his dissent.] I am glad my hon. Friend has not proved himself to be a Vandal by encouraging such a proposition; for I think any one who made a suggestion of that nature would really deserve that application of the term which the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) has endeavoured to explain away. Is it, I would ask, no national object that we should have a proper place in which the Royal Academy may exhibit the annual productions of the art and genius of this country? Is it no national object that that place should be large enough to receive all the contributions that deserve to be so exhibited? Why, at the present time about 1,700 pictures are annually refused admission to the Royal Academy for no other reason than that there is not space enough for their exhibition. I may be told that many of these pictures are not deserving of admission; but of this I am certain, that there are many of them also which possess great merit, and which would, I believe, attract public admiration. All other national exhibitions afford accommodation for the productions of artists of foreign countries, but from our exhibition the works of any but native artists are almost entirely excluded. Here and there we see by accident, as it were, the picture of a foreign artist, but is it not desirable that our exhibition should afford room for the works

2149
of foreign artists, which, may come into competition with those of our own countrymen? Who that has ever gone into the dungeon in which the works of sculptors are exhibited in our National Gallery does not blush for his country? There you have works of genius so crowded together, like images upon the hoards of Italians in the street, that schoolboys long for an opportunity of smashing them. I am sure any Englishman who has visited the galleries of art abroad, and who compares them with those of his own country, must be ashamed at the contrast, and must earnestly desire that better means should be provided for exhibiting the productions of modern genius and the works of ancient masters. Then, I say, that that National Gallery ought to be given up to the purpose of the Royal Academy for the study of art, for the display of modern works, and for those other objects to which they would apply it. But if we are to move our national collection of pictures from the place where they now are, where are they to go? My noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), like Cælebs in search of a wife, has wandered forth in search of a site to all the different places where his imagination led him, and at last he met with a mirage which induced him to believe there was a swamp at the site now recommended. Why, that is as deceitful as the mirage which the traveller thinks he falls in with as he passes over the sands of Egypt; there is no foundation whatever for the apprehension which haunts my noble Friend. Let us, however, examine the sites which he proposes. In number they are about a dozen or more. Those sites may be classed in three divisions. Some of them are liable to all the objections which apply to the present site; they are in the town and would be equally exposed, with the present gallery, to the smoke and dirt of London. What, for instance, should we gain by removing the gallery from one end of Pall Mall to the other? Then my noble Friend comes to the parks and palaces. He has offered to him a free gift in the site now proposed—a site which the country has only to accept; but he is not contented with that; he refuses the gift, and says, "I am determined either to rob the public of those places of air and recreation which they at present possess, or I will take from the Crown the palaces which belong to it." Now, I repudiate altogether those proposals.
2150
I put out of the question the encroachments upon the parks, because I feel sure if any Government could be found which would advise the Crown to allow such encroachments, there would be a burst of public indignation which would totally prevent any scheme of the sort from being carried into execution. We all remember the violent opposition which has always been raised to any such encroachments upon places which are preserved for the use and enjoyment of the people. But then we are told that a handsome building might be erected which would be an ornament to the parks. No doubt such a building might be erected, but we are not talking about ornamenting the parks; our object should rather be to consider how we are to preserve them for the purposes for which they are designed. With regard to the parks and Kensington, Gardens, therefore, I put these sites altogether out of view. My noble Friend in an easy good-humoured way talks of sweeping away St. James's Palace and Marl-borough House and sending the Prince of Wales to Burlington House. Now, I think any man, whether he be prince, peer, or commoner, who had the good fortune to own Marlborough House would pause a long time before accepting the transfer to Burlington House. The two situations are by no means equally desirable, and yet my noble Friend talks of sweeping away the Prince's future residence and erecting fanciful fabrics in its stead. He reminds me of the German baroness who was so fond of planting that she cut down whole forests to enable her to gratify her taste; or of the lady in the Arabian Nights who was so anxious to exchange Aladdin's old lamp for a new one—there being this additional point of resemblance, that the exchange, so unprofitable to Aladdin, would also involve us in an enormous expenditure. There would be the compensation you would have to give the Crown for these existing buildings; there would be the expense of erecting fresh palaces and of the buildings you would erect on, the sites thus obtained; and, in short, such a proposal seems to be altogether inadmissible. The real question which the House has to consider is, I take it, not whether the present National Gallery is to be removed, because I look upon that as a settled point—not whether a new National Gallery is to be erected in Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens, Pall Mall, or on the site of Marlborough, House, or St.

2151
James's Palace. The real question is whether you will remove the National Gallery to the site now proposed, or whether, contrary to the opinion of all those whose opinion is entitled to consideration, you are determined to continue it in the inconvenient, insufficient, and, to works of art, dangerous building in which the national collection of pictures now are kept. Sir, the choice is between this ground or none. I see no other spot within reach of visitors who wish to see this collection; I see no other site but this to which it is possible to transfer the gallery; and when my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. G. Vernon) asks me whether the Government have deliberately considered this question, and, I think, rather made his vote depend upon the answer which may be returned, I claim his vote upon that very ground, because the Government have deliberated upon the subject. After full consideration, Sir, I am prepared to say that we do not see our way to any other site for the National Gallery, and we do think it is not fitting either that the collections of pictures we have, or those we may hereafter have, should continue in the building in which they are now placed. I do therefore hope that the House will not be led away by the vivid imagination of my noble Friend (Lord Elcho), or by the romantic march he has taken to a number of impossible and impracticable sites, but that hon. Members will consider the real question at issue—namely, not whether we should determine to launch into that enormous expense in construction, which has been alluded to as now awaiting decision—not whether we, will adopt any particular plan, but whether we will accept a site which is of sufficient capacity to allow of its application to all those purposes for which it may hereafter be required—a site which the country may receive at present without any further expense, and as to which, when accepted, Parliament remains perfectly free to determine to what purposes it shall be applied, to what extent buildings shall be constructed, what shall be their form and character, and what shall be the expense incurred in carrying out these desirable objects.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he might have been contented with giving a silent vote upon the present occasion had it not been for the observations he had heard in the course of the discussion. However, it was his intention only to trouble the House for a few
2152
moments. He did not pretend to say that he had formed a very strong opinion in favour of Kensington Palace as against Kensington Gore, because he thought there were circumstances connected with the removal of the pictures from Charing Cross to one or other of those sites which must first of all be taken into consideration. It was not for him to say whether it had been satisfactorily established that pictures had deteriorated in the present building, and that therefore they must necessarily be removed from their present situation; but he would remark that those who made this proposition for the removal of the Gallery to Kensington Gore did not seem to remember that that site must become gradually as fitted for building on as others. In a few years there would probably not be a piece of vacant ground between the site now fixed upon and the river at Chelsea; and was it, then, worth while to remove the pictures to Kensington Gore, owing to an alleged deterioration from their continuance in town—a point which he confessed, notwithstanding all that had been said on the subject, he was not yet prepared to look upon as established? But, though he had not a very decided opinion as between the two sites he had referred to, he must confess he thought that in the course which was originally traced out by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), they had laid the foundation for mischief of which they had not yet seen the end. He believed, moreover, that that foundation had been laid upon false premises. Having studied the character of his countrymen, and having had the opportunity of comparing their works with those of foreigners, he must confess that he had not come to the conclusion that it was necessary to treat a workman as a child, and to adopt for his benefit that centralising system which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have in his mind. He had himself, in the year 1852, stated that he did not agree in the low estimate that had been formed of the character of Englishmen by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, nor that the perfection of mechanical skill was due to the Governmental schools. He had a great faith in the individual energy of the country, and if they established central schools they would, he feared, lessen the individual exertion which had been the mainstay of the mechanical industry of the country. He had no objection to grants of money for buildings for the exhibition of our excellent works of art; but

