Sitting of 3 August 1859

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED.—For Taunton, v. Right honble Henry Labouchere, Chiltern Hundreds; for Devonport v. Sir Thomas Erskine Perry, Member of Council for India.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° East India Loan; Superannuation Act Amendment; Divorce Court.
2° Dublin Police; Probates and Letters of Administration (Ireland); Sessional Divisions; Chief Superintendent, China; North Western Territories (British America); Speaker of the Legislative Council (Canada).
3° Law Ascertainment Facilities.

LAW OF PROPERTY AND TRUSTEES RELIEF AMENDMENT BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 3.
  MR. ROLTsaid, he would suggest that the clause should be omitted, as it was a mere idle piece of legislation. It proposed to deal with acts implying waver of covenant, but it was impossible to deal with that matter by legislation. It must be left to the Courts to decide what was the effect of particular Acts.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he concurred in thinking that it would be better to omit the clause.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that this and the other clauses had been carefully considered in Committee of the other House of Parliament, when all the law Lords were present, but he would not press the clause after the expression of opinion that had taken place.
  Clause withdrawn.
  Clauses 4 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
  Clause 17.
  MR. ROLTsaid, he thought this and the four following clauses, which gave devisees in trust the power to sell estates for payment of debts, related to matters of so much importance that they ought to form the subject of distinct and separate legislation. Besides, the matter was already settled by decisions of the Courts.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that the law as now laid down was in complete accordance with the propositions contained in this and the following clauses, and he strongly objected to the principle of introducing into a Bill clauses declaring that to be the law which every practitioner of any experience knew, according to the ruling of the courts, was the law at present.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he believed this clause, and the subsequent clauses to which his hon. and learned Friends had referred, constituted a very valuable portion of the Bill. In his opinion those clauses would have the effect of saving consider-
  884
  able expense, and he felt bound to press them.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he hoped that his right hon. and learned Friend would not abandon these clauses, for the object of the Bill being to facilitate purchases, he thought it was important that they should have a statutory declaration of the law, instead of relying merely upon certain decisions of the Courts.
  MR. ROLTsaid, that if the clause remained, some proviso ought to be added to guard against injury to titles; as otherwise the clause might cast a doubt on the existing law.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would bring up such a proviso upon the Report, he should not object to it.
  Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 18 to 24 inclusive.
  Clause 25, No judgments, &c. shall bind a purchaser unless execution has been issued.
  MR. MALINSsaid, that this clause raised the question whether a judgment ought or ought not to be a charge on land. That was a fair question for argument. In the case of personal property, such as chairs and tables, a judgment was no charge, and the property could only be taken when the judgment was executed. In the case of land, a judgment, being duly registered, was a charge. Now either this ought or ought not to be. But the Bill took a middle course, and provided that a judgment should not bind the land until execution issued. This was a most mischievous state of things. The Bill ought either to enact that the judgment should be no charge at all, or it ought to leave the law as it stood.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the suggestion that the lien of Judgments upon landed property was too important to be dealt with incidentally. Certainly as it stood the clause would act very oppressively in the case of creditors to the Crown. It would force the Crown to execute judgments against Crown debtors which were now not enforced.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he could not but admit that the clause was unsatisfactory.
  Clause withdrawn.
  Clause 26, agreed to.
  Clause 27 struck out.
  Clause 28 agreed to.
  Clause 29, Punishing vendors as misdemeanants for fraudulent concealment of deeds.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would move the omission of the clause, as being unnecessary and calculated to work mischief.
  COLONEL FRENCHobserved that he would support the clause, although he held that it did not go quite far enough.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the clause was important, and ought to be retained. Its object—obviously an unobjectionable one—was that any seller or his solicitor who concealed any instrument material to the title, with intent to defraud, should be deemed guilty of misdemeanor.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he approved the clause, with certain modifications in its form. It only extended to sellers a principle already applicable to trustees.
  MR. ROLTsuggested that mortgagors of land should be included as well as vendors.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he might illustrate the necessity for that provision by reference to a case which had recently occupied the Court of Chancery for ten days.
  MR. MURRAYrecommended that the clause should be extended to all equitable deposits of deeds.
