Sir, before I gave the notice which stands in the Votes in my name for this evening, I called the attention of the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for War to the important subject-matter of that Motion, and at his request postponed the matter till this evening. I am happy to say that I have just received a communication from him of such a satisfactory nature, as will prevent my going into detail on a subject which involves, as every one knows, the stirring of very delicate and critical topics. I shall, therefore, content myself with reading so much of a General Order of His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief, dated the 19th June instant, as gave occasion to my notice. The Order to which I have referred was a General Order issued by his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief on the 19th June, directing—

"That, for the future, every soldier, after being dismissed from drill, shall attend school as a duty, until he is reported upon as sufficiently advanced in reading, writing, and arithmetic. With the concurrence of the Secretary of State for War, no fees are to be required for this attendance at school."

The portion of the circular to which I am more particularly desirous of directing the notice of the House, is that which says, "that for the future every soldier after being dismissed from drill shall attend school as a duty, until he is reported upon as sufficiently advanced in reading, writing, and arithmetic!" Now, Sir, the spirit and object of the entire Order all must applaud, and I congratulate the country on his Royal Highness's enlightened anxiety and efforts to elevate the condition of our soldiers; but immediately on seeing this Order, it occurred to me that very grave difficulties would beset any attempt to carry into execution that portion of it to which I have called the attention of the House. I need not now specify them; but my views have since been greatly strengthened by communication with some of the most distinguished general officers in the service. I have always felt a great interest in military matters, and let few General Orders escape my notice, which must be my apology, if any be necessary, for having ventured to call the attention of the House to this General Order. I beg, therefore, simply to ask the hon. Baronet whether the consideration of the authorities at the War Office has been given to this General Order; and, if so, whether they are prepared to take any steps to rescind or vary it?

had to tender his thanks to the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst for the courteous manner in which he directed the notice of the authorities to this subject. The question was one of very great importance; and though the Government was advised that the particular instruction to which the hon. and learned Member referred as a portion of his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief's circular did not violate any principle of law, yet they thought that it would not be desirable—in fact, that it would be very objectionable—to act upon it. Consequently his Royal Highness had withdrawn the circular in question; and the particular passage to which the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst had pointed was modified by withdrawal of the words which required that attendance at schools should be part of a soldier's duty. Instead of those words, a passage was substituted which merely recommended the officers of regiments to give every encouragement to soldiers in availing themselves of those facilities for instruction which were now afforded in the British army. He trusted that this explanation would be satisfactory to the House.

said, he rose to call attention to the large sums of public money which have been expended by the Criminal and Statute Law Commissions without the consolidation of any branch of the Criminal or Statute law, and to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to dispense with the present Statute Law Commission. In the last Parliament he had brought forward several Motions having reference to those Commissions, upon which he had met with considerable support on both sides of the House. He would frankly confess that those Motions implied a censure upon the Statute Law Commission, but he thought it more satisfactory and straightforward now to submit a Resolution which would settle the point as to whether this Commission should or should not cease to exist altogether. Every one desired that the consolidation of the statute law should be proceeded with, and it might be thought strange that he should now propose to destroy the only machinery by which this was intended to be effected. He felt confident, however, that not only did the Commission, as at present constituted, accomplish no good whatever, but that it was productive of evil by pretending to do something, while it really effected nothing—that it was, in fact, a mere sham and delusion. There had been several of these Commissions, so that the people had no ground for complaining that that House had refused the supplies necessary for effecting an object so desirable. Far from that, the most lavish expenditure had been incurred, and, as he should show, no result whatever had been obtained. In 1806 a Commission had been appointed, and another in 1813, but he would confine himself to what had occurred in reference to this subject since 1833. In that year a Commission was appointed to digest the criminal law, and to inquire what could be done with the statute law generally, and they issued a series of blue-books down to 1845. No less than £37,000 had been expended by that Commission, and not a single Bill had been drawn by it. In 1845 another Commission was created to complete the work of its predecessor, and that Commission spent an additional £12,500, making a total of £49,500 expended by those two bodies. It was said that that last Commission had drawn one Bill which was once laid upon the table of the House of Lords, but it never passed into an Act. In addition to that sum of £49,500, he had found on moving for a Return of additional expenses that a further sum of £1,680 had been spent upon a variety of Bills which never passed, and he believed that they were the same Bills which the present Statute Law Commission had taken to itself the credit of having framed. In 1850 or 1851 the Commission of 1845 came to an end, for the simple reason, he believed, that all its Members had ceased to exist, or had been provided with other places, with the exception of Mr. Bellenden Ker, who had served as a Commissioner sixteen years, and who had received £10,400 of the public money without any result whatever. The next step in the order of events was the appointment of another Commission in 1853, the appointment of which was thus explained by the Lord Chancellor in proposing it:—

"But I look further. I conceive there is no reason why this proposed step should not at some future time, some years hence, constitute the formation of that which I have always looked forward to as the most desirable, though heretofore I have feared to be unattainable—a Code Victoria."

At the head of that Commission was Mr. B. Ker and four members of the legal profession, were appointed as sub-commissioners to act with him. The Lord Chancellor's instructions to that body were very clear and satisfactory. They were—

"To ascertain precisely the text of the Statute law, as it now exists, by determining what Statutes have been repealed (expressly or virtually), what have expired, and what have become obsolete or unnecessary in the present state of society. … The text having been thus examined, a special and detailed Report should be made of all the repealed, expired, and obsolete Statutes. … This Report will form the groundwork of a declaratory Bill to repeal or confirm such Statutes, to be introduced, if possible, at the end of the present Session."

That was the Session of 1853, but the Bill in question had never yet made its appearance. The new Commission set to work, and during the first year of its existence he must say it laboured hard. The expurgatory list was prepared, but it never had been revised; the sub commissioners were all discharged, for what reason no one had yet explained, and Mr. Ker was left alone with his pupil, Mr. Brickdale, to constitute the Commission. Nothing of importance, however, took place till 1856, when a great event occurred. The Commissioners then discovered that all their previous work had been useless; instead of the Lord Chancellor's plan of preparing an expurgatory list, a new scheme was propounded, and it was determined that certain "bundles of statutes," as they had been termed by the present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, should be selected for consolidation. The great event of the year, however, was, that the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) joined the Commission. The hon. and learned Gentleman made a very able speech in that House in moving for leave to introduce two Consolidation Bills. The House gave him leave to bring them in, but those Bills had never made their appearance. The hon. and learned Gentleman upon that occasion made a very extraordinary statement. He said, "You must leave the whole matter to me. If you do, I will undertake myself in eighteen months to consolidate the whole law of England." He (Mr. L. King) remembered that upon that occasion the present Mr. Baron Watson, who was then Member for Hull, said that if the hon. and learned Gentleman would only do in eighteen years half as much as he had promised to do in eighteen mouths, he would undertake to raise to his memory a column twice as high as that to the memory of the Duke of York in St. James's Park. He (Mr. L. King) knew not what progress the hon. and learned Member had made with his Consolidation Bills, but the eighteen months had long since elapsed, and not one had yet been laid upon the table. At the end of the Session of 1856 several Bills were hastily laid on the table of the House of Lords. He was told that those Bills were sent over to Ireland, and that they came back with certain comments made upon them which showed that it was quite impossible that they could pass, and it was a fortunate thing that they had not passed upon the faith of that Commission. He was sure the House would agree with him that if the Statute Law Commission had been in earnest those Bills ought to have been revised during the autumn, and introduced again early in February, 1857. But that had not been done. The other day the same Bills were again laid upon the table of the House of Lords, but every one must see that it was impossible such Bills should pass when they were brought in at so late a period of the Session. There had been recently placed in the hands of hon. Members the third Report, as it was called, of the Statute Law Commission; but, in point of fact, it was the sixth Report, three Reports having been previously presented under the auspices of Mr. Bellenden Ker—three of these, however, were said to emanate from the Statute Law Board and three from the Statute Law Commission. If the Report lately issued had been the first instead of the sixth, he could readily believe all the promises that were made; but seeing that upon every occasion a fresh plan was propounded and fresh promises were made, he did not see how they could place any reliance upon it. Besides, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier), last Session carried an Address to Her Majesty recommending the appointment of a Minister of Justice, and this appeared to him to be an additional reason for dispensing with the services of the Commission. He should not longer trespass upon the time of the House. He thought that he had made out his case, and he begged to move as an Amendment to the Motion, "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair; that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to dispense with the present Statute Law Commission."

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from 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 dispense with the present Statute Law Commission," instead thereof.