2153
if it were intended to introduce central schools by which degrees were to be established, so that individuals out of the pale of those schools might be marked—what he more particularly wished to call attention to was the centralising system in France, where the Ecole Polytechnique had been established, out of which there was no opportunity for any individual, however great his merit-he felt bound to raise his voice the moment the question was introduced; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that he (Mr. Locke) had made a startling assertion, without any foundation, to raise an argument against the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, that "he could assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Locke) that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had heard, for the first time, the statement respecting this scheme, and he could say with perfect confidence that it was an assertion for which there was not the slightest imaginable foundation." The speech of the right hon. Gentleman that evening had been enough to justify the statement which he had made in 1852, and to show that something was impending which Parliament ought not to permit, and against which he wished to enter his protest.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he very much regretted that he had no right of reply, because nearly everything which he had stated had been misrepresented by the opponents of his Motion. He had not proposed that the natural history collection should be given to the Zoological Society, but that it should be placed somewhere near the gardens of the society; nor had he stated that thirteen Commissions or Committees had been appointed on the subject of the National Gallery. He had not wished to convey to the House that he was opposed to what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) called the industrial scheme, but he had endeavoured to draw a distinction between a scheme which had been supported by the late Mr. Hume, and that which the right hon. Gentleman called a National Gallery of the people; and he considered that the subject involved a much larger question than the mere choice of a site.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he must beg to explain that the statement quoted by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Locke) had reference to schools of art and science, which were included in the Miscellaneous Estimate, for which the hon. Gentleman voted.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 154: Majority 9.

List of the AYES.

Acton, J.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Bailey, C.

Guinness, R. S.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Gwyn, H.

Baldock, E. H.

Hall, rt. hon. Sir B.

Ball, E.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Hamilton, G. A.

Barnes, T.

Hankey, T.

Barrow, W. H.

Hardinge, hon. C. S.

Bennet, P.

Headlam, T. E.

Berkeley, F. W. F.

Heard, J. I.

Bernard, Visct.

Heathcote, hon. G. H.

Bethell, Sir R.

Heneage, G. F.

Bonham-Carter, J.

Hervey, Lord A.

Bouverie, rt. hn. E. P.

Higgins, Col, O.

Brand, hon. H.

Horsman, rt. hon. E.

Brocklehurst, J.

Hughes, W. B.

Brotherton, J.

Hughes, H. G.

Bruce, Lord E.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Jolliffe, H. H.

Butt, G. M.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H

Byng, hon. G. H. C.

Langton, H. G.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Castlerosse, Visct.

Lewis, rt. hn. Sir G. C.

Chambers, T.

Littleton, hn. E. R.

Clay, Sir W.

Lowe, rt. hon. R.

Clifford, H. M.

M'Cann, J.

Clive, hon. R. W.

MacGregor, John

Cobbold, J. C.

Malins, R.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Massey, W. N.

Cocks, T. S.

Milligan, R.

Colvile, C. R.

Milnes, R. M.

Cowan, C.

Michell, W.

Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.

Moffatt, G.

Crossley, F.

Monck, Visct.

Cubitt, Mr. Aid.

Moncrieff, rt. hon. J.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Monsell, rt. hon. W.

Davies, D. A. S.

Morris, D.

Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

Naas, Lord

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Napier, rt. hon. J.

Duncan, Visct.

O'Brien, J.

Dunne, M.

Osborne, R.

Ewart, W.

Paget, Lord A.

Ewart, J. C.

Pakingtou, rt. hn. Sir J.

Farrer, J.

Palmer, R.

Fergus, J.

Palmerston, Visct.

Ferguson, Col.

Peel, Sir R.

FitzGerald, Sir J.

Peel, F.

FitzGerald, rt. hon. J. D.

Pellatt, A.

FitzRoy, rt. hon. H.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Forster, C.

Price, W. P.

Freestun, Col.

Pritchard, J.

Gallwey, Sir W. P.

Repton, G. W. J.

Galway, Visct.

Ricardo, O.

Glyn, G. C.

Ricardo S.

Goddard, A. L.

Ridley, G.

Gower, hon. F. L.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Rolt, P.

Graham, Lord M. W.

Russell, F. C. H.

Gregson, S.

Sawle, C. B. G.

Grenfell, C. W.

Seymour, H. D.

Greville, Col. F.

Shelburne, Earl of

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Grey, R. W.

Smith, A.

2155

Steel, J.

Whitmore, H.

Stephenson, R.

Wickham, H. W.

Tancred, H. W.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Taylor, Col.

Wilson J.

Thornely, T.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir J.

Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Vernon, L. V.

Wyndham, H.

Villiers, rt. hon, C. P.

Wynne, rt. hon. J.

Vyse, Col.

TELLERS.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

Hayter, W. G.

Warren, S.

Mulgrave, Earl of

List of the NOES.

Alcock, T.

Hastie, Alex.

Annesley, Earl of

Hildyard, R. C.

Antrobus, E.

Hindley, C.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Holland, E.

Baillie, H. J.

Hotham, Lord

Baxter, W. E.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Beamish, F. B.

Hutt, W.

Beaumont, W. B.

Ingham, R.

Bell, J.

Irton, S.

Black, A.

Johnstone, J.

Blackburn, P.

Jones, Admiral

Bramley-Moore, J.

Kershaw, J.

Bramston, T. W.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Bruce, Major C.

Kingscote, R. N. F,

Bruce, H. A.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Buck, Col.

Knatchbull, W. F.

Burghley, Lord

Knox, Col.

Cairns, H. M'C.

Langston, J. H.

Campbell, Sir A. L

Langton, W. G.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Lee, W.

Cayley, E. S.

Liddel, hon. H. G.

Cecil, Lord R.

Locke, J.

Chambers, M.

Lockhart, W.

Cheetham, J.

Macartney, G.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

MacEvoy, E.

Davies, J. L.

MacGregor, James

Deasy, R.

M'Mahon, P.

De Vere, S. E.

Maguire, J. F.

Devereux, J. T.

Marjoribanks, D. C.

Dillwyn, L. L.

Maxwell, hon. Col,

Duncan, G.

Meagher, T.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Miall, E.

Dundas, G.

Mitchell, T. A.

Dunlop, A. M.

Montgomery, Sir G.

Dunne, Col.

Moore, G. H.

East, Sir J. B.

Morgan, O.

Egerton, E. C.

Mowbray, J. R.

Ellice, E.

Mundy, W.

Euston, Earl of

Murrough, J. P.

Evelyn, W. J.

Napier, Sir C.

Farnham, E. B.

Neeld, J.

Fielden, M. J.

Newdegate, C. N.

Fenwick, H.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Ferguson, J.

North, Col.

Floyer, J.

North, F.

Foley, J. H. A.

Oakes, J. H. P.

Forster, J.

O'Brien, P.

Fox, W. J.

O'Brien, Sir T.

George, J.

Ossulston, Lord

Gifford, Earl of

Otway, A. J.

Goderich, Visct.

Parker, R. T.

Greenall, G.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Greene, J.

Phillimore, J. G.

Greene, T.

Phillimore, R. J.

Grosvenor, Earl

Portal, M.

Hadfield, G.

Pugh, D.

Handcock, hon. Capt. H.

Ramsden, Sir J. W.

Hardy, G.

Robertson, P. F.

2156

Roebuck, J, A.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Russell, F. W.

Tempest, Lord A. V.

Sandars, G.

Thompson, G.

Scholefield, W.

Thornhill, W. P.

Scobell, Capt.

Tite, W.

Seymer, H. K.

Tollemache, J.

Shee, W.

Tottenham, C.