  Clause agreed to, on the understanding that it should be amended on the Report,
  Clause 30 agreed to.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would move the following clause:—
  "Where a trustee, executor, or administrator shall not be authorized, but shall not by some instrument creating his trust be expressly forbidden, to invest a fund forming a subject of his trust upon mortgage of freehold, copyhold, or leasehold estates within the United Kingdom, or upon the stocks, bonds, or debentures of the Bank of England or Ireland, or on India stock, it shall be lawful for such trustee, executor, or administrator so to invest such fund; and such trustee, executor, or administrator shall not be liable, as for a breach of trust, in respect of such investment already made, or hereafter to be made."
  Clause brought up and read 1a and 2° and agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments.
  House resumed.

SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Order for Committee (Supply) read.
House in Committee.
MR. MASSEY in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £40,000, British Kaffraria.
MR. LAINGsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton would not divide the Committee on the Amend-
886
ment which he proposed the other night, as the Vote would be reduced next year.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that on the distinct understanding that the Vote would be reduced next year, he would withdraw his intended Amendment.
Vote agreed to, as was also:—
(2.) £59,215, Treasury Chest.
(3.) £30,000, Submarine Telegraphs.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to ask what was the real meaning of the contract entered into with the Red Sea Telegraph Company? Clause 4 of this Act provided "that the company shall themselves well and efficiently work all their lines of telegraph for the transmission and delivery of messages;" and in Clause 15 it was stated that if they did not do so the Government might take possession of the lines. Now, supposing the company failed to work these lines efficiently, and the Government did not take possession, what would then be the relation of the Treasury to the company? Were the Committee to understand that the money was to be paid in any case, whether the telegraph was worked by the company or not?
MR. LAINGsaid, this contract was the subject of an Act of Parliament, and had already given rise to considerable discussion. It had then been explained that the Government guarantee was an absolute not a conditional one, it having been found impossible to form a company for the execution of this work on any other terms. If the working of the cable, therefore, were to be interrupted through any accident, the Government would still be responsible for the payment.
Vote agreed to.
The following Votes were also agreed to:—
(4.) £12,000 African Rivers Expedition.
(5.) £7,949, Dr. Livingstone's Expedition.
(6.) £4,700, Corn Returns.
(7.) £1,046, Joint Stock Companies Registration.
(8.) £703, Registration of Designs.
(9.) £11,850, Revising Barristers (England and Wales).
(10.) £1,332, Police, Aldershot and Shorncliffe.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, this was a most objectionable Vote. How was it that a body of 20,000 soldiers required a constabulary force to look after them? Surely they were able to take care of themselves.
MR. LAINGsaid, the police force had

887
nothing to do with looking after the soldiers. Wherever such camps as these were established there was always a large number of camp followers, who were not always of the most orderly character. They could not make the soldiers maintain order among these persons.
Vote agreed to, as was also:—
(11.) £3,000, Burial Grounds Inspection.
(12.) Motion made, and Question proposed,—
"That a sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to Her Majesty, towards the formation, in the year ending the 31st day of March 1860, of the Gallery of Portraits of the most Eminent Persons in British History."
MR. SPOONERsaid, he should oppose the Vote, as the House of Commons had no right to expend public money in buying pictures. The gallery was useless in point of art, and the collection was without a moral, as the selection was made rather upon notoriety than character. Besides, it had already transpired that there was not enough room for the paintings, and next year, he supposed, £30,000 would be wanted to provide a building. He should therefore take the sense of the Committee on the Vote.
MR. AYRTONobserved, that this gallery was a favourite with the right hon. Gentlemen on the front bench on both sides of the House, because they were under the delusion that some day their own portraits would be hung there. He believed that if no money were spent at all we should get as many pictures as were wanted from private donations. Nobody cared a straw about nine-tenths of those purchased. He therefore trusted the hon. Gentleman would persevere in his opposition.