said, he did not complain of the hon. Gentleman for having brought this important subject under the consideration of the House. The hon. Gentleman might, perhaps, have chosen a more fitting and convenient occasion for the purpose; but he rejoiced at the opportunity which was at length afforded him of communicating to the House something at least of what had been attempted by others, as well as by the Statute Law Commission, and of what had been done by the Commission since it had been in existence under Her Majesty's authority. It was but justice to the Statute Law Commission that it should be made known to the House and to the country that this great work of the consolidation of the Statute Law, which for more than 250 years had baffled and defeated the efforts of the most eminent jurists and statesmen which this country had produced, was now, upon one simple uniform and comprehensive plan, actually begun, and in a course of practical and, he trusted, successful progress under that very Statute Law Commission which the hon. Gentleman had that night called on the House to censure, and upon the Crown to dissolve. He hoped to be pardoned for endeavouring briefly to explain the nature and extent of the undertaking, for not completely and successfully executing which, during the short time the Statute Law Commission had been, in existence, the hon. and learned Gentleman charged them with incompetency and incapacity. That work was the consolidation of the Statute Law, which meant neither more nor less than converting the present Statute-book, consisting of forty folio volumes, and containing upwards of 40,000 statutes, into a short, comprehensive, and intelligible work of four, or little more than four volumes, containing what then would be the whole of the effective and operative law of England; not as at present scattered indiscriminately and in confusion through a large number of volumes without any arrangement, beginning with Magna Charta and ending with the last Act of the last Session of Victoria, but collected in a short and comprehensive form, containing a series of statutes, arranged and classified, the classes being again subdivided into single Acts of Parliament, each Act being on a single subject but embracing that entire subject, and all in a well-arranged and chronological order on one uniform and connected scheme. It was needless at the present moment to dilate on the multiplied evils to which this country, and especially the Legislature, was subjected by the present state of the statute law. He needed not to remind the House that in those forty volumes of statutes to which he had referred, the whole of the 40,000 statutes, besides nearly 50,000 local and personal Acts, were now to be found only according to the order in point of time in which they were passed, and named after the successive Sovereigns in whose reigns they were passed; and not only were all these statutes heaped together without any description, order, and arrangement, but there were a great number of single Acts and even single sections of Acts, embracing each in itself a variety of subjects entirely unconnected with each other. With all the aid to be obtained from indexes and text books no one could attempt to make himself master of any single subject without laborious investigation and making his way through the whole body of statute law. And even then he had to ascertain, as best he could, whether whole statutes or particular sections and clauses were repealed or still continued in force. Not merely the members of the legal profession, but magistrates and country gentlemen, who, for the better discharge of their duties, might desire to possess themselves of a copy of the Statute-book, must purchase the entire forty volumes, nine-tenths of the contents of which are repealed or otherwise superseded. But, independent of the evils felt by all classes from the present state of the statute law, its effect on the current legislation of the country was more mischievous than could well be imagined. One consequence was that no individual bringing in a Bill into that or the other House of Parliament could satisfactorily make himself master of the statute law as it existed in reference to the subject on which he proposed to legislate. It therefore often occurred that Bills, which had passed through Committee with every care, repealed over again statutes or statutory enactments which had been repealed before; but, what was infinitely worse, statutes which were not known to exist were passed by and disregarded, and new enactments which were made in Bills that received the sanction of Parliament were found afterwards to be utterly at variance with existing enactments. Hence arose a degree of confusion leading to an amount of litigation, which became a fearful ant wide-spread evil, as in the cases of the Royal British Bank and the Tipperary Bank, in reference to which the courts were engaged in considering the effects of different Acts of Parliament, which were inconsistent with each other and contradictory. It had frequently been attempted by some of the most distinguished lawyers and statesmen to find an adequate remedy for these multiplied evils, and so long back as the reign of Queen Elizabeth the state of the Statute-book was considered by a Commission appointed by that Sovereign. Sir Nicholas Bacon, the Keeper of the Great Seal, was employed to make a Report on the subject to the Crown and to Parliament; but even in that early time, when the whole of the statute law was contained in some four or five small volumes, it was found, from the state of confusion, complication, and contradiction existing in the Statute-book, that the attempt to remedy the evil must be given up, and the most learned men and able lawyers of the day shrunk from the task in despair. The Statute Law Commission, appointed in 1835, and on which, as the hon. Gentleman stated, upwards of £30,000 had been expended, in their Report referred to some earlier Report of twenty or thirty years ago, and to a work on public records, in which the writer stated that the general revision of the statute law had often been recommended from the Throne, petitioned for by both Houses of Parliament, and engaged the attention of successive Committees; that it had been undertaken by individuals, sometimes with, and sometimes without the sanction of the Crown and Parliament, but never carried forward to any degree of maturity. It therefore appeared that Bacon, Hale, Somers, Hardwicke, Blackstone—all these great lawyers and statesmen—had in succession attempted this work of the consolidation of the statutes, and failed. Approaching our own times, Romilly, Tenterden, and Sir R. Peel, were found attempting much, and accomplishing something in the way of consolidation. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) and the right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) with other hon. Members of that House; and in the other House of Parliament, the first and greatest of the law Reformers of the day—Lord Brougham, assisted and followed by Lord Lyndhurst, Lord St. Leonards, Lord Truro—and, though last not least, by the present Lord Chancellor Cranworth, had all directed their attention to this important subject. Numerous Committees or Commissions had considered the question in 1806, in 1816, in 1829, in 1833, in 1839, and again in 1849; but, although these Commissions—which were attended with vast expense to the country, and which had all the aid that could be afforded to them by the great statesmen and lawyers of the day—had done something towards the consolidation of particular branches of the statute law, none of them had been able to devise a specific, intelligible, and uniform plan upon which this great work could ever be even commenced with the slightest prospect of success. He (Sir F. Kelly) now came to the proceedings of that Commission which the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King), had denounced, and would persuade the House to address the Crown to dissolve. Under the advice of the present Lord Chancellor, Her Majesty was pleased to appoint, in 1853, a Commission to inquire into this subject. He (Sir F. Kelly) would admit that that Commission had sat from 1853 to 1856, without being able to accomplish what the great and eminent personages he had mentioned had attempted, but attempted in vain; but he did not concur with the hon. Gentleman in the opinion that the Commission had done nothing, or that the country was not indebted to them for their services. He (Sir F. Kelly) could speak freely of the proceedings of the Commission from 1853 to 1856, because he had not the honour of being a member of that body until February, 1856, and he ventured to say that, during that short period of three years, the Commission had done more than had been accomplished by all other Commissions which had sat during the present century. The Commission of 1853, acting upon the plan suggested to them by the Lord Chancellor, and with the aid of the Lord Chancellor himself, devised, in the first instance, the preparation of an index to the statutes, distinguishing in that index the various Acts and portions of Acts of Parliament which had been repealed, either expressly or by implication, which had become obsolete from lapse of time and change of circumstance, which had expired, or which had, from any other cause, or in any other way, become inoperative. Gentlemen, members of the bar, were employed in what had been called the work of expurgation, and Mr. Anstey, formerly a Member of that House, with the assistance of Mr. Rogers, prepared a very elaborate index to a great portion of the statute law, which was laid before the Commissioners, and was now in use as a guide to those members of the bar who were engaged in the work of consolidation. Besides this, also, most of the active members of the Commission employed themselves in framing Consolidation Bills relating to particular branches of the law; some ten or a dozen Bills were produced, and were now in existence, and although they required certain alterations to adapt them to the plan which had been devised, and was in course of execution, they were monuments of the industry, learning, and great ability of all who were engaged in their preparation, first among whom we must name Mr. Bellenden Ker, a gentleman with whom, except professionally, he had not the honour of being acquainted until he met him upon the Statute Law Commission, and to whom he should be doing an injustice if he did not say that the distinguished diligence, learning, skill, and untiring energy and perseverance with which he had dedicated himself to the work entitled him to the thanks of the country. There were others, also, who had rendered great and valuable services in this work; but, although indexes were framed, Bills prepared, Reports made, and suggestions thrown out, it was not until last year that the Commission could agree upon one fixed specific and uniform plan for the consolidation of the whole statute law. He (Sir F. Kelly) thought, considering what the Commission had actually accomplished within the short space of four years, which exceeded in practical utility all that had been done by former Commissions, he might safely and confidently appeal to the House whether the censure which had been passed upon it by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Locke King) was deserved or not. In 1856, however, it occurred to several members of the Commission that, although the Bills that had been prepared were of great use and importance, and afforded some guidance and assistance towards the consolidation of the Statute-book, it was evident, upon a consideration of the entire subject, that a consolidation of the statutes could never be efficiently effected until some plan was devised by which the forty volumes of statutes could be dealt with completely, in such a manner as to lay aside all repealed, obsolete, and inoperative statutes, selecting from the mass the statute law of the land which was in actual force and operation. It was suggested that the law should be divided into classes, and that those classes should be subdivided into single Bills or Acts of Parliament, each class comprising some definite branch of law, and each Bill or Act of Parliament comprising one entire subject. It was further suggested that, whereas the same words were used in ten, twenty, or thirty different senses in different Acts of Parliament, and sometimes even in the same Act, an endeavour should be made to adopt one uniform system of arrangement and phraseology, and that by the new statute-book, which would reduce the statute law from forty volumes to four, the rudis indigestaque moles now existing should be converted into a well-arranged system of statutes, expressed in clear, intelligible, and uniform phraseology. After much anxious and laborious investigation by the several members of the Statute Law Commission, after several reports from various members, and after full consideration of those reports, a scheme for the entire and complete consolidation of the whole statute law of the United Kingdom was determined upon, and as soon as this was determined upon, measures were taken for carrying it into effect. He (Sir F. Kelly) had now to inform the House what had been done since this plan was devised. At an early period of the last Session he (Sir F. Kelly) moved for leave to bring in one or two Consolidation Bills, and he then stated to the House—as well as he was able to do so before the scheme suggested had received the entire and final sanction of the Statute Law Commission—the plan upon which it was proposed to consolidate the Statutes. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Locke King) was, however, mistaken in supposing that he had stated that the whole scheme would be carried into effect within eighteen months. What he said was, that, if the Government and the Crown would support the Statute Law Commission with the necessary funds and resources, and give their countenance and assistance to the plan which he then suggested, Bills for the consolidation of the whole statute law of the realm might be passed through both Houses of Parliament, within three years. It was now fifteen months since he had made that statement, and he was prepared to repeat it with the greater confidence. A great number of Consolidation Bills were already drawn, and some of them had been laid upon the table of the House of Lords; and he was enabled to say very confidently that if the Statute Law Commission obtained the support of the Crown, of Ministers, and of both Houses, there was no reason to doubt that in some eighteen months or two years from this time the whole statute law of England—and he hoped he might add of Ireland and Scotland—would be completely consolidated, and those forty cumbrous volumes of undigested matter be reduced to four, upon the system he had described to the House. He wished to make a few observations with regard to the criminal Bills. It occurred to the members of the Statute Law Commission that, inasmuch as the criminal law, beginning as early as the reign of King John, and going down to our own times, was in a state of great confusion and encumbered with all the difficulties that beset the task of consolidation, it would be but fair to the House, the Crown and the country, if they were to begin with the criminal law; and if they found any difficulties attending the work which appeared insurmountable, that it would be becoming in them to state to the House that they had met with those impediments, and that the whole undertaking must be abandoned. But, on the other hand, if they found on going through the whole of the criminal statutes from Magna Charta downwards, that by patience, perseverance, and determined application these difficulties were not insuperable, they should be justified in stating that circumstance to the House; and if they were afterwards able to consolidate the whole criminal statute law of the realm, the same means by which that result had been attained might be applied to the consolidation of other branches of the statute law. Accordingly, during the last year, they proceeded to consolidate the whole of the criminal statute law. It was true, as the hon. Gentleman had said, the Bills they had prepared as the result of their labours were transmitted to Ireland, but when he said those Bills had been returned by the authorities there with observations showing the impracticability of the undertaking, the hon. Gentleman was labouring under a misapprehension. It was found, however, that the criminal statute law of Ireland differed so much from that of England that the two could not conveniently and at once be consolidated on the same plan, and the result had been that the task with reference to Ireland was now committed to persons perfectly competent to undertake it. There was no reason to doubt that as soon as it was determined by the proper authority, whether or not it was advisable, to propose to Parliament the repeal of such statutes as constituted a substantial difference between the law of England and that of Ireland, the consolidation of the criminal statute law of Ireland would be completed, as it was complete with respect to England. The dissolution of the late Parliament prevented the Bills being brought forward with the hope of being carried in the short Session which began within the present year, but they had now been laid on the table of the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor with some improvements, so that they were now in a fair way of being brought under the consideration of both Houses of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman had said that he could point out many errors in this consolidation of the criminal law. He wished that the hon. Gentleman had stated the nature of those errors, so that those who had the charge of the Bills might know what they were. Those Bills had been prepared during an interval of three or four years by some of the most eminent criminal lawyers at the English bar; they had been then submitted to Mr. Greaves and himself, then to Lord Wensleydale, and the late Lord Chief Justice Jervis, and had undergone a complete revision at the hands of the Lord Chancellor. Consequently the Commissioners believed that they were, at least, as free from error as a work of that kind could be expected to be, considering the nature of the undertaking and the difficulties with which it was necessarily surrounded. He believed those criminal Bills were now in a state to be passed through the House of Lords, and that when they came before the House of Commons they would receive its sanction and pass into a law. But, besides those eight Criminal Law Bills, there were ten other Bills ready to be submitted to the House, on some of the most important subjects within the compass of the law, such as the Law of Patents, the Law of Aliens, and other subjects, which he would not stop to enumerate. These also had been prepared by barristers of eminence and ability and had undergone a similar scrutiny. There was also another class of Bills now under the consideration of Vice Chancellor Page Wood. They had, in fact, independent of the Criminal Law Bills, forty-six Bills, either completed or in such a state of preparation that they hoped to submit a great part of them to Parliament during the present Session. Such, then, were the labours of the Statute Law Commission, which the hon. Gentleman was so anxious to destroy. As to the question of expense, he thought he might say the whole of this great work might be completed at less than one-half the cost which had been expended on a single ineffectual Commission in other days. He submitted that, upon a consideration of the circumstances he had stated, the Statute Law Commissioners, so far from deserving the censure which had been cast upon them, might confidently appeal to Parliament and the country for their approval.

said, this discussion had come upon the House somewhat unexpectedly. The subject was one of great importance, and he was aware of the value due to any Commission which had the assistance of the industry, capacity, and knowledge of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly); but he was afraid that the discussion, so far as it had gone, only went to prove the necessity of their acting as soon as possible on the Resolution of the House by the creation of something like a Department of Justice, whose labours would meet with the confidence and approbation of the House. When the matter was last under discussion, the late Attorney General objected to the plan of the Statute Law Commissioners, because he wanted to have a codification with consolidation. The Lord Chancellor proposed consolidation without codification, and the present Attorney General argued in favour of a plan, which he illustrated by reference to the civil law. It was true that those who laboured under Justinian accomplished in three years what they had to perform in ten; but that was a charge which would never have to be imputed to any modern reformer. He (Mr. Whiteside) had been endeavouring to understand the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend with reference to imperial legislation; for if it were intended to have one set of statutes for England, another set for Ireland, and another set for Scotland, the original evil would, in his opinion, be magnified threefold. He should certainly oppose any proposition to have a separate set of Statutes on the same subject for England and for Ireland. Having received a copy of the Statutes on the criminal law, he carried the treasure to Ireland, and on the 30th of January put it into the hands of a gentleman perfectly familiar with the statute and criminal law, with a request to be told within what time it was possible to put the Bills, which contained literal copies of old Acts, into a shape whereby the law would be really consolidated, amended, and improved. The gentleman to whom he referred, thought it could be done by the 1st of April; but, as to the Bills themselves, pronounced an unfavourable criticism. The plan seemed to him to perpetuate the evils which it was intended to cure, and only to lay the foundation for future work by collecting Acts, which were scattered up and down the Statute-book. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Whiteside) did not see there was much to be grateful to the Statute Law Commission for in the matter of expedition. The Lord Chancellor had said, that the Bills came back from Ireland an incongruous mass. He (Mr. Whiteside) did not know in what state they had been sent there; but he did know that there was no insuperable difficulty in consolidating the Irish Criminal Statute Law; and he, therefore, could never sanction a law which went to make separate sets of laws for the different parts of the same kingdom. It was a mistake to suppose that there was any insuperable difficulty in having the same law for England and for Ireland. He entirely denied that there was any great or broad difference between the criminal law of the two countries, and whatever difference there was, it might be easily adjusted. To make the same law apply to both countries was a comprehensive and imperial, while the opposite was a provincial and mistaken mode of proceeding. It was true that "conspiracy to murder" was a capital offence in Ireland and was not a capital offence in England. But why should that be so? The principle should be decided upon and the law made identical. It was understood that the Commissioners would take the criminal law first, then the law of real property, and then the mercantile law; but surely it was not intended to have a separate set of statutes as to real property and mercantile law for England and for Ireland. The Merchant Shipping Act, as a work of consolidation, was well done, and applied to the whole empire; and why should not the mercantile statute law be done in the same spirit and made to apply to the whole empire? He believed that when it came to be discussed, the House would be of opinion that it was better to have one code than three, and he should certainly oppose any other proposition.

explained that it was part of the plan, that the consolidation of the statute law should apply equally to England and Ireland, and that the reason why these Bills in the House of Lords only applied to England was, that it was left for future consideration, whether the points of difference in the law of the two countries should be permitted to remain or be extinguished; and he, therefore, hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would give them his assistance when the Bills came before them in making them applicable to Ireland.

said, he could confirm in the most distinct manner the statement of his hon. and learned Friend that the Commissioners were most anxious to have no distinctions in the statute law of England and Ireland; though there were at present important differences in the law which existed in the two kingdoms, such as the Whiteboy Acts and other special statutes, which had no reference whatever to England. Indeed, one great object of the work in hand was to get rid of the differences that existed in the legislation for the several countries. The Motion before the House was for the discontinuance of the Statute Law Commission, and, in his opinion, that discontinuance at the present moment would be a great public misfortune. His hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King) had referred to the unproductive labours of the Criminal Law Commission. He thought it only common justice to say that the Criminal Law Commission did a great deal of good. It consisted of the most eminent criminal lawyers, and they applied themselves diligently to the whole subject of the criminal law. They produced a series of the most valuable Reports, and although they did not propose any Bills which afterwards received the sanction of Parliament, every Bill on criminal subjects which had since passed had the suggestions of the Commissioners more or less incorporated in it. They took opinions upon various questions of criminal law upon which lawyers differed, they referred to the state of the law in other countries, they prepared a digest of the whole criminal law, and he thought it impossible to say that their labours had not produced great benefit. With regard to the Statute Law Commission, he believed there was now a prospect of their doing a great deal of good if their labours were not interrupted. What did Lord Brougham, a first-rate authority on this subject, say of the labours of this Commission, of which the hon. Member for Surrey spoke so disparagingly? In the debate which took place about ten days ago in another place this distinguished law reformer declared that—

"He entirely approved the course which had been taken by his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor). Great misrepresentations had been made with respect to the Statute Law Commission, and he was glad that his noble and learned Friend had described exactly what the Commissioners had done, and how far their labours of consolidation had proceeded. … The statement of the Lord Chancellor as to the value of the services of the Commissioners was by no means exaggerated, and if he were asked to mention one or two of the Commissioners who were more especially entitled to the thanks of the country, he would mention the names of Mr. Bellenden Ker, Mr. Coulson, and Sir Fitzroy Kelly."