Shelley Sir J. V.

Vance, J.

Sheridan, R. B.

Vansittart, G. H.

Shirley, E. P.

Vivian, H. H.

Sibthorp, Major

Walcott, Adm.

Smith, J. B.

Walter, J.

Smith, M. T.

Watkins, Col. L.

Smith, W. M.

Williams, W.

Smollett, A.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Wise, J. A.

Spooner, R.

Woodd, B. T.

Stafford, A.

Stanhope, J. B.

TELLERS.

Stracy, Sir H. J.

Wells, W.

Stuart, Capt.

Vernon, G. E. H.

MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would beg to ask whether, as the numbers were so equally balanced in the division which had just taken place, it would not be a good opportunity for adopting the suggestion thrown out the other evening by the right hon. Member for Carlisle, that Addresses to the Crown should be referred to a Committee to be prepared, by which means the opinion of the House could again be taken on them?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that he thought that the proposition of his right hon. Friend was well deserving of attention, but he did not consider that it would be desirable to apply it until the House had deliberately adopted it.
Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Address to be presented by Privy Councillors.

SCOTCH AND IRISH PAUPERS REMOVAL BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that the Bill had been before the House for about three months, and had been postponed from time to time in the hope of his finding an opportunity to explain its provisions. But he had found much opposition to it, not only in the metropolis and manufacturing districts, but also in Scotland, and what surprised him much, in Ireland too. He was convinced the Bill was founded on justice, and would have been a great improvement in the administration of the poor law, and a material benefit to unfortunate labourers. He, however, saw no chance of carrying it during the present

2157
Session, and therefore he proposed, with the consent of the House, to discharge the Order.
LORD NAASsaid, he wished to correct the impression that Irish Members were opposed to it; they were surprised that it had not carried out the recommendations of the Committee that sat for two years, and the withdrawal of the Bill would be much regretted.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was glad the Bill was withdrawn, and he likewise hoped it would never he presented to the House again, for it was perfectly impracticable.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he could assure the House, although he had placed an Amendment on the paper, that he had no intention to oppose the Bill.
Order discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he objected to the Bill being proceeded with at that late period of the Session, he should therefore move that it be read that day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that the Bill was printed and distributed in the first week of the Session, since which he had met with no objection to it. It would involve no charge to the country. It gave a retired allowance to a Judge, who would receive it in any case. It was true that it consisted of as many as ninety-three clauses, but that arose from its being a consolidation of fifteen or sixteen confused Statutes.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, that the Chamber of Commerce at Belfast, had presented a petition against the Bill. It confounded bankruptcy and insolvency in an objectionable manner, and placed on the retired list several Judges yet able to do work. He trusted that the Bill, at that period of the Session, would be discharged; if not, he must support the Motion against it.
MR. VANCEsaid, he could only characterise the Bill as a job, which would give retiring allowances to several Judges
2158
who did not as yet deserve it. After what had been already done in respect of the Irish Chancery Bill, not one clause of which had been approved by the Committee, he believed that the present measure would be found equally defective. Next Session it might be referred to a Select Committee. The Chamber of Commerce of Dublin had, it was true, petitioned in its favour, but they had strong objections to many of its points. He should certainly support the Amendment.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he objected that the Bill came on for second reading, when several Irish Members were unavoidably absent on circuit.
MR. M'CANNsaid, he must deny that the mercantile interest was opposed to the Bill.
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2!.

DWELLINGS FOR LABOURING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he hoped the third reading would not be proceeded with. Under the provisions of the Bill it would be in the power of an agent to put an end to a tenancy from year to year by simple service of a summons, in case any damage should be done to the premises. He thought that such a state of things was most unjustifiable, and he should move that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
MR. DE VEREsaid, he had opposed the Bill from the beginning, and he should willingly second the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he hoped that the third reading would be agreed to. He had not expected that any opposition would be offered to the Bill, as its object was to improve the dwellings of the labouring classes.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he wished to know whether the Government lent its sanction to the Bill? The Irish Members did not want it; and it had been brought in by the representative of an English

2159
borough (Sir W. Somerville). It was, in his opinion, most objectionable, and he hoped that the House would let the question of landlord and tenant alone until some general scheme to regulate their rights could be brought in. The Irish people deprecated these continual attempts at class legislation, and preferred that the people of England and Ireland should he governed by the same laws. He should support his hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he had put his name to the back of the Bill, and he thought that the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville) deserved the greatest credit for the endeavour to improve the condition of the labouring classes of Ireland.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 19: Majority 66.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 3!.
Amendments made.
Bill passed.

MARRIAGE LAW (SCOTLAND) AMENDING BILL,
Order for Second Reading read.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, the Bill had come down from the House of Lords, having been introduced there by his noble Friend Lord Brougham, who, living on the Border where these marriages took place, was equally aware, with himself, of the evils which they produced. One thousand of these marriages took place last year on the Gretna side of the Border, and at least as many more took place on the Berwick and Coldstream side. He could depose as a witness to the evil effects produced on
2160
the morals of the community by these irregular marriages. They were productive of seduction, bigamy, and bastardy to a great extent amongst the humbler classes, and the evil consequences generally fell on the woman. If it turned out that the woman had money, the man said that the marriage was valid; if she had not, when his passion was satisfied, he treated it as invalid, and she was abandoned. The consequence was, that there were instances where the marriage ceremony had been repeated four times over, and the cases of prosecution for bigamy were comparatively rare. The Bill did not proceed by way of penalties, but it declared that these marriages should he invalid if both the parties were not domiciled in Scotland a fortnight before the celebration of the marriage. The hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop) had given notice of a clause which confined the domiciling to one of the parties; but that was a question for the consideration of the Committee. He had communicated with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate before he undertook the charge of the Bill, and he understood that it would not be opposed by them. It might also be a question whether the provisions with regard to certificates were desirable, but that would also be a question for the Committee.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill, but there were portions of it with respect to which he entertained some misgiving.
Bill read 2!.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Rear Admiral Lyons, G.C.B. (having been created Baron Lyons).
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Cambridge University; Registration of Voters (Scotland).
2a Dulwich College; Aldershot Camp.
3a Factories; Police (Counties and Boroughs); Sardinian Loan.

POLICE COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, no one was more anxious than he was for the success of this measure, which he had continued to press upon the attention of successive Governments for the last ten years; but, nevertheless, he entertained

2049
great doubt whether the measure would be efficient for the purpose contemplated, and he thought that next year a supplemental Bill would be necessary. But even this year they might, in his opinion, introduce Amendments which would contribute to its success. For instance, the Bill directed the magistrates assembled on the January quarter sessions to proceed with the creation of a constabulary in counties where none already existed. But what were they to do in the intervening five months? There was no direction to the justices in the meantime to make inquiry and obtain that necessary knowledge which would assist the working of the new police; and he therefore thought it desirable to direct the magistrates at the quarter sessions in October to appoint a chief constable, who might in the time that preceded January make himself thoroughly acquainted with the county, and with the circumstances of his district. A map, too, he thought, would be desirable, and it were well if the magistrates provided the county with one before January. Some steps, too, ought to be taken at once to frame some estimate of the cost, without which the magistrates would scarcely be able to carry out the Act when they assembled in January. It was quite true that the magistrates had power to do these things now if they chose; but he must remind their Lordships that they were dealing with reluctant counties, who had resisted the desire of Parliament to establish a general police. There were twenty counties without any police, and some with only a few. Some directions upon these points it would be well to prepare at once.
LORD PANMUREsaid, their Lordships must all agree with the observations just made by the noble Earl. He was not sorry the noble Earl had made those remarks, because the very fact of his calling the attention of the House to the subject would be nearly as effectual for the purpose he had in view as any compulsory provision in the Bill. He believed that at the ensuing Sessions—seeing that the Bill was about to become law—the magistrates would set about making preparations without further intimation. He did not mean to say that this was a perfect measure, but he thought it was a great step towards the object they had in view, and it was as much as the Government could, in the unfavourable circumstances which existed, carry through Parliament.
LORD WROTTESLEYsaid, it was in
2050
the power of the magistrates to appoint a Committee to inquire into the matter, and to arrange much that might be afterwards carried out under the management of the chief constable.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, there was a point which he wished to state to their Lordships. When they were introducing the rural police into Gloucestershire they found their greatest difficulty in the appointment of the chief constable, in consequence of the disposition to carry everything by canvass and favour—a disposition which pervaded all bodies of every description whatever. He, however, suggested to the Lord Lieutenant of the county that an application should be made to the Inspector General of Constabulary in Ireland to recommend a chief constable for Gloucester. That course was taken, and during the seventeen years that elapsed they had never any reason to repent of that proceeding, for they had at once obtained a most efficient officer. They were not, however, equally fortunate in the importation of sixteen or eighteen of the Irish constabulary, who proved rather rough for the habits of English people, and who were reshipped to Ireland in about eighteen months.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