MR. DEEDESsaid, he should vote against this grant, because he thought that it was for an object of luxury, and that the country just now could not afford to indulge in objects of luxury, on the same principle as would lead a prudent man to keep away from a picture sale if he had not a shot in his locker.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, it has been said that those who sit upon this bench favour the gallery because they hope one day to have their portraits there. As far as I am concerned—and I think I may speak for my colleagues—I should be well content to compound with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) on that point by a Resolution that none of our portraits shall be placed
888
in the gallery. With regard to the Vote, there might be some ground for the opposition made to it if this were a new question; but it has been frequently considered, and Parliament has thought it would be advisable to incur annually a very moderate expense, not in collecting works of art, or in forming a school of art, but in purchasing the portraits of those persons who have figured most in our history. It is most interesting, after persons have been reading about the exploits of some eminent person, to be able afterwards to realize the man by seeing his portrait. As somebody has said, in reading that Cesar conquered Pompey, all you know is that Caesar was one man and Pompey was another. But it is highly interesting and instructive, after reading about Cromwell or any other historical character, to go back to the day in which he lived, and to have before you the most faithful representation in painting or sculpture that can be obtained of his person. It is not as a collection of works of art that this gallery is proposed, and it is therefore no valid objection to say that some of the pictures are not good ones. The gallery will connect itself with the history of this country, and I do hope that the Committee will not now reverse the decision more than once deliberately given in its favour.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he should support the Amendment, not because he objected to the collection of pictures by the nation, but because he thought the machinery of the National Gallery ought to be made use of for the purpose. In that grossly mismanaged institution there was a Director at £1,000 a year, and a Secretary at £750, and why, then, should it be necessary to appoint a second Secretary at £350, who wrote a long letter to the The Times to show that he had done his duty in allowing portraits to be sold at public auction which were afterwards bought at three or four times their original price?
MR. STIRLINGsaid, he was surprised that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) who, a few nights ago, complained of the management of the National Gallery as so very bad that it ought to be removed from the hands of the Director, should now wish to throw increased duties upon that Gentleman. He agreed, however, that the Portrait Gallery ought at some time or other to be made a branch of the National Gallery, but at present there was much preliminary work to be done. It was not likely that the walls would be

889
covered with voluntary gifts, for comparatively few of the pictures offered were of sufficient historical interest to be hung in the gallery. The noble Viscount would have considerable difficulty in fulfilling any pledge that his portrait and those of his colleagues should be kept out of the Gallery, for no portrait was admitted until the original had been dead ten years.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he thought the officers of the National Gallery should be the persons authorized to purchase the portraits. At present the best portraits were allowed to be bought at public sales by the picture dealers, from whom the Government bought them at advanced prices. Another objection he had to leaving the matter in the hands of dilettanti gentlemen who were probably more versed in history than in art was, that there was great doubt as to the authenticity of many of the portraits they had bought. He should not, however, object to the Vote this year.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that on one occasion, a portrait of Lord Nelson, for which £800 was asked, was sent to the trustees for inspection, when it was found that the great naval commander was depicted in the flaming uniform of a field marshal.
MR. A. SMITHsuggested that the portraits should be hung up in the galleries of the Houses of Parliament.
MR. BLACKBURNobserved, that the biography of every great man was accompanied by his portrait, a circumstance which obviated the necessity for the Gallery, the only use of which seemed to be to bring all those portraits into one group.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that the last observation was an argument in favour of the Vote. He might also refer to the Manchester Exhibition, in which the portraits of distinguished men had been placed together in one department instead of being scattered among the general collection, and no portion of the exhibition had excited greater interest than that which contained those pictures. While, however, he did not think that the Vote for the purpose of securing a national collection of portraits was open to objection he was perfectly ready to admit that there was something anomalous in having a separate establishment for such a gallery. The element of art entered largely into its formation, and he was therefore of opinion that its disassociation from the National Gallery ought to be regarded as merely provisional. At present
890
it was necessarily separated from that establishment, but when the proposed alterations in the National Gallery were made, the junction of the two would be a subject, he admitted, worthy of consideration.
MR. RIDLEYsupported the Vote, observing that a national portrait gallery would constitute a very fine volume of our national history. In the Pitti Gallery at Florence two rooms were devoted to the exhibition of the portraits of men who had been famous in literature, art, and science, and that among the whole of that magnificent collection no two rooms were generally more frequented.
MR. BRISCOEsaid, that he desired to see in London a portrait gallery of that character which was to be found in most continental cities.