Again, it was well known that other men, whose names carried the greatest weight, were rendering important services to the Commission. Lord Wensleydale regularly attended its proceedings, and Vice Chancellor Page Wood had also assisted in superintending many of the Bills drawn up under its direction, and so far from thinking the Commission of no use they were doing everything in their power to render its labours effectual. Seeing then the great advantage of their assistance, and the progress that had already been made in this work, no fewer than between forty and fifty Bills consolidating the law of this country on several most important subjects having either been introduced or brought to an advanced state of preparation, nothing could be more rash or injudicious than the course now recommended by the hon. Member for East Surrey. It was no doubt extremely desirable that the Resolution of the House of Commons should be carried out, and a Minister of Justice should be appointed, but until an ample opportunity had been afforded the Government for examining that question in all its bearings, and of considering the best mode of establishing another authority, to whom it might, perhaps, be found advisable to transfer the functions of the Statute Law Commissioners, he trusted the House would refuse to countenance any such Motion as that of the hon. Gentleman.

said, that he did not intend to prolong the discussion, but he wished to say a few words on the subject before the House. At the request of the Commissioners he had endeavoured to cooperate with them in regard to the improvement provement of the law of Ireland, and with that view he had, after consulting with other gentlemen in Ireland, given in a plan which was published in the Appendix to the Report. On finding, however, that his views were not adopted or his plan acted upon, he felt that he could do no good by further attendance on the Commission, and he therefore withdrew from it. While giving his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Kelly) every credit for his labours as a Commissioner, he nevertheless could not conscientiously say that he thought the Bills sent over to Ireland well adapted to the requirements of the case. In his opinion the plan that had been pursued could only end in public disappointment. It was impossible for a person so much engaged as his hon. and learned Friend in professional and Parliamentary duties to devote sufficient time to the due supervision of a work of this kind. No doubt they had many able persons anxious to carry out law reform, and who were collecting very valuable materials; but there was no one controlling mind to direct the whole. It was with this feeling that he had advocated the establishment of a Department of Justice, and he was happy to acknowledge the support he had received for this proposition from the noble Lord the Member for London. The object was not only to digest, amend, and consolidate the existing laws, but to keep our current legislation in harmony with the spirit of the times; and for this purpose they must have a responsible Minister with a separate department. The work of the Statute Law Commissioners would come properly under the surveillance of such a department. The Attorney General, he was bound to say, had directed his attention to the subject with great energy, and he (Mr. Napier) had given him every suggestion in his power. He (Mr. Napier) sincerely believed the plan would be fully considered; and he had reason to suppose that before long, a system would be constructed, under the auspices of the Attorney General, which would meet the Resolution of the House of Commons on the matter. If this were done, the working of the Statute Law Commission would come under the surveillance of that department, and the House might then reasonably calculate upon the result. In the hope that this would be speedily done, and that the labours of the Commission would be made useful, he (Mr. Napier) would recommend his hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey to rest content with the valuable discussion he had elicited, and not to press his present Motion to a division.

said, it was not his intention to prolong that discussion, but he thought the House would feel that a more unreasonable proposition than that they should cut down the tree at the very moment when it was about to bear fruit, could hardly be submitted to any assembly. Nothing could be more absurd than to expect, on a subject like this, that a plan should not only be matured, but practically executed in a short period. by a Commission which could not sit de die in diem, but was composed principally of legal functionaries, whose Other important functions so fully occupied them that they had but little time left to dedicate to this part of their duties. There was no subject on which he felt more anxious, or on which he held himself more pledged, than with regard to the undertaking entered into by the Government to carry out the formation of a Department of Public Justice. He had prepared plans with considerable care for that object, great part of which were now undergoing examination by Her Majesty's Government. He hoped that the scheme would be sufficiently matured to be made public before the end of the Session, and this was an additional reason why the hon. Member for East Surrey ought to be content to withdraw, for the present, the application which he had made to the House.

I was surprized to hear the hon. and learned Attorney General designate the proposal of the hon. Member for East Surrey as eminently absurd. When my hon. Friend brought forward this subject last year, I thought that, upon the ground just stated by the Attorney General, it was quite fair to give the Government time to proceed with this Statute Law Commission; but when I went into the lobby to support them, I saw the Attorney General of that day, now the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, go away from the division. He would not vote for the Government. Surely, then, there must be some ground for saying that the Commission is not very useful. I am still prepared to do what I did last year—namely, to give further time to the Government; but I think that the question is not in a very satisfactory position. I think that what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) has said is quite just. It is very well to have a Commission which shall prepare a consolidation of the law, but unless you have some eminent person sitting in this House who can move the Consolidation Bills, show the reasons for the different clauses, and support them, there is very little use in having such Bills laid before Parliament. We are told now, that a set of Consolidation Bills has been laid before the other House of Parliament. That may be so, but the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk must admit that, even if they pass through the other House, they cannot, at this period of the Session, come down to us in sufficient time to enable us to give them that consideration which would be necessary before we could venture to pass them. It appears to me that the use of these Commissioners is to enable persons holding the proper offices to take advantage of their learning and experience, with a view to the preparation and bringing before Parliament Bills for the amendment of the law. That was the course which I took in 1837 with regard to the amendment of the Criminal Law. When I had to propose Bills on that subject in that year, I collected the Criminal Law Commissioners at the Home Office, and sat with them several days, going through the different alterations which it was proposed to make. Part of those Bills, which made considerable alterations in the Criminal Law, are now, I believe, the law of the land. I must confess it strikes me that the Lord Chancellor has been rather premature in speaking of the speedy consolidation of the law, because, if you attempt to consolidate the law in its present state, you merely put together alt that is to be found in the different statutes, and form a mere incongruous mass, as has been remarked with regard to the attempt to consolidate some part of the statute law of Ireland. You will find, with regard to breaches of trust and fraud, that there are various Acts of Parliament, and that those who drew them had different views of the guilt of different kinds of fraud, and, having different views with respect to the same frauds, they affixed different penalties to them, and different modes of conviction. If, therefore, you bring these Acts together, you will form not only an incongruous, but a very contradictory mass. I believe that the present is the time rather for amending than consolidating the law. The House of Lords has sent to us in the present Session two Bills, which I venture to say are founded upon very sound principles, and which, I trust, with some alterations, will pass into law. They, are Bills upon two important subjects—one; being on the subject of testamentary jurisdiction, and the other on that of divorce. Two more important subjects could hardly be touched by legislation. Those Bills, I believe, were framed, not by the Statute Law Commissioners, but by the Government, and by the House of Lords, under the guidance and advice of very able and learned men—Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, Lord St. Leonards, and others who have seats in that House. There are several other subjects, the laws on which will require very large amendments before you can proceed with their consolidation. If you attempt to consolidate the laws prematurely, you will re-enact a great many things that never ought to have been enacted at all. What you have to consider is, not how to consolidate, but how to amend. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that the question as to the appointment of a Minister of Justice should be maturely considered before you adopt any particular plan. But I am convinced that some such plan should be adopted, and that, unless you have persons besides the Lord Chancellor and those gentlemen whom the Attorney General described to be occupied in other matters, and who, therefore, cannot give the time necessary for sitting de die in diem to this matter, you can never properly proceed with the work of consolidation. But, if you have a person who is to give his best faculties and his time to the consideration of law reform, I believe you will see some good fruit, whether the Statute Law Commission continues its work or not. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin will agree in what I am going to say. I very much fear that he will not. No doubt this Minister of Justice would be a considerable expense to the country: but I think we might save that expense by abolishing that useless office, the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland. That is a matter on which the Government should have full time to deliberate, but I think the time has come when such reform might be made, and I hope that a Minister of Justice will be appointed. I cannot vote for the abolition of the Statute Law Commission, but I must say that I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey had very good grounds for asking what was the use of that Commission?

Sir, I rise for the purpose of occupying the time and attention of the House for a few moments, while I make a few observations upon the award of the judges who were appointed to take into consideration the merits of the many plans sent in for the construction of the new public offices, as well as upon some of the peculiarities of those plans themselves. The want of such offices had been admitted for a long time past, and had been much complained of by the public from time to time, until at length the Government admitted the fact by coming to the determination that suitable offices should be built. But although it was a matter long talked of, it cannot be said to have been very prominently forced upon the attention of the Government until within the last two years, and it is only very recently that active steps have been taken in reference to it, by inviting competition from all nations for tenders for the undertaking. The result of that invitation we have all seen in the specifications and drawings that have been sent in; so that it may be said that we have now arrived at that stage of progress in the undertaking, when it becomes imperatively necessary to pause, and weigh well and maturely and deliberately the next step, ere it be too late; for once the final step be taken, the Government may find themselves plunged headlong into an undertaking, the vastness of which it is scarce possible to comprehend, and which must necessarily entail upon the country for many years to come, a most enormous expenditure of the public money. I believe that all, or nearly all, the public newspapers in this kingdom have given publicity to the result of the deliberations of the judges, and have sent forth to the world, the award they have made; at least I saw it in several of the newspapers published yesterday. Now, it is no part of my object to find fault with that award, and I had no intention whatever of doing so when I rose to address the House on this subject; on the contrary, I am of opinion that the judges have shown that they well deserve the high opinion entertained of them by the public for their distinguished abilities, and I am convinced that this House and the public at large will agree with me, that these gentlemen have most ably and conscientiously discharged the very onerous, difficult, and delicate duty they had undertaken. It is, therefore, not without considerable regret, that I feel compelled to say, that although those gentlemen have evinced the exercise of no inconsiderable amount of taste, as well as skill, capacity and strict impartiality; yet, as a matter of taste, that I do not entirely concur with them. But, if I have the misfortune to differ from those gentlemen upon that head, it can only be attributed to the fact that a great deal too much haste has been evinced in the manner in which the final proceeding has been hurried forward, to the many difficulties which this precipitation throws in the way of their coming to conclusions which they expected would prove satisfactory to the House and to the public, as well as to the many competitors who had sent in plans and drawings. Her Majesty's Government are deserving of much credit for the course they have adopted in throwing open the tenders to foreign competitors, a course which has resulted in the judges having awarded one of the principal prizes to a Frenchman, a fact which speaks volumes for the honesty and impartiality of the judges, and must satisfy our neighbours that they can have justice and impartiality from English gentlemen, who can duly appreciate real merit and talent, come from what quarter of the world it may. But now with regard to the details of the manner in which it has been proposed to have these buildings disposed. It has been seen that the determination come to is, that these extensive public offices are to consist of various large blocks of buildings, each block to be separate and distinct in itself; and for this purpose, three different sets of prizes in the first place were proposed, for the Foreign Office, the War Office, am the general block plan. Now, I should like to know upon what grounds that determination has been arrived at. I am at a loss to understand it, inasmuch as it will have the effect of preventing the buildings being built upon one uniform plan and thus, there will be no such thing as uniformity or harmony of plan or design. In order to illustrate, this I will call the attention of the House to the first prize for the building proposed to be occupied as the Foreign Office, and also to that for the War Office, both of which, I assume, are to be erected according to the dispositions of that block plan which has received the first prize in its department. This block plan emanated from a Frenchman, and he being a Frenchman, naturally enough, was desirous of introducing the internal plan of the Tuilleries and Louvre, which, as we all know, is an oblong court, crossed in its breadth by one of the main thoroughfares of Paris. He has, therefore, ingeniously planned a similar oblong court, extending from St. James's Park to the River Thames, while Parliament Street, as a street, disappears in this plan, and is reproduced merely as a line of way across. This is a bold and ingenious design, and perhaps under the limited conditions of the competition, it was the best that could be adopted. But when I come to the other designs, I find that their architects have fallen upon a common-place conception; namely, square masses of building, preserving more or less existing lines of street, and with nothing like the great court-yard embraced by the Louvre. Now, how are these masses of building to be accommodated to the block plan? Are the three architects to be turned into a Commission, something like that we have just heard of, though not with a Bellenden Ker at its head, in order to consolidate their designs? Who is to be the judge on this subject? The great mistake is not in deciding too soon upon rebuilding the public offices, but in commencing in a hurry the execution of this scheme. Our architects were called into the competition, not to work upon preconceived ideas, but to give ideas to their employers. The settlement of the block plan ought to have been a matter of the most mature consideration, and the highest architectural and engineering talent throughout the country ought to have been brought to bear upon it before it was decided upon. Instead of this, the matter was referred to a Committee of this House, on whose Report alone a particular block of houses was fixed upon as the absolute area within which the public offices were to be circumscribed. Three distinct schedules of prizes were then propounded, and it is a remarkable fact, that though most of the competitors went into the competition for all three branches—block plan, Foreign Office, and War Office—yet, in no single instance, has one man carried off more than one prize. The gentleman who has been declared by the judges to be the successful competitor for the War Office, sent in a design also for the Foreign Office; and it is somewhat curious to observe, that those two designs closely resembled each other; and yet when his design for the Foreign Office was compared with that of the gentleman who has been declared the successful candidate, the latter carried away the prize so successfully, that the design of the former gentleman for the Foreign Office was "nowhere." In fact, with respect to those two designs from the same individual, they may well be compared to the Siamese twins, having undergone the operation of being dissevered. In the case, again, of one of the minor prizes for the War Office, that prize was carried away by a gentleman, whose elevation for the Foreign Office, though absolutely related with the other, was rejected. Hence will arise many of the peculiarities and complexities which are sure to be found attached to such a complicated competition, although thrown open to the talent and genius of foreign nations. Now, with all these facts before us, I think the House will agree with me, that there ought to have been either a commission or a preliminary competition, at which the block plans should have been arranged; information ought to have been sought from architects, engineers, and amateurs, at home and abroad; a great imperial plan ought to have been insisted upon, and every advantage ought to have been taken of an opportunity which may never again recur. When all the conditions had been arranged, then one range of buildings should have been decided on all massed together under a single roof. There ought to have been one competition for all the public offices, while the successful design might have been carried out as the funds were forthcoming and opportunities presented themselves, and so we should have been released from the complication which must occur before long in respect to the difference between the block plan and those for the offices. Another mistake has been committed, which will prevent the complete success of this great undertaking. We are in possession of perhaps the most magnificent range of park land which any city in the world could boast of within its limits. There may be finer parks at Vienna and elsewhere; but for extent of sylvan scenery and exercise ground, and for amount of pure air in the heart of the metropolis, London is unequalled. Beginning with Kensington Gardens, you come next to Hyde Park; the open ground is resumed at the Green Park; the Palace-gardens may, as regards the fresh air they afford, be included, and then the range terminates with St. James's Park. Well then, following up this line of route, this last-named park brings you within, I may say, a few yards of the Thames. Then we arrive at a point which, under any other circumstances, would afford a grand and most varied and beautiful perspective following the course of the river, just at that curve in its course which gives on one side the fullest view of St. Paul's, as well as the countless spires of the city churches, and on the other of Westminster Abbey and the new Houses of Parliament. But all this splendid perspective is utterly lost from the extensive masses of those most squalid, wretched, and tottering buildings which offend the eye in the vicinity of St. James's Park. It would be extremely desirable that all this lumber should be removed, and that the park should be continued down to the river side, and that thus an improvement worthy of the age—worthy of this great and wealthy metropolis and of the country should be effected. And what, let me ask, is to prevent it? There is at present a Bill on the table providing for the purchase by the nation of this very block of houses, but it is proposed to devote the land on which they stand, not to the improvements I have mentioned, but to the rebuilding of the public offices, which, if finished, will for ever shut out the Thames from the parks. Why should this House give its sanction to such a proceeding as that? Is there no plot of ground now unoccupied on which these offices could be planted? I believe there is. The Parade behind the Horse Guards is a spot for which probably no one would claim any particular beauty or utility. I say, then, that if the Parade and the Horse Guards, and the Admiralty, were taken down, there might be laid out with little difficulty a piece of ground approximating to eight acres in area, 750 feet in length, and 400 in width, on which the whole offices might be reared. They would stand in that position isolated and magnificent, and then the site of the block of houses I have spoken of could be appropriated as garden-ground that would stretch to the water side. Into this of course would be thrown the garden opposite Palace Yard and the Abbey Yard, and thus there would be an open space of something like twenty-four acres, bounded on one side by the river, while isolated in the middle would stand the public offices, and further to the north the new National Gallery. If, however, these offices are built where the Government proposes, they will cut off everything from everything for ever. The parks will never reach the water side, the new National Gallery will be intercepted from the Houses of Parliament, the public offices will be crowded in, and the proposed embankment of the Thames will be deprived of what would be its noblest establishment. I am sorry to see that the competitors were limited in their plans to buildings of three stories. This height is, I know, in favour with speculative builders in the streets ramblingly distributed by them over new districts, but men of taste have learnt to discard it in their private houses; and yet it is to be perpetuated in what ought to be the most magnificent building of the age. I have already said that the present is an opportunity which may never occur again, and therefore I entreat of the House to bear in mind that important fact, and not to lose sight of it; for, once lost, it never can again be taken advantage of. Now is the time for the House to decide, whether this shall or shall not involve and decide the question of the future architectural beauty and magnificence of London—whether our parks shall be made the marvel of the world, the most magnificent specimens of landscape gardening ever known, or whether they shall remain patchy and blotchy, and cut off from the noble river which on one side might bound them. But I may perhaps be met by the argument of cui bono,—I may be asked, "Why do all this? I meet that by asking the House, Will it sacrifice such an opportunity as now is offered of making these vast and magnificent improvements in this part of the metropolis, and rush hastily and headlong into the adoption of plans and suggestions which have been as hastily acted upon up to a certain point, and which are in themselves exceedingly crude and ill-digested. I pray for a little consideration, a little pause, and I am satisfied that all the good results naturally to be anticipated by the competition which was a noble idea in itself, may be realized. With respect to the style, I will only say that it would be a vast pity if regard were not had to unity of design with Westminster Abbey and the Palace of Westminster. I am aware that the Gothic style is not very popular at present in this House, on account of the expense which has attended the construction of the building in which we are now assembled; but much of that expense is attributable to the selection of an impure style of Gothic architecture, and to the absence of a proper system of contracts, especially in the earlier stages of the work, as the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Public Works pointed out the other night. In conclusion, then, I again entreat the House to pause while there is yet time, and consider this question well, ere the too common error be fallen into, of mistaking outward ornament and mere tinsel, for real architectural grace and beauty, and therefore I do trust that the House will not come to any final conclusion upon the site and the style of architecture of these new and vast public offices, until the whole subject has been more fully and maturely discussed.