OATH OF ABJURATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
LORD LYNDHURST: I wish, my Lords, to say a few words with respect to this measure. I object to it altogether. I object to it both in form and in substance. I cannot find in the Statute-book any Act of Parliament which resembles it. I will first point out my objection to the form of the oath. My noble Friend, in his Bill, refers to the oath of abjuration, and then proceeds to enact that a large passage of that oath shall be excepted. He then goes on to say, after a few lines, that a line and a half in addition shall be excepted. Again, going on further, he says that another line and a half shall be excepted; and I believe he repeats this a third time, that a line and a half shall be excepted. Then he says, a fourth time, that a passage shall be excepted, and that something shall be substituted in lieu of it. Then that a word shall be excepted in a subsequent part of

2051
the oath, and that afterwards another word shall be excepted. My Lords, I cannot understand how the oath can be administered at all. What is the form in which the oath shall be taken? Is the clerk at the table to take the oath of abjuration in his hand and strike out certain passages with a pencil, or with a pen, and then the noble Lord at the table shall read the oath, skipping over particular parts? Why, if so, the inconvenience might be obviated at once, by the clerk drawing out a form of oath, leaving out those excepted passages. But how will that apply? Will not the noble Lord at the table be desirous of knowing whether the oath tendered to him is according to the oath prescribed by Act of Parliament? Will he not desire to look first at the oath of abjuration, and then at the exceptions, and then compare these with the oath to be administered to him? Indeed, my Lords, my objection in point of form is in reality an objection in point of substance. Why either my noble Friend, or the noble Lord who drew the Bill, did not add these words, "namely, as follows," and then set out the oath, I find it difficult to conjecture. But, my Lords, I am quite sore that it was not my noble Friend who drew the Bill. I knew the handwriting at once—I knew the style and pencil of the artist—a shrewd and subtle practitioner, and one who loves to challenge difficulties that he may encounter and overcome them. But what is the object of the Bill? The object is this—that my noble Friend might not appear to be presenting a new oath to be imposed on Her Majesty's Protestant subjects. But, my Lords, take the existing oath, leave out certain parts of that oath, and add other parts, and whatever the ingenuity may be of my noble Friend, depend upon it that that is in substance a new oath on the Protestant subjects of this empire. So much for my objection as to the form of this measure. I will now say a word as to the substance. I will again call your attention, my Lords, to the reign of William III. In the first year of the reign of that monarch his title was established by Act of Parliament, his supremacy was established by Act of Parliament, and the succession to the Crown was established by Act of Parliament; and after all these provisions had been made, then the oaths came to be considered. They were considered, and what were they?—the oath of allegiance and the oath of supremacy, and nothing more. That was all that was
2052
required in the first year of the reign of William III. for the security of the throne and the security of the succession. Two years afterwards it was proposed to add something to the oath, but that was opposed by the Monarch and opposed by Parliament. Subsequently, certain events occurred which led to the passing of the oath of abjuration. The oath of abjuration applied to events of that time only—events which cannot again occur—of which there is no trace. Why should not that oath be entirely abrogated? Why not put ourselves in the position in which Parliament stood at the time of William III., when only two oaths were required—namely, the oath of allegiance and the oath of supremacy? After all, my Lords, what are oaths worth? Who ever supposes that they have any effect in times of difficulty? Did any oath ever prevent a revolution? I admire the eloquence of my noble Friend sitting at the table (Earl Stanhope), who spoke the other night upon this question; but I must appeal from my noble Friend speaking in the excitement of debate to my noble Friend, calmly deliberating in the closet and viewing this subject in the light of history. Let me quote a passage from the writings of my noble Friend, in the propriety and truth of which I entirely concur. It relates to the security afforded by these oaths, and I think your Lordships will, with me, entirely concur in the propriety of the observations made by my noble Friend. They are to this effect. Speaking of the Jacobites he says:—
"Yet they still retained all their first principles, and the oath, however it might torture their consciences, did not influence their conduct. Such is, I fear, the inevitable result of any oath imposed by any Government for its security. Examples of that kind are too common in all countries. Swearing allegiance to King George did not shut out all the Jacobites from Parliament; swearing allegiance to King Louis Philippe does not shut out all the Carlists from the Chambers."
I quite agree, therefore, with my noble Friend as to the uselessness of these oaths. Hear what is said by another eloquent writer, Mr, Macaulay. He is describing the debate which took place early in the last century upon the subject of oaths:—
"Do not flatter yourselves that the ingenuity of lawgivers will ever devise an oath which the ingenuity of casuists will not evade. What, indeed, is the value of any oath in such a matter? Among the many lessons which the troubles of the last generation have left us none is more plain than this, that no form of words, however precise, no imprecation, however awful, ever