MR. SPOONERobserved that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had afforded the best proof that there was no necessity for the Vote by alluding to the Manchester Exhibition. There would be many such exhibitions if the people were left to themselves, but here the working people were taxed for the gratification of the higher classes.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he also should oppose the Vote. For a justification of that course he might refer to the case of Greenwich Hospital, the walls of which were covered with most interesting historical portraits, all of which were voluntarily presented to the nation.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 141, Noes 35: Majority 106.
Vote agreed to,
(13.) £2,050, Boundary Survey Expenses Ireland.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobjected to the Vote.
MR. LAINGexplained that the Vote was required for the completion of a valuable survey of Ireland.
Vote agreed to.
(14.) £2,140, Agricultural Statistics (Ireland).
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he wished to ask what advantage was derived by any other persons than speculators in corn from the expenditure for agricultural statistics in that country?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the House had upon various occasions expressed a great desire for the collection of agricultural statistics, and although in England they had not been collected, yet he thought that as a very small sum was asked to de-

891
fray the expense of their collection by the county constabulary in Ireland the Committee would not object to the Vote. He would not enter into the general question which had been discussed most fully during the last Session. He would merely observe that these statistics in a country like Ireland furnished valuable information with reference to the question of supply and demand.
COLONEL SYKESremarked that the use of agricultural statistics was quite obvious. It was precisely the same as a tradesman taking stock. There were a certain number of mouths to be supplied, and if these statistics were collected they would know exactly how much grain could be supplied by this country, and how much was necessary to be imported.
MR. CAIRDsaid, that if these statistics had been collected at a much earlier period the calamities which had occurred in Ireland would not have happened.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYobserved, that as one concerned in agriculture, he doubted the possibility of procuring returns that were reliable.
MR. DAWSONsaid, it was of the utmost consequence to know the producing power of the country.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes.
(15.) £23,000, Courts of Law (Dublin), &c.
(16.) £1,300, Pitcairn Islanders Removal.
(17.) £11,440, General Register House, Edinburgh.
(18.) Motion made and Question proposed,—
"That a sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to Her Majesty, for the purchase, in the year ending the 31st day of March 1860, of Sir George Hayter's Historical Picture, representing the moving the Address to the Crown in the House of Commons on opening the first Reformed Parliament in 1833."
MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the Vote for the purchase of this picture. They had already voted £2,000 for the purchase of pictures for the Portrait Gallery, and this picture ought to be paid for out of that fund. It appeared that the picture had been already bought; and he thought it was a most unconstitutional course to buy the picture and then come to the House and ask Parliament to pay for it.
MR. LAINGremarked, that the hon. Gentleman laboured under an erroneous impression if he supposed the £2,000 for
892
the purchase of Sir G. Hayter's picture were to be drawn from the Votes to which he referred and which had already received the sanction of the House.
MR. SPOONER: Has the picture been paid for; and if so, by what authority?
THE CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERsaid, that in point of fact the transaction had come more especially within the jurisdiction of his predecessor in office, and that if the picture had been paid for it had been done by his authority.
MR. SPOONERsaid, the whole affair was not a little extraordinary. If the picture had been paid for then he should like to know what was to be done with it. It could not be placed in the National Portrait Gallery, because there was a rule in existence prohibiting the placing of the portraits of living persons in that establishment. There was, therefore, no room of which he was aware in which to put it, and he could not help thinking, therefore, that expense had been incurred in a most unconstitutional manner to no good purpose. He said, in a most unconstitutional manner, because it was natural to suppose that the picture in question would be paid for out of the annual Vote for the National Gallery, which had been already granted, whereas it appeared it was to be made the subject of a separate Vote.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, the hon. Gentleman must not forget that his own political friends were the persons who were most deeply implicated in the question. [Mr. SPOONER: That does not matter.] He (Colonel French), however, found no fault with them for the part which they had taken in the transaction. He believed the purchase to be a desirable purchase, and that a majority of the Members of the late House had signified their assent to its being bought.