said that, having received the Report of the judges on Monday evening, he had presented it on Tuesday to the House, and he thought that it would have been better if his hon. Friend had deferred his observations until that Report, which was now in the printer's hands, had been circulated among hon. Members. When the scheme of a competition was first devised a number of architects and other gentlemen waited upon and requested that he would name a mixed Commission to decide upon the designs, and he determined, therefore, with the consent of the Government, that the Commission should consist of seven gentlemen—one Member of the House of Peers, one Member of the House of Commons, Viscount Eversley, so long Speaker of the House of Commons, and four gentlemen connected with scientific societies. The judges who were selected were the Duke of Buccleuch, from the House of Lords; Mr. Stirling, the hon. Member for Perthshire, from the House of Commons; Viscount Eversley, the late Speaker; Earl Stanhope, the President of the Society of British Antiquaries; Mr. Brunel, as the representative of the civil engineers; Mr. David Roberts, of the Royal Academy; and Mr. Burn, to represent the architects; and he had never heard a single objection raised to the composition of that tribunal. In consequence of pressing business the Duke of Buccleuch was obliged to leave London for Scotland, and was unable to attend after the first meeting, and they all knew the sad event which had prevented Viscount Eversley from attending of late; but he had received a letter from his noble Friend, in which he stated that he entirely concurred in the selection which had been made of the block plan, and of the designs for the War Office and for the Foreign Department. So far as the first prizes were concerned; and he was happy to state that the other judges had been unanimous in all the designs which they had subsequently selected. He would now state the course which he proposed to take in reference to those designs. A great number of models had been sent in for the Wellington Monument—already fifty had been received from British artists, and nearly forty from foreign artists. He proposed, as soon as those models could be set up, that they should be exhibited in the interior of Westminster-hall, and that on the existing hoarding should be affixed the designs which had been selected for the block plan, for the War Department, and for the Foreign Office. It would be very inexpedient to come to any conclusion as to the relative merits of those plans until the House and the public had had an opportunity of inspecting and considering them. He was aware that his hon. Friend took a different view, perhaps a more intelligent view, than he (Sir Benjamin Hall), considering the duties of his office, could venture to submit to Parliament. He agreed with his hon. Friend that, if all the intervening buildings between the Park and the Thames were removed, one of the most splendid sites in the world would be obtained; but, looking at the House of Commons, and at the vote come to the other night, he did not think that he should meet with much success if he were to propose such a scheme as that, which would add at least £1,000,000 or £l,500,000 to the plan already contemplated. He had therefore contented himself with taking a very small proportion of the ground proposed to be taken by his hon. Friend, and he hoped that there would be no objection to that; at all events, that which he would propose would not only be part of an ultimate whole, and would not interfere with the plan for throwing open the view to the Thames. If it should be the pleasure of the House that there should be two new offices erected, as there really ought to be, for the benefit of the public service—namely, one for the War Office, and another for the Foreign Office; and if they should not disapprove the plans which had been selected by the judges, he would endeavour during the recess to make the plans as perfect as possible with regard to the interior arrangements. He would have drawings prepared in conformity with those interior alterations, he would have the quantities also taken out, and he would place the drawings and the quantities in the hands of a limited number of the most eminent builders in the kingdom. Tenders would then be sent in, and he hoped that he should be able to state to Parliament what would be the entire ultimate cost of those erections. Indeed, if those preliminary steps were taken, he saw no reason why a person in his position should not be able to give something like a guarantee to the House that the buildings should be completed for a sum named, with such trifling addition for contingencies, as was always allowed. That was the course which he proposed to pursue, and he hoped that it would meet with the approval of the House.

was anxious to ask the Secretary for the Treasury when the Vote for harbours of refuge (No. 1) would be proceeded with? He had expected it to be proposed to-night, and he now found that other Votes stood for consideration.

said, that the first Vote which would be considered was in connection with the British Museum, If time permitted, the Vote to which the hon. Member referred would come on in the course of the night.

said, that he would suggest that in addition to the drawings about to be exhibited, there should also be models of the proposed new buildings made to a certain scale. The public would thus be better enabled to judge of the nature and correctness of the designs which had been approved.

observed, that the right hon. Baronet had not stated the intentions of the Government with respect to the site of Westminster-bridge, and the alterations to be made in conformity with some general plan.

said, that what he stated some time ago was that, after receiving the award of the judges on the plans for public offices, he would take into consideration what should be done with Westminster-bridge. He had only received the award little more than forty-eight hours ago, and therefore he could not yet state positively what should be done with respect to the matters referred to by the hon. Member, but he hoped to be able to do so before long.

said, he wished to say a few words on a subject cognate with that which had been brought under the consideration of the House. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. B. Hope) had spoken with great ability on the importance of throwing open the Thames to the park. No doubt that was very desirable, if it could be done, but before the Thames could be thrown open to the park with any advantage, comfort, or decency, they must, first purify it. It was impossible, in his opinion, for any man to speak in terms sufficiently strong of the abominations by which the river was at present polluted. The Thames might be made a great object of beauty in the metropolis; while it certainly was a great highway, an enormous amount of traffic passing daily along it between the city and the west end; and he had been in the habit of going to and from the city in steamboats. He should do so no longer, for in the present state of the Thames it was impossible for any man who had any regard for his comfort or nose, or for his health, to be upon the river. He was satisfied that its condition must be injurious to the public health. He came up it the other day—it was a hot day—and the river emitted throughout its whole course, and not merely where the drains ran into it, a most abominable stench, which was so much increased, as the steamboat ploughed up the water, as to become quite unsupportable. He had made up his mind never to travel in that way again. During the hot weather last year the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Rich) was made seriously ill by one single voyage between Westminster and the city. It was a scandal that this magnificent river should be converted into an open sewer, poisoning the health of the population. If the cholera were to visit the shores of the Thames the most serious results must be apprehended, and he therefore thought that no amount of expense ought to be spared to restore the Thames to its pristine purity, and he earnestly hoped that his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works would take the earliest and most effective measures for the attainment of that important object.

remarked, that he thought it well that public attention had been called to this subject. He was anxious to know how soon the plans submitted by the Metropolitan Board of Works to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Benjamin Hall) would be returned, and the Board enabled to proceed with the purification of the Thames.

said, that public attention had long been anxiously directed to this subject, and it would be very satisfactory to know what was being done with the designs for the improvement of the river. He entirely concurred in the observations which had just fallen from the hon. Gentleman respecting the state of the Thames.

said, under the Metropolis Act of 1855 the Metropolitan Board of Works were diverting the sewerage from the Thames, and might, if they pleased, intercept sewers on each side of the river. They were bound to submit the plans to the First Commissioner of Works for his approval. He had received those plans at the close of last year, and referred them to three eminent engineers, Captain Galton, Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Blackwell, one of whom he saw a few days ago, and was told that they had gone thoroughly into the case, and hoped to be able to submit the plans to him in a fortnight, with such alterations as they deemed necessary. As soon as he received them, he should forward them with the Report to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and perhaps it might be convenient that a copy of that Report should be laid on the table of the House, in order that the House might see how the Act of 1855 was likely to be carried out, and what the great scheme was which was submitted to the Government by the three Commissioners.

said, he must complain that the House was not earlier in possession of the way in which the Government proposed to move the Estimates.

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Beresford Hope) had suggested what should be done in the way of improvement on the Westminster side of the river, and he begged to suggest something in the way of improvement on the other side. Every one must admit that the buildings opposite the New Palace at Westminster were most unsightly, and, as a new bridge was to be built, he suggested that an endeavour should be made by the Government to obtain possession of those buildings on the opposite side of the river, for the ground there would become exceedingly valuable when the Westminster side was thoroughly improved. If a good class of houses were built there by the Government, they might be found an excellent speculation, and serve to pay part of the expenses of the buildings on the Westminster side.

inquired where the money to purchase the buildings was to come from.