2053
saved or ever will save a Government from destruction. Was not the solemn league and covenant burnt by the common hangman amid the huzzas of tens of thousands who had themselves subscribed it? Among the statesmen and warriors who bore the chief part in restoring Charles II. how many were there who had not repeatedly abjured him? Nay, is it not well known that some of those persons boastfully affirmed that if they had not abjured him they never could have restored him?"
And I recollect, my Lords, in one of the debates which took place in this House upon the subject of oaths, it was made a subject of merriment as to the number of violations of oath with which their Lordships themselves were chargeable. Another objection I have to this Bill is, that it is an insult to the Protestants of this country. My noble Friend in one part of the Bill requires every Protestant—for it applies to Protestants only, and not to Catholics—to declare that he makes this declaration without evasion, without mental reservation, and without equivocation. I should wish to know at what period of our history it was ever imputed to Protestants that they were guilty of evasion when oaths were administered to them. Undoubtedly such an imputation was cast upon the Catholics—whether justly or not I will not say—but no imputation of the sort was ever cast upon Protestants; and I therefore most strongly object that in this new oath brought forward by my noble Friend, an imputation of this kind should for the first time be alleged against the whole body of Protestants throughout this country. Nay, more, do the words included in this new oath, "upon the true faith of a Christian," at all add to the value of an oath taken by Protestant Members? If I swear to bear faithful allegiance to Her Majesty, does it add to the obligation of my oath that I make use of the words "on the true faith of a Christian? "Why, then, should these words be imported into an oath taken by a Protestant? I can understand why they should have been inserted in the case of a Catholic; but to thrust it in its present shape, and containing this phrase, upon Protestants, appears to me to be an insult to their understanding. My Lords, I have heard it said by a learned Friend of mine, for whom I have great respect, that the oath of allegiance is a meagre oath, that it is a mere modicum, and that this is one of the reasons why a new oath should be framed. I have the greatest respect for
2054
that noble Lord. I would, however, oppose to his opinion that of Lord Hale, who says he considers that oath simple, plain, and easily understood; that there is nothing cumbrous in it; and that it fulfils the whole duty owing by a subject to his Sovereign. These are the words of my Lord Hale, and I might, if it were necessary, quote another living authority, for which I have the highest respect, to the same effect. But, my Lords, I think I can understand the object of this Bill. It is directed against the Jews, and intended to exclude them from Parliament. The measure can have no other object—for any other purpose it is wholly unnecessary. At present, as the law now stands, we are simply on the defensive. The Legislature says to the Jews, "We do nothing; you cannot come into Parliament." But the Bill now before your Lordships assumes the offensive, and will directly exclude the Jews from Parliament. If this Bill be passed by the other House of Parliament, what will then become of the argument so repeatedly urged in the discussions on this question, that the Jews are excluded from Parliament by a mere phrase? Why, it will be at once said, should this measure become law, that there is direct legislation against them—that they are excluded by the direct votes of both branches of the Legislature. That is the object of the noble Earl's Bill. But what will be thought of it in the other House of Parliament? Is it possible that this Bill can be read a second time there? Impossible! After all that has passed, the House of Commons will consider it a mockery, not to use a stronger term, to send such a Bill down to them. I do not go so far as a noble Lord who spoke the other night and said that the effect of our resisting the claims of the Jews will be that we shall have to go as suppliants to the other House, in order to induce them to pass a Bill originating with your Lordships and relating to the improvement of the appellate jurisdiction. I do not suffer such ideas as these to influence me; but to send such a Bill down to the other House will be—I will not call it an insult—but certainly a mockery. Entertaining these opinions, I shall, in Committee, move at the end of the Bill, the words, "which oath, being so amended, is as follows," then setting forth the oath; and I shall also move to strike out all the concluding words of the oath, "without evasion, equivocation,"

2055
and so on, to the end of the oath, including the words, "upon the true faith of a Christian."
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I cannot but regret that, having stated very ably and forcibly upon another occasion his reasons for supporting the Bill then under consideration, my noble and learned Friend should think it expedient or necessary upon the present occasion to reopen a question which I understood had been decided at that time by a vote of your Lordships' House. I regret still more that the noble and learned Lord was not present upon the second reading of the Bill now before you, because, if he had been, it would have saved your Lordships the trouble of hearing me repeat a second time the grounds upon which the Bill was framed in its present shape. My Lords, I must say—and I hope it is not inconsistent with the greatest possible respect to my noble and learned Friend to say so—that his remarks upon this Bill, more especially with regard to its substance, contain a greater amount of misrepresentation than I ever recollect to have heard from the lips of any Member of this House upon any subject whatever. My noble and learned Friend tells me that I am now about to bring forward this measure for the avowed purpose of excluding the Jews from Parliament by certain words. Now, I beg my noble and learned Friend to answer me this question,—how this Bill in the slightest degree affects any one Jew with regard to his rights existing or hereafter to exist? I wish to know what provision there is in this Bill in the slightest degree touching the Jews? I wish to know in what particular this Bill does not leave the law in the position in which it finds it? My noble and learned Friend tells me that I am introducing a new disqualification of the Jews; that I am imposing, forsooth, a new oath, by the terms of which I shall exclude the Jews from Parliament. Now, my Lords, if I recollect rightly, in the Bill supported by my noble and learned Friend the other night the existing oath was altogether done away with; unless my memory greatly fails me, a new oath was there set forth; and, after repealing the former oath, he did by his Bill that which the present measure does not do—namely, impose a new oath upon the Jews. My noble and learned Friend says, further, that this oath, which he maintains is for the purpose of excluding Jews from Parliament, but
2056
which I contend does not in any way affect the position of the Jews as regards admission to Parliament, will be offensive to the feelings of the Jews, and also to those of the other House of Parliament, and that I am re-enacting certain words which it is impossible that the other House can assent to. Now, my Lords, I stated the other night, and I state again now, that my intention is carefully to avoid the re-enactment of specific words which would perhaps bring your Lordships' House into an unnecessary collision with the House of Commons; and for that reason I have retained the oath as it at present stands, omitting only those parts of it which relate to the descendants of James II. As I understand the matter, your Lordships have decided one question in a sense opposed to that evinced by the other House of Parliament—namely, the question of the omission of the words, "on the true faith of a Christian;" but that was plainly a question which did not necessarily involve anything in connection with the descendants of James II. My noble and learned Friend has paid me too great a compliment, and himself too poor a one, in saying that I have acted as a subtle practitioner in framing this new exclusion against the Jews. Now, my noble and learned Friend must permit me to remind him of that of which, from his great experience and acuteness, he cannot be ignorant—namely, that if any of the subtleness of the practitioner has been displayed in this matter at all, it has been displayed by my noble and learned Friend in the Bill which he brought before your Lordships. My noble and learned Friend, in the preamble of his Bill, having recited that the oath of abjuration, so far as regarded the descendants of James, was unnecessary, inasmuch as there were no such descendants, then went on to say, "therefore be it enacted that a certain oath, which, whatever was its original intention, has had the practical effect of excluding Jews from Parliament, shall be repealed." If, therefore, there has been any subtlety, that subtlety has been displayed by my noble and learned Friend who introduced a Bill professedly for one purpose, but in reality for another. I cannot, however, call it great subtlety on the part of my noble and learned Friend, because, in point of fact, the plan was too palpable to deceive the minds of any one of your Lordships, except, perhaps, the ingenuous and unsophisticated mind of a noble Friend of

2057
mine, not now in his place, who announced to your Lordships that, although he saw the inconvenience of admitting Jews to Parliament, he was prepared to give his assent to a Bill which would have the effect of indirectly admitting them, although, indeed, he should feel himself bound to oppose any measure brought forward directly for that purpose. But, my Lords, I can quite sympathise with my noble and learned Friend, because if your Lordships agree to the present Bill he will lose the stalking-horse he has found so convenient—the abjuration of the descendants of James—and will, no doubt, find considerably more difficulty on future occasions in inducing your Lordships to assent to that which mainly caused the rejection of his measure. I can easily allow for the annoyance which my noble and learned Friend feels at the prospect of a Bill being carried which will remove the substantial cause of quarrel which your Lordships may have with the oath in its present form, and increase the difficulties against which he will have to contend in carrying out the object which, he really has in view. It appears, however, to me, that the course which I have pursued in proposing this Bill is both straightforward in form and convenient in practice. It is straightforward because the object of the Bill is clearly and openly set forth in the preamble, that object being to give effect to the objection entertained by your Lordships and the other House of Parliament to the retention of terms which the lapse of time and other circumstances have rendered wholly unnecessary. The Bill, therefore, having recited the circumstances which render the alteration of the oath expedient, provides that alteration in strict conformity with the circumstances so detailed; and in drawing it especial care has been taken not to throw down the gauntlet of defiance to the other House of Parliament, which we should do by abolishing the existing oath altogether and enacting another containing words to which the House of Commons has expressed its objection. The measure has been brought forward in a spirit of good feeling, and with a desire of obtaining that which your Lordships and the House of Commons are desirous of obtaining, and, at the same time, of obviating the introduction of words which would necessarily lead to a considerable difference of opinion, and perhaps endanger the success of the measure. I hope, therefore, that it is not unreasonable to expect and to trust that
2058
the House of Commons will not think it necessary, for the sake of renewing this discussion, to insist upon an alteration in the form of this Bill. If the form of the Bill be altered one of two things must happen—either your Lordships must go back from the position which you took up the other evening, or else, by insisting upon the retention of these words, you must throw down to the House of Commons a challenge which I am desirous of avoiding. If the House of Commons take what I should consider the ill-advised course of insisting upon the omission from the oath of those words which your Lordships are desirous of retaining, either those who have charge of this Bill will be compelled to abstain from attempting to carry it into law, or else the Bill will be again altered to be again rejected; and then I wish to know how the Jews will be in a better position than they at present are, while there is no doubt that such a course would be most likely to excite continual irritation. My noble and learned Friend studiously seeks to keep open a question which will give rise to a controversy which this Bill studiously keeps out of sight. The argument that this Bill is brought forward with a want of form is, I think, hardly worthy of the great ability and long experience of my noble and learned Friend. But when my noble and learned Friend argues upon the insult which this Bill offers to Protestants, and upon the injustice, the inexpediency, and the unavailingness of oaths at all, he takes up a question totally beside the discussion. But, my Lords, if such were the opinions of my noble and learned Friend, I want to know why it was that he proposed to re-enact the oath? And I want to know why he proposed to re-enact in his Bill that very portion of the oath which I would retain in the form in which it now stands?
LORD LYNDHURST: I would not re-enact it in the same form.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I am aware the noble and learned Lord proposed to leave out certain words; still he proposed to renew the oath, and thus he opposed the principle of his present objection. I assume that Parliament is desirous that the oath to be taken should be something more than the oath of allegiance. I therefore propose to continue the existing oath, with the exception of those words which, according to the preamble of my noble and learned Friend's Bill, are become wholly