MR. DEEDESasked whether the painter had not, in fact, been paid for this picture, and whether the various Members comprised in the painting had not been applied to for their contributions?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he remembered very well that the various Members of the House who had sat to the painter did pay a certain sum, and that they received in return a sort of sketch portrait; but these contributions did not at all repay the artist for the work. There were two questions to be considered. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spooner) must remember that the late Government were responsible for this purchase,

893
they having assented to it upon the recommendation and representations of a majority of the House. ["No, no!"] He believed that that was the case; at the same time he deeply regretted that the Executive of the late Government had consented to receive and act upon any such document as that which had been presented to them recommending this purchase. This, however, was a different matter. The question of the purchase ought to be considered upon its own merits, independently of the feeling of the majority of the late House of Parliament. He could well understand that the late Government should have been led to make this purchase on account of the intrinsic value of the picture, as representing a most important era in our Parliamentary history. The artist had been encouraged to expect a very much larger sum than that which had been ultimately paid. It appeared to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that £2,000 was not a large sum for the picture, having regard to the labour which had been bestowed upon it, and that it was much smaller than the painter was led to expect that he would receive. However that might be, it seemed to him that there was nothing connected with the purchase of the picture which should lead the Committee to throw it back again upon the hands of the painter, although the arrangement was perhaps somewhat open to the objection that the Committee were called upon to pay the amount in the shape of an ex post facto Vote. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had truly remarked that there was no room in which to put the picture, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government would exercise great caution in making a demand for the erection of any new building for its reception.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that in his opinion the Committee were free to rescind the bargain if they thought proper, as they were not bound by anything that had been done in the matter by the Members of the late House of Commons. If they had the picture they must have a place to hang it, and that involved a further outlay. He might mention that he was applied to by the artist to sit for his portrait, and pay for it, but he declined the honour.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the picture commemorated a great national event, one of the highest interest in modern times—of far deeper interest than the subjects of fire
894
and smoke which were often recorded by the painter at the national expense. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer no doubt thought how desirable it was to impress on the country the necessity for occasional Parliamentary Reform, and influenced by such feeling, consulted the wishes of a large number of the House of Commons that the picture should be purchased. As to hanging the picture, there was abundance of space on the walls of that House, if there were no other suitable place where it could be advantageously open to the public inspection. The House of Lords, too, would in that case have an opportunity of examining the picture, and thus be reminded of reforms nearer home.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred the question of the purchase of the picture to the noble Lord who represented the City of London (Lord John Russell), the noble Lord who represented Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), and himself; and although he was in favour of a lower price, he waived his opinion, and joined in recommending the purchase which had taken place.
MR. WISEsaid, he would remind the Committee that it was not the first time they had been called upon to register a contract rather than Vote an Estimate. Some two or three years ago a Vote of £11,000 was proposed for the payment of a chapel in Paris which had been purchased without the authority of Parliament. The Committee felt it to be its duty to refuse that Vote, on the ground that such contracts should not be made without first obtaining the sanction of Parliament.
MR. FARRERsaw no reason why they should not pursue the same course which all prudent people observed, not to buy things when they had not the means to pay for them. They had been told that money could not be voted for harbours of refuge because they had not the means. He hoped this Vote would be disallowed, and when they had the means he should be very happy to vote money to purchase the picture.
MR. LYGONsuggested, that the Vote should be postponed or passed pro formâ, and the discussion renewed on the Report, when members of the late Government, who had been concerned in the matter, would be present.
MR. SPOONERsaid, it was an improper proceeding to buy a picture without first obtaining the consent of the House;

895
and it was most dangerous that a Minister should take a kind of authority privately from a certain number of Members of the House. He should vote against the purchase of the picture, because it was bought under improper circumstances. The hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton), said the picture commemorated a great historical fact which deserved commemoration, but in his Mr. Spooner's opinion it was the wrong time to put up such a monument when the first Reformed House of Commons was condemned, and especially as precedent would render necessary a similar picture after the next Reform Bill.
MR. LAINGsaid, it would be inconvenient to postpone the Vote. The sum had actually been paid out of the Civil Contingencies by the order of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would the Committee make him personally responsible for the outlay?
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 82, Noes 82.
Whereupon the CHAIRMAN declared with the Ayes.
Vote agreed to, as was also
(19.) £1,060, Neil and Havelock Statues.
(20.) Motion made, and Question proposed,—
"That a sum, not exceeding £9,988, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of constructing, in the year ending the 31st day of March 1860, Seven Fire-proof Rooms adjoining the Sheepshanks' Gallery at South Kensington, to receive the Vernon, Turner, and other Pictures belonging to the National Gallery, and of a separate Entrance thereto."