said, that in compliance with the annual practice, he came forward, as one of the trustees of the British Museum, to submit this Vote to the Committee. The sum now required for the Museum was £46,400, which, added to the Vote of last Session, would make the total expenditure this year amount to £66,400, being an increase of £6,400 on the sum voted for the same purpose last year. He could, if necessary, point out the various items in which the increase took place, but he thought the Committee would be satisfied if he merely called attention to the different heads of expenditure; on the first head, "salaries," there was an increase of £4,380; on the second, "house expenses," there was an increase of £600. On the third head, "purchase and acquisition," the increase was £4,690; under the head of printing catalogues the increase was only £50. On the fourth head, "bookbinding, cabinets," &c., there was a decrease, £3,165; and a decrease of £100 in the miscellaneous charges, making the net increase £6,400, as he had stated. The great increase in the item of salaries was owing to the increase of the Museum and the opening of the New Reading Room. The Committee was aware, that some time back, after much discussion and consideration, a sum of £150,000 was voted for the purpose of increasing the space for the library, and giving sufficient room to students; in pursuance of that Vote a building of great beauty and magnificence had been erected; the dome exceeded that of St. Peter's in diameter by one foot. A matter, however, of even more importance than its beauty was the great amount of convenience it afforded, and he thought it would be found most commodious by all persons frequenting the library for purposes of study and literary research. It contained tables, along which ample space was allotted to 300 persons, and on the shelves around it were arranged 800,000 volumes. Those shelves were altogether not less than twenty-five miles in length. Upwards of 10,000 volumes had been added to the library last year, and up to the present period of this year 3,000 more volumes had been received under the Copyright Act than during the corresponding portion of the year preceding. The Committee would see, therefore, that the money which was now asked for, was asked for to keep up a library which was at present one of the most considerable in Europe; and he believed that for purposes of study it was superior to any in the world. Great additions had also been made of late years to the collections in the Museum, in the shape of objects in Natural History, and Assyrian, Greek, and Roman Antiquities. A question had been raised as to whether so many different objects ought to be deposited in one building. That was not, however, a point which the trustees of the Museum had to decide. Their business was merely to see that the general management of the establishment was properly conducted, and to see that the collections entrusted to their care were as accessible as possible; and as it appeared that 360,000 persons during the past year had visited the Museum while a considerable number had attended the reading rooms, he thought that these facts showed that it must have been productive of much pleasure and instruction to the public. There was another question with which the trustees had nothing to do, but which had frequently been discussed; and that was, whether the Museum should be opened on the Sundays. That was a matter which the House only could decide; and last year they had by a great majority resolved that it should not be opened on those days. The trustees had, therefore, only to see that that Resolution was carried into effect. He should also state, that the Museum was very much increased by the additions which were gratuitously made to it from time to time. The late Sir William Temple, for instance, our ambassador at Naples, and a man of great taste and intelligence, had left to the Museum a large mass of Greek and Roman antiquities, which he had peculiar facilities of collecting. Some complaints were put forward last year, that the subordinate officers of the Museum were not paid as well as persons holding similar situations in other public and private establishments. The trustees had, in consequence, asked the Lords of the Treasury, to send certain gentlemen to the Museum to inquire into that subject. Those gentlemen had made that inquiry, and would, he believed, before long make their Report, and as soon as it should have been produced, the House would be made acquainted with the steps which it might be proposed should be taken in the matter. For the present the trustees felt compelled to pay the officers of the establishment at the rates which had hitherto prevailed. He believed that he need not trespass any further on the time of the Committee; but if any explanation should be required of him with respect to matters of detail, he should be ready to afford hon. Members all the information in his power. In conclusion, he had to move the adoption of the Vote.

said that he found every year large balances to the credit of the Museum, and he wished to know whether those balances remained in the Exchequer or whether they were drawn out and placed in the hands of a private banker. He wished also to call attention to a complaint which was made of the number of days—only three—upon which the Museum was open during the week. For his own part, he considered that it might be kept open five days, and for a longer time during each day. The people paid a large sum towards this establishment, and greater facilities ought to be given to them to visit it.

said, that he observed an item of £5,000 for gilding the dome of the new reading room. Now, he considered that that was an unnecessary piece of expenditure, and he should, take the sense of the Committee upon it.

said, he would admit that great accommodation was now afforded to students, but unless something more was done a large number of persons would be deprived of the benefits of the institution, as there were many persons of high distinction In literature who could not bring themselves to study in a public room. Under the former arrangement no accommodation was provided for such persons, but he hoped that the trustees would now take such steps as would afford the requisite conveniences for at least a small number of these persons; in every foreign country these conveniences were provided. He had still to complain that no arrangements were made for lending out books at this or any other of our public libraries.

said, it would be recollected that he had on a previous evening called the attention of the House, when a discussion had been going on with regard to the new building at Brompton, to the fact that the working classes of the Metropolis justly complained of being deprived of any facility for visiting the British Museum or National Gallery in consequence of Sunday being their only day for recreation, and those buildings being closed on that day. On that occasion the right hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) stated that the convenience of the working classes had been consulted to some extent in the case of the Brompton exhibition, inasmuch as the public had access to it during three evenings of the week. He (Mr. Locke) did not see why the rule adopted with regard to the Brompton exhibition should not be applied to the British Museum. Objections had been made to opening the library of the Museum in the evening, but there could be no doubt if that department of the institution were accessible in the evening it would be visited by thousands who had now no opportunity of availing themselves of the contents of the library. Indeed, under the existing regulations, almost the only class to whom the library was useful were persons engaged in literary occupations, who were able to spend their time there during the day. He saw no reason, however, why the collections of sculpture, mineralogy, and the other general departments of the Museum should not be opened to the public on certain evenings during the week. But if this alone were done it would be no great boon to open it to the working classes when they were exhausted by the toils of the day. To give them the full benefit of the institution, he thought that the Museum might with great propriety be opened on Sunday after the hours of divine service. It had been said that if this course were adopted the attendance of many of the officers of the Museum would be necessary on Sunday; but he had been informed by a gentleman engaged in the Museum that if the institution were opened on Sunday it would not be necessary to employ more than twenty of the servants, and this, it must be remembered, only after the hours of divine service. At present the only national establishments accessible to the poorer classes on Sunday were Hampton Court Palace and Kew Gardens. Those places, in consequence of their distance from London, could not be reached without some expense, and a great number of persons were necessarily employed on the railway and steamboats to facilitate the conveyance of visitors. He (Mr. Locke) believed that if the British Museum and the National Gallery were opened on Sundays the result would be to reduce the number of visitors to Hampton Court and Kew, and to lead to the diminution of Sunday labour by enabling the railway and steamboat companies to dispense with the services of many of their servants who were now employed on that day. He had considered it to be his duty to bring this matter before the Committee in the presence of the noble Lord the Member for London, who had moved the Estimate, and he felt quite sure that, if the noble Lord would take it into his consideration, and would arrive at the conclusion he had pointed out, a great step in advance would be made.

said, he had always voted against the opening of the British Museum on Sundays, and would continue to do so, but he would urge the Trustees to render the institution accessible to the working classes on some week day evenings. In the county he represented (Staffordshire) an exhibition of works of art and science which had been opened in the evening had been visited by 25,000 persons, principally of the working classes, and, much to their credit, no mischief had been done to any of the objects exhibited. He would also suggest that the prints, etchings, and drawings in the Museum, which were now kept in portfolios and could only be inspected by special order, should be rendered more accessible to the public. In the Louvre the drawings of ancient masters were framed, glazed, and exhibited in a suite of apartments devoted to the purpose; and he thought that, with a view to the improvement of the popular taste, the Trustees of the British Museum should exhibit to the public the valuable collection of prints and drawings in their possession. If room could not be found in the Museum, he did not see why that portion of the National Gallery, which was at present occupied by the Royal Academy, should not be devoted to the purpose. He was informed that there were, in the mineralogical department of the British Museum many duplicate specimens which, he would suggest, might with great advantage be lent to provincial scientific institutions.

observed, that if the Museum were opened on. Sundays, he would recommend the trustees to engage as attendants on that day members of the Jewish persuasion. This arrangement would enable them to overcome one of the difficulties which presented itself. He thought it ought to be opened on week-day evenings, and also after the hours of divine service on Sundays. Why could not the Museum be opened on week-day evenings between the hours of eight and ten, when the working classes would have an opportunity of visiting the institution?

asked, whether it might not be possible to open the Museum to the public on Saturday afternoons. Some hon. Gentlemen did not seem to be aware that last year the House of Commons, by an overwhelming majority—something like six to one—determined that the British Museum should not be opened on Sunday. If any hon. Members were desirous that that decision should be reversed, the proper course, in his opinion, would be to bring forward a specific Motion on the subject, and then the views of the new House of Commons on this very important question might be ascertained. He thought, however, that the present was not a fitting occasion for the discussion of a question in which the nation took so deep an interest.

said, that he was decidedly in favour of the working classes having a fair opportunity on week days to view works of art, and he believed that if people laboured only fifty-five instead of sixty hours in the week, and occupied the remaining five hours in contemplating the works of art and nature stored in our national collections, they would feel the benefit of such a course during the whole of their working hours: without going into the theological arguments, therefore, be should oppose any proposition which, by opening the British Museum on Sunday, was likely to check the movement in favour of a Saturday half-holiday, which was going on in the metropolis and other large towns.

said, he could see no reason why the British Museum should not be opened at least five days in the week. With respect to the Sunday, he entertained a strong opinion that it was one of the greatest blessings to the working population of this country that Sunday was entirely consecrated. He was quite satisfied that those who had the interest of the working classes most deeply at heart were most anxious carefully to preserve for them that blessing of a hallowed Sunday which scarcely any other country in the world possessed.

observed, that a great deal had been said about opening the British Museum upon Sundays, but for his part he should like first to see it open every day in the week. Granting that it required time for cleaning, he thought that the building need not be entirely closed for that, as the public might be admitted to one part while the other was closed, which, as it took considerably more than one day to view, would form a matter of very little importance; and he would say the same of the National Gallery. He thought, also, that if the designs of models now being exhibited in Westminster Hall were shown in the British Museum, it would form an additional attraction, while at the same time it would relieve the former building, and thus obviate the inconvenience they all had experienced of late.

remarked, that he would remind the House that it would be quite time enough to discuss the question of Saturday half-holidays when they found the employers willing to pay a whole day's wage for half a day's work. At present the workman in many instances considered it an absolute injury to him, reducing as it did his scanty earnings. With regard to the desecration of the Sabbath, that was a question upon which many different opinions prevailed, and it was past his comprehension how the contemplation of all the wonders of nature and art in the British Museum on a Sunday could be deemed a desecration of the Sabbath. The Nineveh marbles alone afforded a better commentary on that book which they all revered, than many a written one he had seen or heard read. He certainly thought religion would be benefited by permitting the people to visit such places on a Sunday. He would remind the House that Saturday was the Sabbath, and not Sunday; and for his part, when he spoke of the Sabbath, he spoke as a Christian, and not as a Jew.

observed, that he considered it would be introducing the thin end of the wedge for the establishment of Sunday labour, and if ever that was established, workmen would not get one farthing more for working seven days a week than they now did for six.

said, that he also should be glad to see the Museum opened on weekday evenings. With reference to the question of opening it on Sundays, he thought that was one of national interest; for if it were opened on that day he saw no reason why the public should not be also admitted to all other institutions of a similar character, both in London and the provinces. There was, however, a deep national feeling for the religious observance of that day, and he was sure that the people of this country would never consent to the public money being given to these institutions if they were opened on Sundays. This, moreover, was a subject of too great importance to be discussed on a Vote of the kind then before the House, and whenever the question came forward in a proper manner he should record his vote against it.

said, that in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) he would observe that the grants for general education and for education in the fine arts, which had been increasing from year to year, were based on the principle that skilled labour was more valuable that unskilled; and it was, therefore, his belief that if the working classes got a half-holiday on Saturday their skill would, in consequence of the education which they would thus be able to obtain, be so much increased that they would soon be as well paid for fifty-five hours per week as they now were for sixty.

said, he rose to reply to the questions which had been put to him. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had asked how it was that there were every year such large balances to the credit of the Museum, and whether these balances were placed in the hands of its banker. The answer was that those balances were always left in the Bank of England, where the Museum had a separate account; and they were necessary, in order to enable the trustees to continue their current payments during the interval which elapsed between the end of the financial year and the time when the Votes of that House were agreed to. These balances, however, were not more than was generally required for that purpose. Several hon. Gentlemen had advocated the opening of the Museum on days and times when it now was not open. Let him, before replying to those hon. Gentlemen, state when it was open. The Museum was open to every one on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and to artists and those who wished to study and make copies of works of art, on Thursdays and Saturdays. During the summer months it was also open to the public on Saturday afternoons. The reading-room was open to persons having orders of admission from ten till five o'clock in winter, and from nine till six in summer. When it was proposed to open the Museum an additional number of hours and days they had to consider the convenience and utility of the Museum to various persons who went there for different purposes. After the discussion which took place on this subject in that House last year he (Lord John Russell), being then one of the junior trustees of the Museum, placed before the Standing Committee the proposals which had been urged with regard to the days on which the trustees might on their own authority open the institution to the public. But they were of opinion that if the Museum were open to the public on Tuesdays and Thursdays considerable inconvenience would result to persons who were in the habit of attending it for the study of art. He desired also that the opinion of the officers of the Museum connected with the art department might be taken upon that point, and they likewise coincided with the trustees. The trustees then considered the proposition made last year by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), that the Museum should be open in the evenings; but they were of opinion that there would be such great danger of fire to the contents of the building, which were so extremely valuable, from such an arrangement, that they did not feel themselves justified in acceding to it. And with respect to the number of days on which it should be open, he must express the great doubts which he felt, whether the persons who were unable to visit the Museum on a Monday, Wednesday, or Friday, could find the means to do so on any other weekday. Then came the question which had been opened in the course of this discussion—namely, as to the opening of the Museum on Sundays. With regard to which, the trustees felt that, after the decision of the House last Session, they had no right to entertain it. He was not going to give any opinion on that subject at present. It was quite competent to any hon. Member to introduce the question, but if it was to be regularly decided, it must, he thought, be upon a separate Motion. He was entirely satisfied with the reasons given by his noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury last year against the opening of the British Museum on Sunday. He voted as a Member of that House against its being opened on that day; but the question might be again considered by the House when any hon. Member chose to bring it forward. Then his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Milnes) thought it very hard that persons who wished to study privately at the Museum should not have separate rooms and accommodation expressly provided for them. But his hon. Friend would see that it would be extremely difficult for the trustees or the principal librarian to decide who the persons were who ought to be admitted to such a privilege. There were certainly persons in this country and in this metropolis of great literary fame; but he could understand that if the trustees attempted to draw a line the persons immediately below that line would consider themselves very much aggrieved. He (Lord John Russell) admitted it was an inconvenience to exclude persons from the benefit of private study; but if the general rule was left as it was at present at the Museum, that no such facility should be granted, the trustees would give less cause of offence to the great body of literary men frequenting the institution than by drawing an invidious distinction such as had been suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract. With regard to the gilded dome, he must observe the trustees were not responsible for it. When the suggestion was made by certain persons, the architect was first consulted, before the gilding was undertaken, and he gave it as his opinion that it would be a great improvement, and would materially enhance the beauty of the building. But before the expense was incurred he (Lord John Russell) advised that the architect should go to the Treasury and consult the authorities there upon the subject. He did not think it was a question for the trustees. The Treasury listened to the representation of the architect, and certainly the result had been very much to heighten the effects of the structure. Whether they had not gone to an excess in that respect, so as to make the beauty of the building too much an object of interest to persons who resorted there for the purposes of study, was a different question, on which some doubt might be entertained; but all those who had seen the new reading-room must have been convinced, not only that it was extremely handsome, but also extremely convenient and commodious, and great credit was due, in connection with it, in the first place, to Mr.Panizzi, the principal librarian, who was the first to suggest the erection of a building on so magnificent a scale; next, to Mr. Smirke, the architect, who formed the design; and, in the third place, to Messrs. Baker and Fielder, the contractors, who carried out the design and executed the details. He would only add that it was the wish of the trustees generally—amongst whom was now included the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) and who paid great attention to this subject—to make this great national institution as useful as they could in every respect to the public. There was certainly the difficulty with respect to the working classes; but he hoped in some way or other they might have the advantage of seeing the building; for if the trustees could make the institution more accessible to that class of the population they would have the opportunity of studying the works of the Creator and of art with which it was stored, with, it was to be hoped, the happiest results to themselves.