2059
obsolete and unnecessary. I do hope that your Lordships will not consent to the Amendments which my noble and learned Friend has stated that he will propose, and the object of which will no doubt be to strike out from the oath words with which we are not now dealing; the sole object of the present Bill being to get rid of that which all acknowledge to be objectionable, without sacrificing a form which a majority of your Lordships and a large minority of the House of Commons have expressed the opinion that it is desirable to retain.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that no doubt he had introduced into his Bill an oath for maintaining the succession to the Crown as established by law; because when he proposed, on a former occasion, to repeal the abjuration oath, he was told that a portion of that oath related to the succession to the Crown, and he was met with a great deal of opposition in consequence. The oath, as it was now proposed by the noble Earl, would contain the words "on the true faith of a Christian," the effect of which would be to exclude the Jews from sitting in Parliament. Whether that were done negatively or affirmatively, the effect was the same; and if the other House should assent to the noble Earl's Bill, both Houses of Parliament would, then, in fact, have pronounced judgment against the Jews. At the present time Jews were only excluded from Parliament by the vote of one House; and he opposed the Bill of the noble Earl because its effect would be to exclude the Jews by the votes of both Houses.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that, notwithstanding the sincere respect which he entertained for the public career of the noble Earl, he could not admire the course which he had taken with regard to this Bill. The noble Earl had laid it upon the table just before the period fixed for the second reading of the Bill of his noble and learned Friend; evidently with the object that by removing certain words, which made the oath almost a profane one, he might cut away a considerable portion of the argument which might have been adduced in favour of the measure of his noble and learned Friend. He thought it very probable, if this Bill passed their Lordships' House, that the noble Earl might be in the position of an "engineer hoist by his own petard," and that it would be returned from the House of Commons divested of the words "on the true faith of a Christian." It was perfectly absurd to call this
2060
a Bill for the Amendment of the oath of abjuration, because in point of fact it did not amend, but abolished that oath altogether.
THE EARL OF EGLINTONcontended that his noble Friend had acted in a candid and straightforward manner in introducing this Bill, and observed that, while one noble and learned Lord charged him with having pursued a subtle course, the noble and learned Lord who had last spoken said that it was a positively ridiculous and foolish one. He thought that it would tend very much to the credit of their Lordships if they would pass a measure which would give them a sensible and clear oath, containing nothing that was obsolete and unnecessary.
LORD DENMANagreed with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), that the Bill was improperly styled an "Oath of Abjuration Amendment Bill," because it abjured nothing; and he suggested that it might be called the "Oath of Fidelity Bill," or some such name as that.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that he was satisfied with the oath as he understood it to be proposed by his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) inasmuch as, practically, it left the Jews where they were at present, and where he trusted that they would continue to be left. He had always voted against the admission of Jews to Parliament, and he always must vote in the same way, because he had a feeling, superior to all reasoning, that it would be wrong to do that which he believed would disparage the Christian character of the Legislature. Upon that sole ground he had at all times opposed the admission of Jews to Parliament. But, while that was his opinion of the result of his noble Friend's measure, if passed, he must confess that he saw great weight in what had fallen from the two noble and learned Lords at the table (Lords Lyndhurst and Campbell), with respect to the manner in which it was probable that the Bill would be dealt with by the other House. The strength of their Lordships' House was in the defensive. It was by remaining on the defensive, although they possessed a commanding majority in that House, that they were enabled for ten years to support the Opposition led by the late Duke of Wellington. At the commencement of that great Opposition the noble Duke on one occasion adopted the offensive, in which he was successful in that House; but a counter Resolution was immediately carried in the

2061
House of Commons which overruled all that the Duke of Wellington and his Friends had done, and placed them in a much worse position than they would have occupied if they had never moved at all. He recollected well the noble Duke saying to him that he had been convinced their strength was in dealing with Bills sent up from the House of Commons, and that he never would again fall into the mistake of taking the initiative. Their Lordships could not occupy a better position than that in which they now found themselves. They had defeated by an ample majority—which but for an accident would have been larger—the attempt to admit Jews to Parliament. Let them leave well alone. They were now asked to send down to the House of Commons a Bill which must produce a renewed discussion, a renewed conflict, upon that subject. Whenever that conflict arose, he must always vote in the same way as he had done; but there was no discussion which took place during the Session in that House which was to him so disagreeable as the discussion annually forced upon them with respect to the Jews. He did not think it desirable for their Lordships to court a collision with the House of Commons upon that subject. If the House of Commons attempted to force their religious opinions—and he apprehended it was a religious feeling which animated the majority of their Lordships in refusing admission to the Jews—they were ready to defeat that attempt, and he trusted that the people of England would respect the principles and views upon which they acted. But if their Lordships, leaving their position of strength, descended into the arena and sought a conflict upon that subject, he doubted greatly whether public opinion would to the same extent support them, and he was sure they would do that which would be injudicious, which might produce inconvenience, and which might, even at this late period of the Session, with all the accidents which might possibly arise, imperil the position of strength in which they now stood.
THE EARL OF DERBYwished to say a few words in reply to the noble Earl. His objection to remaining precisely where they were was not an objection founded on the admission or non-admission of the Jews, but that the continuance in the oath of abjuration of the words referring to the Stuarts would enable those who advocated the admission of the Jews to Parliament to renew the discussion upon that question
2062
under the pretext of abolishing an utterly indefensible part of the oath. It was his object to deprive them of that advantage by removing from the oath everything that was avowedly indefensible; and he wished to know which would he the more reasonable course—to do that which by the common consent of mankind ought to be done, or to refuse to adopt an acknowledged improvement unless something was done wholly foreign to the object of the Bill? But, whether the House of Commons adopted or rejected the Bill, their Lordships would not be troubled with a renewed discussion in the course of the present Session, because, rather than agree to the omission of words which would have the effect of admitting the Jews, those who would be charged with the Bill in the other House would at once throw it up.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he did not like to differ from the noble Earl on a point of Parliamentary practice and rule, but his impression was that a Bill when laid on the table became the property of the House, and ceased to belong to any individual Member.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he was glad that the author of the Bill had admitted that his object in introducing it was to remove a clog which he acknowledged to be a great obstacle to him in fighting the opponents of the oath of abjuration. Why, such being the case, did he refuse to adopt the manly course of repealing the oath and excluding the Jews by direct enactment? Not one word had he said in reply to the Lord Chief Justice, who had demonstrated the absurdity of the Bill, and showed that it would place the House in a ridiculous, perhaps an offensive light. The noble Earl opposite had told their Lordships that the Bill would be dropped in the other House if an attempt were made to omit the words "on the true faith of a Christian." Why should the noble Earl decline a conference with the House of Commons on the subject? Because he knew that one of the noblest passages in the Journals of their Lordships' House was that in which their ancestors declared, 150 years ago, that no English subject could be in a more miserable and unhappy condition than to be precluded by law from the full enjoyment of all the rights and privileges that properly belonged to him. He knew that that passage would he appealed to by the House of Commons in favou of the admission