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he thought it necessary the Committee should be informed of what were the real intentions of the Government with regard to the National Gallery? The removal of a portion of the pictures from Trafalgar Square gave rise to suspicions of their ultimate intentions. He wished also to know whether there was any change in the decision to grant a site for the Royal Academy at Burlington House?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the exact arrangements for providing a site for the Royal Academy had not yet been settled, but he apprehended that the arrangement suggested by the last Commission for Maintaining the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square would be adopted, the House of Commons consenting to vote the expenses necessarily attendant upon such an enlarge-
896
ment of the gallery as would be required. There was no intention, under cover of this Vote, to transfer permanently to Kensington Gore any portion of the pictures which were now in the National Gallery.
LORD ELCHOsuggested, that before any site was granted to the Royal Academy, an inquiry should be instituted into the mode in which the Academy fulfilled its functions, and into its general constitution. It was supposed to be at the head of art in this country, and he thought it important that it should be freely open to all artists, whether oil painters, watercolour painters, sculptors, or engravers. He wished inquiry to be made, whether the Academy was a school of art for the instruction of artists, and whether its honours were freely open to all artists in Great Britain?
MR. AYRTONsaid, he could not but object to such enormous expenses for merely temporary accommodation. If it was proposed to remove the Royal Academy to Burlington House, surely twelve months would be time enough to provide temporary accommodation, and when that was completed, the space now occupied by the Royal Academy in the National Gallery would be available for these pictures. Supposing that were not so, why should not the temporary building be erected on the vacant ground at the back of Burlington House? Why then should they be removed to Kensington? The truth was, this was one of those intrigues against which the House of Commons found itself unable to contend. There was some one at the bottom of it; and, although the House protested against the removal to the extreme west of London, in the name of the inhabitants of the metropolis and of those who resorted to it either on business or on pleasure, everything was done contrary to the real interests of the public and against the wishes of the House. At whose instigation was this? How was it that against everybody's wishes the work was going on? The House had distinctly said it should not be done; yet now there was a proposition before the Committee of the House of Commons to Vote £9,000 to promote the inconvenience of the inhabitants of the metropolis. At whose instigation and for whose gratification was this? Was it that some one person might visit and inspect the works of art by going west instead of driving among the dwellings of the metropolis? He would remind hon. Gentlemen who represented country con-

897
stituencies, that when their constituents came to London, they would be put to expense and the loss of a day to go to Kensington for the purpose of enjoying an inspection of these works of art. And again, he asked for whom was all this done? He had never been able to discover. Ministers objected; the House of Commons objected; and yet it was done! To please whom, and for what object he had never been able to discover. He made these observations that he might get, if possible, some explanation of this extraordinary fact, and he hoped that Ministers would tell them what were the electric currents which passed through the Government of the day, and under what influence they laboured, whenever these questions were considered. It was a most monstrous and insolent proceeding towards the House, and he hoped they would reject the Vote as a distinct declaration that the feelings of the people should be respected, and that Her Majesty's Ministers should act in accordance with those feelings, and not in accordance with opinions which they were either afraid or ashamed to recognize.