said, he wished to remind the Committee that a great public institution like this was supported out of the taxation of the country, and intended to aid in cultivating the minds of the great mass of the people. While, therefore, he concurred in the opinion that every public institution should be open to the greatest extent on week days, he was at the same time of opinion with other hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the Committee that the Sabbath should be set apart for other duties. With regard to the alleged danger of lighting up such a building at night so as to make it accessible to the working classes after the hours of labour, he confessed he saw no cause for apprehension on that score, provided the edifice was lighted from the roof, on the same principle on which the House in which they were assembled was lighted. It was very desirable, he thought, that foreigners and persons who came up from the country should be able to obtain admission at all times.

said, when this grant was under discussion in the last Parliament, exception was taken to the appointment of a secretary and of a travelling agent. He now wished to call the attention of the Committee to the same subject. Last year a Member of the House moved that the Estimate be reduced by the amount of the travelling agent's salary and his travelling expenses, which amounted together to about £1,000. A Committee of that House, which sat in 1853, recommended the appointment of a director, and that he should receive a handsome salary, but they made no such recommendation with regard to the appointment of a secretary. But now the House of Commons was asked to vote £750 for the salary of a secretary— a very excessive sum considering the duties. With a thoroughly efficient director a secretary could not have much to do beyond answering the letters about current business and the purchase of pictures, and attending the meetings of the trustees, and certainly £750 was rather an extravagant salary for this. It might be said by the Secretary for the Treasury that he had a great deal to do, that he had arranged the Turner pictures, for instance. So he had, but Mr. Ruskin, who took as great an interest in Turner as any man, had offered to perform that duty gratuitously, and no doubt he would have done it quite as well. The Secretary for the Treasury would also say that he had to compile a catalogue, but that could not be very hard work, inasmuch as previous to the new constitution a catalogue was in existence, drawn up by this same gentleman, and the purchases made since were comparatively trifling. Mr. Murray, or Mr. Longman, or any other publisher for £750 down would engage to get up as good a catalogue as any one could want. Considering how long the clerks in the public offices had to work before they got £750 a year—twenty or twenty-five years on an average—and considering how many of our hard-working clergymen were living on salaries far less—this was rather too much to pay for a secretary, and he should move to reduce the Vote to what he thought a very ample amount, namely, £500. Next came the Vote for the travelling agent. This, too, was an appointment not recommended by the Committee, and which had taken the House rather by surprise. It was discussed last year, and an attempt was made to get rid of it, but the proposition was rejected, and he then pledged himself to renew the discussion this year. This travelling agent was appointed at the instance of the director, who was most anxious about him, and, in fact, made his appointment an ultimatum, without the concession of which he would not accept office himself. He expressed great confidence in this gentleman's judgment; but at the same time great diffidence, it was said, in his own. The appointment, he contended, was vicious in theory, and had worked ill in practice. In the first place, he did not see how they could expect to get a trustworthy and efficient man to fill that office for £300 a year; and in the next place, it perpetuated, to a certain extent, the system of divided responsibility, while the endeavour ought to be in all these institutions to get one responsible officer. Under the old constitution there were trustees and a keeper equivalent to a director. They did not go well together, and if mistakes were made the trustees threw the blame upon the keeper, and the keeper, in his turn, threw the blame on the trustees; so in the same way now the responsibility was divided between the travelling agent and the director. Having been, in the course of the last winter, in that part of Italy which the travelling agent and the director had been exploring, he had heard, though he could not vouch for the truth of the statement, of one or two instances in which this divided responsibility had led to works, which would have been a great ornament to the gallery, not being purchased. If he asked why such and such a picture was not purchased, the answer was, "Oh, the director wanted it, and the travelling agent didn't want it," or vice versâ. They might, however, judge of the system by what had been actually done. Last year their was a great deal of discussion about the purchase of a Paul Veronese. That picture cost £1,977, and he had seen something about it in the Official Gazette of Venice, which might be presumed to be good authority, which would, perhaps, enable the Committee to form some idea of the judgment shown in that purchase. This picture came out of a church which was being restored; all the pictures were taken down, and permission was obtained from the Pope to dispose of them for the benefit of the church. The curate of the church rendered an account of what had become of these pictures, and he stated that—

"After the complete restoration of the ancient temple of Pope St. Sylvester, some of the paintings which had decorated its walls had remained out of use since 1837, and among them was Paul Veronese representing the 'Adoration of the Magi.' They were appraised by a commission appointed by the Royal Academy of Venice, and the value set on them was 11,300 Austrian livres, or about £400, and out of this sum the Paul Veronese alone was valued at 10,000 Austrian livres, or £370."

And this was the picture for which the travelling agent and the director had thought themselves justified in giving £1,977. That £370 was the full value of the picture was pretty clear from the high price which, as everybody who had been in Italy knew, the Italians, and particularly the Venetians, were in the habit of setting on their pictures. And the picture itself, so far from being in a fine state, had been much repainted. It was, in fact, what was called a "ruined picture," and £66 was paid for its restoration to one of those professors who pretended to restore but invariably destroyed. It was well known by those who took an interest in these matters that the destructions by time, damp, and neglect were as nothing when compared with the destructions of these restorers. The hon. Member for Brighton(Mr. Coningham),writing on the restorations going on in our own gallery, said, "These harpies of restorers always fly at the face;" but the harpies in this country were animals not nearly so savage in their propensities as those abroad; and, indeed, to do justice to those who had charge of our gallery, he was bound to say that the pictures in the galleries abroad were in a very much worse state than those in our gallery. This purchase was a disgrace to the walls of the National Gallery, and he would engage that if it were put up at Christie's auction-room it would not fetch £200. No doubt, good purchases had been made; he admitted that. For instance, the Perugino which had been bought was one of the most beautiful pictures which he had ever seen. That there was a good ground for the outcry which was made against these gentlemen was shown by the fact that whenever they made a good purchase not a word was said against them. Nobody complained of the purchase of the Perugino. Everybody, on the contrary, was delighted. "Have you been to the gallery to see the new Perugino?" was in everybody's mouth; and certainly it was a beautiful picture. So that it was really not from a disposition to cavil at the proceedings of these gentlemen that complaints were made, but simply from a feeling that the public money had been wasted. This year the director and travelling agent had bought another Paul Veronese, for which they had given £13,650. The reading which he put on this purchase was this:—Having made a desperate mistake with their Paul Veronese last year they determined this year to buy a Veronese at which nobody could grumble. There was a Paul Veronese at the Pisani Palace which had a great celebrity, and that they determined to have. The sum, however, which they had given for it was perfectly absurd. Paul Veronese was a beautiful painter, who flourished towards the decline of the Venetian school; but, after all, he was only a decorative painter; what people most admired of his were those beautiful ceilings at the Ducal Palace and the altar-pieces in the churches at Venice. He did not inspire the same sublime emotions as Raffaelle's pictures. So that the country was paying this enormous sum for a second-rate specimen(for it was by no means a first-rate specimen of Paul Veronese)of a second-rate artist. He did not deny that there might not be a better specimen in Italy, but whether it was a first, second, or third-rate specimen it was perfectly absured to give that price for a Veronese. Had it been a Raffaelle he should have had nothing to say. To show the opinion of the House on this purchase, and to teach the directors and the travelling agent to be more careful for the future, he should be very glad if some gentleman would move that the sum of £5,000, which the committee were called on to repay to the civil contingencies, should be refused, for it had all gone in this purchase. £10,000 was annually granted for the purchase of pictures, and the directors, having gone over their mark, were obliged to borrow £5,000 from the civil contingencies. To show that it had all gone on this picture he would read a few extracts from a letter of a well-known gentleman, Mr. Morris Moore[a laugh.] He saw a smile on several gentlemen's faces at this name—caused, no doubt, by the recollection of his correspondence with Lord Bloomfield—but, without attempting to justify that gentleman's conduct at Berlin, he would say that there was no man in England who was a better judge of pictures, or more conversant with their condition or market value. Having been in Venice for three months, and made inquiries on the subject, he could vouch for the accuracy of every statement in Mr. Moore's letter. The following was the account Mr. Moore gave of the way the money went:—

"The money given to Count Pisani was £12,360; banking commission to Mr. Valentine at ½ percent, £70. Commissions on the pictures—1, Signor Enrico Dubois, banker(son-in-law of Pisani),£62 10s.; 2, Carlo Dubois(banker),£62 10s.; 3, Caterino Zen, Pisani's steward, £300; 4, Pietro Dezan, 2nd idem, £271 10s.; 5, Dr. Monterumici, lawyer, £271 10s.; 6, Paolo Fabris, restorer, £200; 7, Giuseppe Conurato, Pisani's valet, £12; 8, Caterina Rini, camereira(chambermaid), £10."

He did not think that dear.

"9, Pietro Galberti, gondoliere, £6; 10, Angelini Comini, idem, £6; 11, Riccardo de Sandre, cook, £6; 12, Pietro Dorigo, porter, £6; 13, Angela Dorigo, porter's wife, £6."

He begged to read an extract from the Report of the director, Sir C. Eastlake, which would be found in the printed estimate. Sir C. Eastlake said:—

"This picture, according to family traditions and the united testimony of the historians of art, was painted by Paul Veronese for the ancestor of the present Count Pisani. According to Boschini vast sums were offered for it two conturies since, and within the last thirty years Sovereigns, public bodies, and opulent individuals have in vain endeavoured to secure it. D'Argenville states, on the authority of the Procurator Pisani of his time(the first half of the last century),that Paul Veronese, having been detained by some accident at the villa of the Pisani(at Este), painted and deposited there this work, informiag the family after his departure, 'that he had left wherewithal to pay for the cost of his visit.' If this story be true the great painter has now munificently redeemed his word."

He was disposed to think, not that the painter, but that the English director had munificently, or rather wastefully and foolishly, redeemed the painter's word at the expense of the public. When in Venice, the laquais de place came in one morning and said he had such a story to tell about the Paul Veronese picture. Mr. Mündler was in a state bordering on distraction. It had been arranged that the money was to be paid without any documents being signed as to the authenticity of the painting. When Conte Pisani sold the picture he would not part with the frame. It seemed absurd, but the secret had come out. There was at the villa at Este another picture by Paul Veronese, precisely the same in subject and in size, which would fit the frame Conte Pisani had kept. Mr. Mündler, never having heard of another picture, was naturally in a state of alarm as to which was the original, and he and the restorers were about to undertake a pilgrimage to the villa in order to ascertain the fact. Up to the present hour he was unaware of the result of that visit, though no doubt the Secretary of the Treasury would be able to give them a satisfactory explanation. He did not propose to reduce the Vote by the amount of travelling expenses, which were estimated at £600. He thought there must be some travelling expenses, but he did not think there was any necessity for a travelling agent. The director ought to be his own travelling agent. The period for purchasing pictures was during the London season. The sales at Christie's, Phillips's, and Foster's commenced in February and ended in June, and at those sales the best pictures were to be bought. No one had a finer collection than his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton(Mr. Coningham),and he believed he was correct in stating that a majority of those pictures had been bought in London. But, as the object was to get a collection worthy of the nation, it was desirable that the director should also seek pictures elsewhere. During the dead season of the year—during the winter—the director should travel in Italy—and he could not imagine a more pleasing occupation than travelling at the public expense in that beautiful and classic country—in search of pictures. The director could establish in every town in Italy a local agency, and by giving a commission would obtain information of every picture which was offered for sale. In that manner he thought the business would be better done, even if it cost us as much upon the whole. Mr. Mündler, by going about Italy, had spoiled the market. Wherever he went he was known as the agent of the English Government for the purchase of pictures; prices rose a hundred-fold, and it was stated the Austrian Government had on this account issued instructions to the mayors of towns, heads of convents, and priests of churches, where fine works of art were to be found, forbidding them to give him admission. A far more effectual mode would be for the director himself to travel, and therefore he did not propose to reduce the vote by the travelling expenses, which the nation would cordially pay, although £600 a year was somewhat high, and it might possibly be that it was given to compensate for the lowness of the salary. He thought it his duty to bring the subject before the attention of the Committee, and he believed that if his suggestions were adopted there would be a better chance of their getting good pictures. He therefore moved that the Vote be reduced from £23,165 to £22,615—being less the amount of the travelling agent's salary and the reduction of the secretary's salary from £700 to £500 a year. He would rather some other hon. Gentleman would move the reduction of the £5,000 to be repaid to the civil contingencies, as some hon. Members might be willing to vote for his reduction and not for that reduction, and it was therefore better to keep the two propositions distinct. There was one point which he had omitted to mention. Last year an Act was passed, empowering the directors to sell pictures and to remove them to other places. They had sold some pictures, which he believed were very bad ones, and they had likewise transferred some to Ireland. He did not know whether the Irish Members would approve of their National Gallery being made the refuge for the rejected pictures of the National Gallery of this country. If the pictures were good they should be kept for the National Gallery, and if they were bad they should not be sent to Ireland or anywhere else.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £22,615, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the National Gallery, including the purchase of Pictures, to the 31st day of March 1858."