2063
of the Jews; he was conscious of his inability to answer it; and it was because he could not meet it fairly that he had resolved to avoid it altogether.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
LORD LYNDHURSTthen formally proposed his Amendments, which were as follows—
"To leave out the words in line 18, and the word 'abjuration' shall be omitted from the last sentence of the first oath, and the word 'renunciation' from the same sentence of the said oath and affirmation," for the purpose of inserting the following words?—
"And the following words shall also be omitted from the latter portion of the said oath—that is to say, 'And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to these express words by me spoken, and according to the plain common sense and understanding of the same words, without any equivocation, mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever. And I do make this recognition, acknowledgment, and promise heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian.'"
"Also, in line 21, after the word 'affirmation,' to insert the words, 'which oath so amended will stand as follows.'—
"I, A B, do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare, in my conscience before God and the world, that our Sovereign lady Queen Victoria is lawful and rightful Queen of this realm, and all other Her Majesty's dominions and countries thereunto belonging. And I do swear that I will bear faith and true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and Her will defend to the utmost of my power against all traitorous conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against Her person, crown, or dignity. And I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to Her Majesty and Her successors all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which I shall know to be against Her or any of them. And I do faithfully promise to the utmost of my power to support, maintain, and defend the succession of the Crown against all persons whatsoever, which succession, by an Act entitled, 'An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better Securing the Rights and Liberties of the 'Subject,' is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants."
"Amendment in the title—after the word 'doth,' to insert the words 'commonly called the oath.'"
THE EARL OF DERBYwished to impress upon their Lordships that the practical effect of the Amendments would be expressly to carry out the views which they had negatived the other night. It was, moreover, opposed to the whole spirit of the Bill, and, therefore, he hoped it would be rejected by their Lordships.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, he did not mean to press his Amendments at this stage. He would withdraw them for the
2064
present, but would give notice that he would move them on the Report.
Amendments negatived.
THE EARL OF DERBYsuggested that his noble and learned Friend should give notice of his Amendments for the third reading, and, if he did so, he would be prepared to meet them.
Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

BURIAL-GROUND (GREAT TORRINGTON).
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHpresented a petition from the inhabitants of Great Torrington, in the county of Devon, being members of the Church of England, complaining that they are deprived of any place of burial according to the rites of the Church—their churchyard having been closed by an Order in Council, and the Bishop of the diocese having declined to consecrate the burial-place provided by the burial-board of the town pursuant to the enactments of the recent Burial Acts; and praying for relief. The noble Earl said that a few weeks since a highly-esteemed citizen of Torrington died, who had been a member of the Church of England throughout his life—he was a member of the corporation also, and the mayor and corporation wished to testify their respect for him by attending the funeral in their robes of office. Their burial-ground was closed; application was made for permission to bring in the ground of the neighbouring parish, but it was refused on account of its supposed illegality, the deceased not having been a parishioner; there was no other ground than the one which the bishop had refused to consecrate; and the body was conveyed thither; there was no clergyman to read the service, and the mayor himself read the burial service in his robes. Since then burials had been performed by the clerk reading the service and the sexton making the responses. If such scenes as these were continued, the people would begin to look with doubt and distrust upon the connection of Church and State, for the Dissenting Ministers regularly discharged their duties to the members of their own persuasions, and might he led to suggest whether the presence of a clergyman was really necessary or not—a notion which he, in common with their Lordships, would be sorry to see prevail. The bishop had refused to consecrate the burial-ground because there was no inclosure within the inclosure. The noble Earl was understood

2065
to contend that the provisions of the Burial Act had been complied with. He did not for a moment impute anything to the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter), and thought that he acted from the most conscientious motives; but there was no monopoly of conscience. The burial-board represented the inhabitants of the town generally, both Dissenters and members of the Church of England, and asserted that they had complied with the Act, and had divided the ground by fit and proper boundary. The noble Earl then read from the correspondence which had taken place between the burial-board and the Bishop of Exeter. The bishop said the canons had not been complied with; but he begged to remind their Lordships that the burial-board was the creation of Parliament, and Parliament had declared that intramural burials should not be allowed. Now Burns, in his "Commentary on Ecclesiastical Law," said, that the parishioner had a right to be buried in the parish church, unless he was excommunicated, or a criminal, or a suicide. With regard to the bishop's objection about the erection of walls, he would observe that the Church of England did not require any walls—her laity was her best defence. This feeling was very strong in the West of England, and had been so even at the time of the Monmouth rebellion, which was favoured by the population there mainly in consequence of their attachment to the Church of England, and their dislike of the king's encroachments upon it.
THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, he would not trespass very long on their Lordships' time. He would not attempt to follow the noble Earl through the entire of his statements, but only deal with two or three facts, which had fixed on his recollection. He was glad to have the testimony of so excellent an authority to the existence of a strong feeling in favour of the Church in the West of England; and, in confirmation of that fact, would mention that, out of eight or ten burial-grounds which he had been called upon to consecrate within his diocese, the case in question was the only one in which there had been any objection, on the part of the burial-board, to comply with the requirements of the canon law. As bishop he felt bound to carry out that law; and, when the canon directly said that burial-grounds should be fenced, he had no other course than to require that law to be
2066
obeyed before he consecrated the ground. He had not required a wall, but a fence or railing, or any real bonâ fide separation. He had even offered to be satisfied with a sunk fence. It might be imagined that he had refused to consecrate the ground; but such was not the case. He had only required that the ground should be put into a fit state for consecration before he could consecrate it. He had made the same demand in other portions of his diocese, and had met with a ready compliance. In the case of Torrington he had suggested to the mayor to put an end to the difficulty by procuring a mandamus from the Queen's Bench to compel the burial-board to put the ground into a fit state for consecration; but that gentleman objected that it would be very disagreeable to go to law with his neighbours. All he (the Bishop of Exeter) could say was, that if in all cases where anything happened to be disagreeable to anybody's feelings an appeal was to be made to that House, their Lordships would have plenty of occupation on their hands. His simple reply upon this occasion was, that he acted upon his own sense of duty as bishop, and in the discharge of that duty he was sure he would receive the support and sympathy of all whose opinions were worth having, either in his diocese or out of it.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he had no wish to call in question the conscientiousness of the motives which had induced the right rev. Prelate to act as he had done, for he believed nothing but a strong sense of duty would have induced him to refuse to consecrate a cemetery prepared in pursuance of the Act of Parliament; but, at the same time, he must observe, that his determination had caused a great evil. As to the remedy which the right rev. Prelate had suggested to the mayor, he (Earl Fortescue) was not sure that a mandamus would lie—at any rate the burial-board of Torrington was elected by the whole body of inhabitants, Dissenters as well as Churchmen, and the mayor would naturally be disinclined to take a course which many of his fellow-townsmen would regard as an insult to themselves. But what had been the consequences of the existing state of things? The Dissenters were buried by their own ministers, but no member of the Church of England had received the rites of the Church. The mayor, attended by the corporation, had read the funeral service over one respected member of that body; but in other cases the