LORD J. MANNERSsaid, he was quite at a loss to know to what influence the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded, and, as one of the late Government who had discussed these temporary buildings, he could safely say no influence had animated their opinion on the matter. They were excessively puzzled where to find a site. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the vacant ground at the back of Burlington House should have been selected, and that twelve months was ample time to erect a permanent building for the Royal Academy. The hon. and learned Gentleman must have had very little practical acquaintance with Government buildings if he supposed that in that short space of time any such building could be completed, and if temporary buildings had been erected there, they would have had to be pulled down before the permanent edifice could be finished. He took especial pains to inquire as to the best site, and, as far as his own opinion went, he thought no part so accessible as Carlton Ride. But there were objections to that, and just at the moment, most fortunately as he thought, an offer was made by the Science and Art Department, to allow temporary buildings to be erected at Kensington, where there was already the valuable collection of pictures of Mr. Sheepshanks. That the national collection of pictures was perma-
898
nently established in Trafalgar Square was, in his opinion, as settled a point as anything could be in that House. On behalf of every department of the late Government he broadly and emphatically denied that there was the slightest intention whatever of placing these pictures permanently at Kensington. They were merely to be placed there as a temporary convenience, and because it was absolutely necessary they should be placed somewhere where they would be safe from fire and injury.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURcould not see why these buildings could not have been as easily and economically erected in the square of Burlington House as at Kensington Gore. The temporary buildings would have been useful there, if the Government carried out what seemed to be the intention of successive Governments—namely, that of interfering with art and scientific societies, and making them mere handmaids of the State. That was a system against which he had for many years protested. Art and science had progressed in this country without a connection with the State. He doubted whether their progress would be equally satisfactory if they received buildings from the Government, and were otherwise connected with the State. The whole arrangement looked as if there was some underhand influence at work to induce the House to change its Resolution and so each item of the public collections was being successively moved to the west end of London, where none but the rich could enjoy them.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that the explanations of the noble Lord were anything but satisfactory. It was proposed to give the Royal Academy a magnificent and spacious site for the erection of a building which would give them an unfair advantage over competing art societies. If any temporary edifices were to be erected he thought that the Royal Academy should erect a temporary building for themselves. He would remind the Committee that already £17,000 was voted for Marlborough House. The tendency of these Votes was to increase every year, and he feared the result would be that the country would take up a strong opinion against the arts. He should, therefore, support the Motion.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURasked out of what funds these buildings had been paid for, for it was evident the money had been paid.
MR. STIRLINGsaid, he did not understand why so large a sum was required for

899
such a building. He was as much in the dark as before, after having heard the explanation given by the noble Lord of the transaction. It had been proposed to convert the building on Carleton Ride to this purpose at the cost of £1,000, which would have been nine times cheaper, or they might have hired a house even in the very neighbourhood in question for £1,000 a year, where the pictures might have been deposited till the arrangements of the Royal Academy were completed. This latter arrangement would save at least £7,000.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he was not aware that the rooms recently occupied by the Royal Academy were to be used till next year. Could not the pictures which it was proposed to send to the temporary building be sent to those apartments after that Society had removed? Every hon. Member who had the interest of the country at heart must be astonished at a demand of £10,000 for such a building. That amount ought to provide a permanent building for those pictures. He believed the Royal Academy was in Trafalgar Square by sufferance. If so, the pictures should be removed from Marlborough House to Trafalgar Square, and the Royal Academy told that they should look out for another place for their next year's exhibition. It appeared to him to be a monstrous thing to vote £10,000 for the purpose for which that amount was now asked.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, the Vote was not for temporary buildings, at least so far as the Estimates were concerned. It appeared by the Estimates a portion of this Vote was for a fire-proof room, and he should be glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer if this Vote really was for temporary purposes.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he thought the Government, instead of spending £10,000 on such temporary erections, would have done better to have advertised for buildings in which these pictures could have been exhibited. It might have obtained the rooms of the British Institution in Suffolk Street, or the Polytechnic. The precedent of the Government spending the money first and applying to that House for a Vote afterwards was a very bad one.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was the misfortune of discussions of questions of art in that House that it allowed all the subjects connected with it to run into one another. On this
900