said, he would not, like the noble Lord, "hint a fault, and hesitate dislike," but would go to the very bottom of the whole matter, for the statement of the noble Lord revealed such a gross system of jobbery, that he would not only refuse the £5,591 paid from civil contingencies, but the whole £10,000 asked for the current year. He followed the noble Lord in his opposition to the salary of the Secretary; for he thought £750 was too much, and £500 quite sufficient for that official; but he knew that, according to the rule of the House, if he were to vote for the noble Lord's Motion, it would be impossible for him to submit the Motion which he himself wished to make. When a proposal was made in Committee for a reduction in the Estimates, it was not permitted to any hon. Member to move that a lower sum be reduced, therefore he would go the extreme depths, and leave it to others to rise to the top time after time as they chose to do so. He objected also to the travelling agent, and on that point would support the noble Lord, but he could not agree with him in allowing the travelling expenses. The noble Lord admitted that paintings could be more advantageously purchased in London than anywhere else. He (Mr. Cox) was a mere Goth in such matters. He knew nothing of pictures, but the noble Lord did, and he said the best place to purchase pictures was in the auction room of Christie. For the very reason, therefore, that the noble Lord had given, he objected to the £650 for travelling expenses, as there could be no necessity for going to the Continent to get pictures. With regard to the picture to which the noble Lord last referred, the letter from which he read stated that the Government had obtained, not the original, but only a copy of that picture.

said, his impression of the letter was, that it did not say the picture at the Villa d'Este was the original; nor did he. All he said was, that Mr. Mündler had gone in a state of desperation to see the picture, but that to this hour he had never heard what conclusion he had arrived at.

said, he had been distinctly told that the picture was not an original, but a copy, and that we had left the frame behind for the original to be put in. Was it not disgraceful that £12,000 should have been paid by this country for such a picture? Then, there were those extraordinary items paid by the purchaser to butlers, and cooks, and chambermaids. Why should he give £10 to a chambermaid? And, not satisfied with that, he must give £6 to a cook, and £6 to the cook's wife. When he saw this item, it puzzled him very much; for he could no conceive what a culinary professor could have to do with the sale of a picture; but it occurred to him that there was a goose to be cooked, and that, therefore, this sum was paid for cooking the British goose. Such extravagance as this was positively disgraceful. It was not often that independent Members were able to hit a blot like this; but he believed there were many such blots in the Estimates, if they could just get at all the facts connected with them. He should move that the Vote be reduced to £4,974.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,964, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the National Gallery, including the purchase of Pictures, to the 31st day of March, 1858."

said, he hoped the Committee would not be led away by the statement of his noble Friend(Lord Elcho)or of the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, for he believed he would be able to show by a faithful history of the transaction to which they had referred, that the letter of Mr. Moore, on which their account was based, was a tissue of misrepresentations. If ever the Government exhibited care and caution with regard to the purchase of a picture, they had done so on this occasion, and what they did entirely took away from Mr. Mündler the responsibility of that purchase. Many months before making a purchase so important, the Government, anxious that no misconceptions should prevail regarding it, communicated, through the Foreign Office, with Mr. Harris, our resident Consul at Venice, and employed him to take the necessary steps for authenticating and securing the picture, and so far as Mr. Mündler and the National Gallery were concerned, he was bound to acquit them entirely of the transaction, and take all the responsibility upon the Government. Several years ago this picture attracted the attention of the Government, and Lord Aberdeen authorised our Consul to endeavour to effect a purchase of it. From time to time offers were made and rejected, and at least £12,000 was demanded by Count Pisani, to which he annexed this condition, that as his domestics had for a number of years obtained a large income by the fees received for showing the picture to strangers, an additional sum should be given to compensate them for the loss they would sustain by the stoppage of the fees. The amount for compensation was found to be £1650, and under these circumstances the total sum paid was £13,650. Now, with regard to the amusing distribution of that money, so graphically described by his noble Friend, Mr. Mündler had no concern whatever with it, nor, so far as he knew, had Mr. Harris any concern with it. All that was to be done by the Government was to pay the sum agreed upon, and leave the distribution to others. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last appeared to be under an impression—which was justified, perhaps, by the letter from which he derived his information, but which nevertheless was incorrect—that Mr. Mündler had been treating with all the domestic servants respecting their particular shares. The fact was, the Government paid the money stipulated, but had nothing to do with its distribution. As to the value of the picture, that was perhaps a matter of opinion which could better be discussed after the painting had been exhibited in the National Gallery. He could only say that no one who had visited Venice could be unacquainted with the fame of that picture; that, in fact, it had a world-wide reputation. In order to show the difference of opinion that might exist upon subjects of this kind, he would mention that one gentleman, who had expressed himself most strongly against the purchase, had actually within the last twelve months himself advised the directors of the National Gallery to buy it, and had declared that the Government would be to blame to lose it, even at a cost of £20,000. The instant the purchase was made, however, that gentleman turned round and denounced the directors for having made it.[Cries of "Name!"] That gentleman was not a member of that House, and, therefore, unless the directors of the National Gallery gave permission he should decline to name him. He only mentioned the circumstance as an instance where the Government was blamed for acting upon the advice which was given by those who afterwards censured them. The noble Lord(Lord Elcho)had alluded to the constitution of the National Gallery. At that he (Mr. Wilson) could say upon that point was that, in consequence of a resolution of that House, the duty devolved upon the Treasury Board, of which the noble Lord was a Member, to frame a new constitution for the National Gallery. [Lord ELCHO: I had no share in that, and knew nothing of it.] At all events, the constitution, as framed, was submitted to and was not disapproved by the House. With respect to the question of the utility of a travelling agent, he could only say that it was the opinion of the trustees and directors that he was an officer of the highest importance to them, and he knew that at the present moment several negotiations were pending through Mr. Mündler for most important works of art. Within the last fortnight or three weeks, Mr. Mundler had been able, by his presence on the spot, to purchase pictures which, if resold, would produce a profit that would defray the salary of the agent for four or five years to come. With respect to the salary of the secretary, the noble Lord appeared to have forgotten that Mr. Wornum held the double appointment of keeper and secretary; and when he talked of Messrs. Longman or Mr. Murray producing a catalogue of the National Gallery for £750, there was no doubt that could be done if a list of the pictures was all that was required, but Mr. Wornum was a man fully qualified to produce a historical catalogue of the contents of the Gallery, and upon some such work he was now most usefully employed. Moreover, that gentleman, upon accepting his present appointment, had given up engagements which produced him £850 a year. The noble Lord had also spoken of the divided responsibility between the directors and the travelling agent, but the truth was, the duty of the latter was only to report to the directors and to act upon their instructions, having no power to make purchases of his own motion. After the discussion of last year he (Mr. Wilson) did not expect the subject of the purchase of the other Veronese would have been revived, but, as it had been, he could only repeat his former statement—that Mr. Mundler had nothing to do with that purchase, the responsibility for which rested entirely with the trustees and directors of the National Gallery. For that picture an offer had been made of £400 beyond the sum that had been paid. The hon. Member for Finsbury(Mr. Cox)had moved to reduce the Vote by the amount of £5,000, which had been paid from the civil contingencies. That payment might be right or wrong, but the Government was responsible for it. If, however, the hon. Gentleman should succeed in carrying his Motion, it would have the effect of stopping several negotiations now pending for many important works, and therefore he hoped that those hon. Members who were anxious for a good National Gallery would pause before taking such a step. The hon. Gentleman also stated that he believed the picture which had been bought was not the original, but only a copy. Nothing was more unfounded than that idea, for Mr. Mündler had seen the copy at the Villa d'Este, and found that it was a wretched performance by a wretched artist, and that, moreover, the French soldiers who had at one time been quartered at the villa had amused themselves by thrusting their bayonets through the eyes of every figure in it. As to the travelling expenses, the noble Lord ought to be aware that the director was in the habit of travelling in the autumn, whenever he could, for the purpose of making or confirming purchases, in consequence of the previous inquiries of Mr. Mündler. The £650 for travelling expenses included, not only the expense of the traveling agent, but also those of the director when he found it necessary to go abroad upon the business of the Gallery. Those travelling expenses, moreover, were regulated by the Treasury, according to a fixed scale. He (Mr. Wilson) was not aware that he had any further remarks to make, but hoped that those he had made would remove false impressions, and would induce the Committee not to assent to the reduction proposed, which would have the inconvenient consequence of disturbing many negotiations now in progress, while it would not interfere with the Veronese purchase, which was now a settled and concluded affair.

said, he admired the courage with which the Secretary of the Treasury had undertaken to endorse the acts of Sir C. Eastlake, but it was not in the power of the hon. Gentleman to relieve him from the responsibility attaching to his office. By a Minute of the Treasury, made in 1855, it was laid down that the Director must be responsible in case of difference between himself and the trustees. That regulation imposed upon Sir C. Eastlake the responsibility for the purchase of all pictures. As personal reference had been made to him, he would clear the ground before he entered into the question of the system of management which now prevailed in the National Gallery. His noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire(Lord Elcho)had alluded to the collection of pictures which he made, stating, somewhat inaccurately, that it was principally formed in London. It was, to a considerable extent, formed in Italy; but, he had no hesitation in asserting, that if the English Government would but state that they would buy any really good pictures that might be brought to this country, they would soon be encumbered with works of art from all parts of the world, The system of management which now prevailed in the National Gallery was of recent introduction. For a long time the Gallery was managed by a Director and a body of Trustees, the former receiving, he believed, the very moderate sum of £200 a year. For many years it was composed of the Angerstein collection, and it was only recently that the stimulus which, had been given to the study of the fine arts rendered it necessary that something should be done. Upon the death of Mr. Seguier, Sir Charles Eastlake, who at that time was not President of the Royal Academy, but only a member of it, was appointed to the keepership. During his occupancy of that post, a considerable number of pictures were purchased for the National Gallery; and it was hardly necessary for him(Mr. Coningham)to recall to the recollection of the Committee that one of the first purchases which Sir C. Eastlake made for the Gallery was the celebrated "Portrait of a Medical Gentleman," by Holbein, for which the sum of £630 was paid. The notoriety of that transaction relieved him from the necessity of dwelling upon it. Any gentleman who wished to satisfy himself as to the nature of the purchase had only to visit the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square, where he would see this spurious daub, a libel upon the great artist whose work it pretended to be, and which gave the public a foretaste of the subsequent purchases of Sir C. Eastlake. He might allude, among others, to the purchase of "The Youthful Saviour," by Guido, from the Harman collection, which was another downright libel upon the artist. That purchase, also, was made by Sir C. Eastlake, when keeper. The office of keeper, however, in consequence of a series of attacks made upon him in the press, Sir Charles was compelled to resign. He was succeeded by Mr. Uwins, who in his turn was obliged to retreat before a similar storm of public indignation. Afterwards Sir C. Eastlake became President of the Royal Academy, and, unfortunately for himself, ex officio Trustee of the National Gallery. In that capacity he was responsible for another series of purchases, which, to a great extent, were distinguished by the same errors as those he made when keeper. He might allude, among others, to the purchase of "The Tribute Money," by Titian, from the collection of Marshal Soult, which was undoubtedly a spurious work, and recognized as such by some of the most competent judges in Europe, and for this Sir Charles had the folly to pay the enormous sum of £2,613 3s. 2d. He would not tire the Committee by dwelling upon the purchase of the picture attributed to Pachierotto, or upon the daub ascribed to Albert Durer, but would go at once to the purchase of the Kruger collection, for which he was not certain that Sir C. Eastlake was absolutely responsible. Sure he was, however, that whoever was responsible for that purchase, was responsible for one of the worst ever made for the National Gallery. Some sixty of these pictures were purchased in a mass for £2,916 19s. 8d., and a considerable number of them were sold by public auction, at Christie's, realizing something like £3 or £4 a piece, the minimum price being, £2 10s., and the maximum £20. Notwithstanding the series of purchases to which he had referred, the Secretary of the Treasury had the boldness, when Sir C. Eastlake was appointed to the directorship, to rise in his place and declare that he had shown qualifications of the highest order for the office. Now, when they saw the purchases which were made under the auspices of Sir C. Eastlake, and when they remembered the process of destruction which, under the name of cleaning, was carried on in the National Gallery under the directions of that gentleman —a process which Mr. Morris Moore and himself happily succeeded in putting an end to, though not before very serious injury had been done to some of the finest pictures in the collection—he thought that they would agree with him, that the statement which he had just quoted from a former speech of the Secretary of the Treasury detracted considerably from the authority which might otherwise have been attached to his observations on the present occasion. The hon. Gentleman had plenty of evidence beforehand of the gross incapacity of the person whom he undertook to defend. The fact of the matter was, that the National Gallery was the scene of numberless intrigues, nor was It difficult to discover who pulled the wires. Sir C. Eastlake, as he had already stated, proved himself incompetent at a low salary to discharge the duties of his office. He was driven ignominiously from it, and when he became an ex officio trustee, he stated in a letter of the 17th of April, 1854, "I wish it to be clearly understood that it is not my intention to interfere in any way in future with the concerns of the National Gallery;" thus acknowledging his own incapacity and the truth of the charges which had been brought against him. Yet this gentleman, within a very short period, had the audacity—for he could call it nothing else—to accept £1,000 a year from the nation. For what? Why, for making purchases that disgraced the National Gallery, as witness "The Adoration of the Magi," ascribed to Paul Veronese. These purchases taken together amounted to the very large sum of £12,793 18s. It was hardly necessary for him to go further into the more recent purchases of Sir C. Eastlake, but he could not help pointing out to the Committee how dangerous the system was of purchasing complete collections and then selling portions of them by auction. We ought to purchase none but the very best pictures, and he had no hesitation in saying that the new system was likely to lead to unlimited jobbing. Upon a previous occasion he stated that the new plan was introduced from Berlin, and, if he was not trespassing too long upon the time and patience of the Committee, he would give them some details corroborating that statement. He begged to remind them, however, that in Berlin there was no free expression of public opinion, no real liberty of the press, and the consequence was, that the necessity for selling the worst pictures did not exist. Any hon. Member who would take the trouble of walking through the gallery in that city might see the masses of pictures that disfigured the walls upon which they were exhibited, and, were the Berlin system carried out in all its integrity here, we might behold the whole of the villanous Kruger collection, a part of which had been sent over to corrupt the taste of the Irish nation. The formation of the Berlin Gallery was of comparatively recent date. It was composed principally of pictures which originally belonged to the Solly collection, and for which 500,000 thalers were paid. He held in his hand a pamphlet, entitled, The Picture Baptism, of Dr. Waagen, published at Leipsic in 1832, giving a full account of the Solly purchase, and showing also the system which prevailed in Berlin. It said:—