2067
clerk had represented the clergyman, and performed the service. The burial-board had done in this case what they considered to be their duty, and what the statute required. The cemetery had been so laid out by them as to lead them to believe that they were complying with the law; and, not having obtained consecration of the ground from the right rev. Prelate, the petitioners came to Parliament to ask that the law might be put into such a shape as would enable the members of the Church of England to receive the rites of burial according to the canons of the Church, and remove the scandal which afflicted the neighbourhood.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that this was not the first time, and he was afraid it would not be the last, that this disagreeable subject would occupy their Lordships' attention. Their Lordships must recollect that this was not a time when a few churchyards only were consecrated in the course of a year, but that now throughout almost the whole of England new cemeteries would probably have to be consecrated in the course of the next few years; because, under the provisions of the Act of 1853, inspectors had been sent out, and the result was, that many of the old burying-grounds had been condemned. It was quite evident that in a short time hardly any of the old cemeteries would remain, and that the bishops would have to consecrate new ones throughout the kingdom. Now, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) knew that the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) had acted most conscientiously in the present matter; nor did he say that the right rev. Prelate had not acted legally; on the contrary, his impression was, that he had acted in perfect conformity with the law. The canon provided that burying-grounds should be enclosed in some way, and this had been done in the present instance. But surely strict legal rights were not to be considered for a moment in consideration with the feelings which were abroad upon this subject. Their Lordships knew that differences of opinion existed as to the necessity of having a chapel in a cemetery. Some persons considered that they ought to be consecrated with a chapel, others without a chapel being built, and these two parties were at war. A statement had been made to him (the Earl of Malmesbury), that there was a cemetery now useless because a right rev. Prelate refused to consecrate it, and for this reason
2068
—the burial-board had thought that a set of posts erected between the two divisions of the cemetery was sufficient, but the bishop said that there must be a chain connecting the posts before the cemetery was fit for consecration; and scenes of great scandal and impropriety had taken place in consequence. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) would beg with all humility to express his opinion on this subject. Seeing that the chances were that for the next few years there would be a constant renewal of these disputes, he thought it was necessary that the conditions under which cemeteries should be consecrated should not be left entirely to the decision of the individual bishop in each case. He wished to say this, that if the bench of right rev. Prelates would agree upon some conditions upon which they were unanimous, or nearly so, they might be then submitted to some Member of Her Majesty's Government, or to respectable Members of Parliament of sufficient position, and finally embodied into an Act of Parliament, to make consecration compulsory upon these conditions being complied with. He could see no way of settling the matter, unless Parliament were to enact some conditions, or the other which should oblige the bishops to consecrate cemeteries, and thus put an end to these scandalous proceedings.
THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSunderstood the noble Earl (Earl Fortescue) to say, that the whole of this cemetery was surrounded by a wall; but what the right rev. Prelate required was, that the part appropriated to the Church of England should be fenced in separately. That, he considered quite an incorrect construction of the canon; the plain intention of which was, that the burial-ground should be enclosed to prevent the inroads of animals, and for the purpose of taking proper care of the monuments that were erected in the burial-ground; but it never was in contemplation that there should be any line of demarcation drawn between one portion of the burial-ground and another. Their Lordships knew that in the old churchyards there was no distinction made between the portions of ground where Dissenters and where members of the Church of England were buried.
THE BISHOP OF EXETERhoped that, as he had been personally referred to by the noble Earl, he might be allowed a few words of explanation. The noble Earl had favoured their Lordships with his interpretation

2069
of the canon, but his (the Bishop of Exeter's) duty was to act upon his own construction. He would beg the noble Earl to allow him (the Bishop of Exeter) the same right of action as was allowed to any one else in constructing a clause in an Act of Parliament. But further than this, he might add that every lawyer, every person capable of forming an opinion, with whom he had communicated, agreed with his (the Bishop of Exeter's) view of the meaning of the canon, and he had never heard that view contradicted except in this House. He did not say that it was his view merely, but his view made up after the fullest considerations of duty. He thought this was an unfortunate mode of bringing on the question, which involved really great principles. It would have been more satisfactory to have had a Bill brought in upon the subject, as the discussion of such a question on the presentation of a petition was anything but satisfactory.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, surely the first object was to make out a case for legislation, and he thought the best way of doing so was, by petitioning the House and raising a discussion upon it.
LORD PORTMANsaid, he was glad to hear that the right rev. Prelate considered the subject could only be settled by legislation.
THE BISHOP OF EXETER: No; I never meant that.
LORD PORTMANthought the right rev. Prelate had intimated that it could not be satisfactorily considered except upon a Bill. And he was glad to be able to assure the right rev. Prelate, that a Bill for that purpose was proposed, and stood for a second reading next week.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he thought it most desirable that something should be done to put an end to these unfortunate disputes—for unfortunate they were, whoever was right or wrong. But the Bill of the noble Baron, however, would not settle it, for it did not at all point out what was to be done. It only took the power from the bishops, and gave it to the Secretary of State. Now, that left the matter open just as much as it was at present. No doubt legislation was necessary. In the settlement of the question, regard should be had to what was fair and reasonable with reference to conscience; but the plea of conscience could not be fairly urged against that which was necessary according to the consciences of others; and hence, those who did not themselves require a
2070
chapel could not object to a chapel being provided for others.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid that, personally, he was sorry that the noble Lord intended to bring in this Bill on Tuesday next, when he could not be present to give his opinion on it; but he thought that, considering this was the first intimation they had received of the intended measure, it was rather sharp work proposing Tuesday next for the second reading, particularly if it were of the awful character described by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Redesdale); for really if the Bill did embody the principles which had been mentioned, they were such as none of his right rev. Brethren could consent to. He thought more time should be given before the second reading. There was an observation which had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of St. Germans) in the course of the debate, upon which he would make a remark. They ought to bear in mind that part of the burial-board in every parish consisted of Dissenters. The Legislature had made a sort of compromise between the members of the Church of England and the Dissenters by permitting this; but whilst this was so, it should be remembered that the Church of England members of those boards took no manner of interest in the way in which Dissenters treated their part of the burying-ground, and it was manifestly the height of injustice to say that the Dissenting members of those boards should determine when the Church of England burying-ground was in a state fit for consecration.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he could not consider it as a true construction of an obsolete canon to raise up a wall of separation between two classes of Christians, even in their graves; and that in the construction of such a canon the spirit of charity should be considered, rather than one of a different nature, which delighted to revive rusty laws to raise invidious distinctions.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he supposed it would be better not to say anything further on this subject until the proposed Bill was before the House, but he could not refrain from making one observation. He believed a great portion of those who took an active part in passing the measure of 1853, supposed that they were doing something very agreeable to the Dissenters; but the measure had, so far from conciliating them, unfortunately given rise to all these controversies. As

2071
regarded the provisions respecting cemeteries, he (the Lord Chancellor) doubted whether it had not been unwise policy to make a line of demarcation between the ground appropriated to Churchmen and Dissenters; but, if it were thought right to make a line of demarcation between Churchmen and Dissenters, let this be done as unobtrusively as possible; but he believed that to provide that there should be an enclosure, and that a portion of the ground should be consecrated and a portion left unconsecrated, had created many of the difficulties which now existed. In his opinion, a short enactment providing for the consecration of the whole of the ground, thereby assimilating them as far as possible to the old parish churchyard, would be likely to meet the whole case.
Petition ordered to lie on the table.
House adjourned to Monday next.