Vote the House had discussed the constitution of the Royal Academy, its condition and relations to the public, and the site of the National Gallery. On the latter point nothing could be more clear than the statement of his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston), that it was the generally expressed wish of the House of Commons that the Gallery should be kept in Trafalgar Square. With regard to the Royal Academy, it would be very inconvenient at that moment to discuss its relations with the Government; but he could assure the Committee there was no disposition whatever on the part of the Government to defeat the intentions of the House. It would be accommodated on some part of the site of Burlington House, but the disposal of that site was a question of great magnitude, and it would be quite inexcusable in the Government if it parted with the whole of it piece by piece. With respect to the question immediately before the House, he agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir Morton Peto) that the practice of expending money without a Vote of the House was very objectionable; but what had been done was to meet a case of urgency, and took place before the Estimates could be brought forward. It would, perhaps, have been more convenient had the amount of this Vote been paid out of the Civil Contingencies, which were intended to provide for such urgent cases. It appeared that some progress had been made in erecting these buildings, and it was not possible to go back. It had also been asked why the Government did not make use of the rooms belonging to the Royal Academy. The answer to the question was, that the Royal Academy existed for two [purposes, one primary, the other secondary; the exhibition of pictures was only the secondary purpose of the Academy, its principal object was teaching. Now, such were the conditions of the space occupied by the Royal Academy, that during the period of its exhibition of pictures it was obliged to suspend the teaching of its schools; and if the Government took the rooms of the Academy it would totally paralyze the means of teaching. Another suggestion was, that these temporary buildings should be raised on the vacant space at the hack of Burlington House; but in the course of a year or two, when the space would be required for the permanent edifice, these temporary erections must be again removed and placed somewhere else; the inconvenience of the case would be thus aggravated. There was

901
a great deal in the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Perth (MR. Stirling) that Government might have hired buildings for this purpose; but much could also be said against. If the buildings at Kensington were inconveniently situated with respect to the Tower Hamlets, they would be inconvenient with regard to some part of the metropolis wherever they might he placed. But at Kensington experience had shown that they were accessible to a large part of the population of London, not belonging exclusively to the upper classes, which derived from the collection there abundant enjoyment of a kind it never before possessed. The buildings for which the Vote was asked were temporary, as far as the pictures were concerned, but he understood they would be available for other purposes strictly germane to the Museum there, after the paintings were removed. The establishment at Kensington was a young and a growing one, and extremely popular. It was intended to be a repository of illustrations of art, and it could not remain stationary, or it would become a museum. With regard to the intrigues or mysterious influences an hon. and learned Member had referred to, they were quite imaginary; they were phantoms the hon. and learned Gentleman had perceived, and nothing more:
"He sees a form we cannot see,"
and he appeared to be aware of much that they know nothing about. As far as we know, the purpose of the Vote was very simple, and was confined within very narrow limits.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that as these buildings were only temporary for the purposes of these pictures, he trusted the public would have the benefit of them after the paintings were removed. Would they, for instance, be given, at the public expense, to the Society for Promoting Science and Art when the pictures were removed?
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, it was not consistent with the dignity of the Committee to discuss any Vote where the money had already been expended. In his opinion a systematic attempt had been made to set aside the authority of Parliament over the Estimates, and he should therefore support the Amendment.
MR. MALINSsaid he should support the Vote if he had the positive assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these buildings were required for perma-
902
nent purposes after the pictures were removed.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he expected that the collection about to be removed to the temporary buildings would take their place in the National Gallery when a suitable building should have been provided for the national collection.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 73:—Majority 43.
Vote agreed to.
(21.) Motion made, and Question proposed,—
"That a sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to Her Majesty, as a donation to W. H. Barber, in consideration of the sufferings he has undergone, and of his distressed circumstances."
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEremarked that the sum was inadequate to the losses Mr. Barber had sustained and the sufferings he had undergone; he had lost £10,000, and his sufferings were unmerited.
MR. CLIFFORDobserved, that he did not deny that the sufferings of Mr. Barber had been great, but it should be remembered that by this Vote the House was introducing an entirely new principle into the administration of the law. If the House was to compensate a man who had been found guilty by the verdict of a jury of his countrymen, then they must a fortiori compensate every man who was tried at the assizes and acquitted by the verdict of a jury; it was a logical sequence.
Question put, the Committee divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 24:—Majority 100.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

KINGSTON-UPON-HULL ELECTION.
The names of the five Members appointed to try and determine the matter of the Petition complaining of an undue Election and Return for the Borough of Kingston upon Hull were called over; and Colonel Fulke Greville, one of such Members, not appearing within one hour after Four o'clock, Act [11 & 12 Vict. c. 98, s. 69] read:
Ordered,
"That Colonel Fulke Greville, Member for the County of Longford, having been appointed to serve as one of the Members of the Select Committee to try and determine the matter of the Petition complaining of an undue Election and Return for the Borough of Kingston-upon-Hull, and not having attended in his place within one

903
hour after Four of the clock this day, being the day appointed for swearing the said Committee, be taken into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House.

BURY ELECTION.—REPORT.
House informed, that the Committee had determined,—
"That the Right honourable Frederick Peel is duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Bury.
"And the said Determination was ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House."
And it being Six of the clock Mr. Speaker adjourned the House till Tomorrow.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Charitable Trusts Acts Continuance.
Their Lordships met, and having gone through the Business on the Paper,
House adjourned till To-morrow.