"The State having purchased that enormous quantity of Mr. Solly's pictures, there was a great mystery about them. It was considered a rare favour to have a look at them; perhaps they feared public opinion, and wished to make everything fine and shiny by restoration and varnish, in order to deceive the public. Berlin painters consequently were not just wished for to do this work of restoration; the workmen were sent for from abroad, and especially by Dr. Waagen, who had made proper acquaintances at Munich while he lived there. If any offer was made to a Berlin artist, the pay was so paltry that the man could not but refuse. Now, restoration began to be carried on on a, grand scale, a quantity of pictures were transformed into the style of famous painters and their pupils, and enormous sums—for which real old original pictures might have been bought—were thus spent. In Mr. Solly's collection were a great many which could not be exhibited without undergoing very important restorations. For this purpose there arrived—first, a Mr. Horack from Saxony, who had been a tailor, but then felt inspired to restore old pictures. With pompous words he praised his own skill, and assured them that he was able to take off pictures from worm-eaten wood and draw them over new wood or canvas. He moreover pretended to possess a water with which to wash and clean pictures without washing them away. This master tailor, after having spoiled a number of pictures intrusted to him by private persons, was engaged by the committee of the Museum, and received a large picture from the Solly collection to remove it from the panel. Horack asked for an advance and obtained the money. Somewhat later he asked for another advance, and obtained it. Now he went on working a few days longer, then he shut up his abode and disappeared from Berlin. The committee finding the door locked, and obtaining no answer to their rappings, ordered the door to be forced, and satisfied themselves that their artist had bolted with the money, but left them the corpse of the picture to bury. An eternal silence, of course, is kept about the fate of this picture. Meanwhile Dr. Waagen had carried out his plan. For a high annual salary, the restorators, his old connections were appointed—namely, Mr. Sehlesinger, Mr. Koester, and Mr. Xler. Now, the high sanhedrim was complete, a Restoration atelier was arranged, and all the pictures of the State entrusted to it to be sentenced to life or death."

That was the system which Dr. Waagen had introduced into Berlin, and he respectfully submitted to the Committee that a very similar system had been introduced through the instrumentality of Sir C. Eastlake into our National Gallery. He thanked the Committee for the very courteous manner in which it had listened to him; but he could not sit down without alluding to another point to which public attention ought to be directed. They were constantly told that the true models for study and for educational purposes were of the modern school of art. On that subject he would quote the words of Sir Joshua Reynolds, who said:—

"The modern who recommends himself as a standard may justly be suspected as ignorant of the true end and unacquainted with the proper object of the art which he professes. To follow such a guide will not only retard the student, but mislead."

He was opposed to this novel theory, and in favour of reverting to the pictures of the 15th and 16th centuries for our models, and he thought that works of that description should almost alone be purchased for the National Gallery.

said that, as he understood it, three objections had been taken on the present Vote. First, as to the selections that had been made in the purchase of pictures; secondly, as to the employment of the travelling agent; and thirdly, as to the spending of money without the authority of Parliament. He should say, that the explanation of the Secretary for the Treasury, in answer to those objections, was rather an alarming one. The Vote was objectionable enough as it stood in the Estimates; but the explanation given of it, instead of mending the matter, only tended to give it a more serious complexion. A good deal bad been said about the increase in the Civil Service Estimates; but let the Committee consider for a moment the Vote now before them in comparison with what it was in former years. In 1848 the Estimate for the National Gallery paintings was £5,000. From that amount it had increased till in 1854–55 it was £6,600; in 1855–56, £16,000; in 1856–57, £12,000; and this year it assumed the moderate proportions of £23,000. From this it appeared that the Estimate was going on at a very comfortable rate, to say the least of it. It could not be said that in this respect art was neglected in England. But the most alarming feature in the business was this —the noble Lord and others complained that a sum of between £5,000 and £6,000 had been paid without the sanction of Parliament. The Secretary to the Treasury replied, "That is quite a mistake. If you choose to censure the Government, well and good; but Parliament put £100,000 in their hands to pay for anything that happens to need paying, or for what are called urgent matters;" but if this argument of the hon. Gentleman was admitted, the House might next year be called upon to grant, not £23,000, but a sum of £123,000. He thought that the case was put in rather too broad a way by the Government; because, if the doctrine of the Secretary to the Treasury as to the discretion vested in the Government held good, the House of Commons having voted a specific sum for the purchase of paintings, there was nothing to hinder them from increasing the amount by £100,000, without a question being asked by anybody. Surely, however, the hon. Gentleman(Mr. Wilson)had pushed the right of the Government to an extravagant length. Now, let them see how what was called the travelling agent worked. They had been told that the Government had been nibbling at a certain picture since 1853. It seemed very clear from the negotiations carried on in respect of that picture that the country had not derived much advantage from this travelling agent on that ground, unless the advance of price which was the necessary consequence of that nibbling process could be called an advantage. They were informed that the picture in question had more than a European—that it had a world wide reputation; that everybody who had been anywhere had seen it. If so, it could scarcely have been necessary to have a travelling agent at £600 a year, with travelling expenses, "nibbling" at it for four years. It appeared, that so far back as 1853 the picture was valued at £12,000, which sum the owner asked for it, on which the trustees recommended the Government to give £10,500, honestly saying at the same time it was worth £12,000. Now, that was a curious way of doing business. In his(Mr. Henley's)opinion, if they thought a man was asking a fair price for an article, it was better to give him his own money, for if they attempted to beat him down, they might be sure he would make a fool of them afterwards, and it would serve them right if he did. This had been the case with this picture. The price asked for it in 1853 was £12,000, but the price paid for it in 1856 was.£13,650. That was what, was got by offering £ 10,500 for a work of art admitted to be worth £12,000. Moreover, he was not at all consoled by being informed that the alleged copy of this picture was "a wreck," for the term "wreck" was never applied to what had always been worthless. Then came the question how this Vote was to be dealt with. The amount by which it was proposed to be reduced was larger than he could approve of, but if the proposition were to reduce it by the sum overpaid last year, he should be glad to give it his support, upon the ground that if the House agreed to give £10,000 a year for pictures, it was a pretty clear indication that they did not mean that the Government should go and spend £15,000. To the Amendment so altered he should be happy to give his assent.

said, he regretted to take any part in the discussion, because the House never appeared to less advantage than when they discussed the merits of individual pictures, and when speeches were made in tones far more intemperate and violent than upon other occasions. Upon matters of taste gentlemen proverbially differed, but, surely they could express their different opinions without imputations of incapacity, much less of jobbery or dishonesty. He was somewhat surprised to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) an objection that the Government had spent in a single year more than the £10,000 set apart for the purchase of pictures. He could quite understand the right hon. Gentleman if he said that no more pictures ought to be paid for out of the public purse, and that the present system ought to be abandoned. But he could not understand him if he said that because an estimate of £10,000 had been agreed to for the purchase of pictures, therefore the purchase of pictures by the Government during the following year should be strictly limited to that amount. He was surprised to hear so strange a doctrine advanced by so acute and intelligent a Gentleman as the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire. With regard to this particular picture he would not pretend to give any decided opinion. All that he knew was that he had been several times at Venice, and he had never been there without hearing it spoken of as one of the principal ornaments of Venice. He never doubted that it was a picture of as established a European reputation as any that could be mentioned. It might be true that the Venetian school did not rank so high as others. He believed that the purer taste of modern times had lowered the estimation of the Venetian school, but that did not prevent it from being a most important school. And surely when an opportunity occurred for this country obtaining possession of a work of one of the most celebrated masters of that school, it was not surprising that those who had the direction of these things should think it of importance to secure such a picture for the country. It might be said, "that is very true, but a most unreasonable sum was given for it." That, however, was a question of opinion. The House would recollect that a picture by Murillo was sold at a public auction at Paris, a few years ago. Murillo was a great painter, but not one of the greatest painters in the world; and be(Mr. Labouchere)did not think that picture was one of the finest specimens of his work. It was sold openly. There was no jobbery nor travelling agent, nor any of those suspicious circumstances on which some hon. Gentlemen had laid so much stress. And what took place? There were competitors; and who were they? The Emperor of the French, the Emperor of Russia, and a rich English nobleman. The picture was sold, he believed, for £25,000. [Lord ELCHO: £23,000.] A most astounding sum, he must say. If he were to hazard an opinion, he would say that the Paul Veronese was cheaper at the sum that had been given for it than the Murillo at £23,000. He thought that they would make a very bad exchange if they parted with their Paul Veronese for the Murillo of the Emperor of the French. But however that might be, he should not have risen on the present occasion but for his anxiety to do justice to a distinguished man. He deeply regretted that they could not discuss matters of this kind without making personal attacks upon Sir Charles Eastlakc. He had had the honour of his acquaintance for several years, and all who knew him felt that there was not a man of higher integrity, purer character, or greater accomplishments in this country. He believed that he was one of the most learned and accomplished artists that this country possessed. He regretted to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham), than whom there could be no better judge on this subject, bring into this debate personal attacks upon Sir Charles Eastlake. His hon. Friend had said that Sir Charles Eastlake had shown his incapacity by the manner in which he had managed the National Gallery and overlooked the cleaning and preservation of the pictures. He appealed from him to his noble Friend who introduced this question. His noble Friend stated—and he believed truly—that then was not a great collection of pictures it Europe that was not far worse treated than the National Gallery with respect to cleaning. He (Mr. Labouchere) was not a very competent judge of these matters, but he had visited most of the picture galleries in Europe, and he was able to form some opinion on them. He would refer merely to two of the most celebrated galleries in Europe— the gallery at Madrid, one of the noblest in the world, and the great gallery at Dresden. He believed that some of the picture, in both those collections had been injured by injudicious cleaning, carried on under the superintendence of those who ought to have been their guardians and preservers but who, in truth, were their destroyers His noble Friend had said most truly that Sir C. Eastlake deserved great praise for the very careful manner in which the cleaning and restoration of the pictures in the National Gallery had been carried on It was to him that we owed, in a great degree, the present state of those pictures. He (Mr. Labouchere) sat on the Committee that made inquiries some years ago into the manner in which the pictures were being cleaned and restored, and when he recollected the evidence that was then given as to the injudicious manner in which they had been treated up to that time, he thought the country had reason to rejoice that so much care and vigilance had since been exercised in their preservation. But be that as it might, he believed that it served no purpose to discuss the merits of a particular picture on this Vote. If the House believed that the system of purchasing pictures for the nation out of the public purse was bad, let them alter it. If they believed that those to whom the management of this matter was entrusted were incompetent, let them say so. He did not believe that they were incompetent. A man abler than Sir C. Eastlake to superintend the National Gallery could not be found. It was not to be supposed that he or any other man could please everybody in every purchase of pictures which, he made. He did not know how it happened, but as far as his experience went, he did not find that a love and practice of the fine arts made men more charitable or amicable. People talked of the odium theologicum, but the odium of the professors and critics of art against each other was the most envenomed that he knew. He never could discover exactly whence it proceeded, but that it existed was indisputable. What would the House think of calling a private collector over the coals for every picture that he purchased? Where was the private collector that had not committed some mistake? His hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) had had a very beautiful collection of pictures. They were sold some years ago in this capital. No one could visit that collection without seeing that it evinced on the part of its owner great taste and great knowledge of the art. But at the same time he recollected that it contained two pictures which betrayed a want of judgment. His hon. Friend, therefore, ought to be more indulgent when he made criticisms on the purchases for the National Gallery; for he was sure that there was no one, who had ever been engaged in the purchase of pictures, who would not concur in the remark of Napoleon, "that those are the most fortunate who have committed the fewest blunders." If the Committee wished that no power at all should be given for buying pictures, or that the duty of purchasing them should be entrusted to other hands, let it say so; but if they were to collect pictures for the National Gallery, he thought the sum they now asked was very moderate, and believing it would be safe to entrust the control of the expenditure to a man of such high honour and integrity, and enlightened and pure judgment as Sir Charles East-lake, he should regret extremely if the Committee did not agree to the Vote before it.

said, he had, on a former occasion, asked his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), who was at the time Chancellor of the Exchequer, for some explanation as to the purchase of the Kruger collection, but that explanation had never been given. He begged, therefore, now to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, upon whose professional advice that collection was purchased for the National Gallery. His right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies had already so well defended Sir Charles Eastlake that he should not trouble the Committee with any observations on that point; but he did think Mr. Müundler had been badly used. The noble Lord (Lord Elcho) had told a story which he heard from his laquais de place at Venice. Now, if every hon. Gentleman would retail the stories which they heard from their laquais de place, perhaps the Committee would be enlivened with some anecdotes about the noble Lord and his pictures. The noble Lord, however, went to Venice, talked to his laquais de place, and then favoured hon. Members with his anecdote. Now, he (Mr. Stirling) remarked that his noble Friend carefully avoided giving any opinion as to the authenticity of the Pisani picture, and did not authenticate a single statement of Mr. Morris Moore, although he read the whole of that Gentleman's letter; he merely amused the Committee with his story, and left the subject where he found it. But, as his noble Friend was on the spot for several months, and had formed an intention last year to bring the subject of the National Gallery before the House, might he not have sent his laquais de place to Este, or have ordered his gondola and have ascertained for himself whether the Pisani picture in the palace or that in the villa—which he did not see—was the original? He thought his noble Friend might have spent a few hours in this way most agreeably to himself and very usefully to the country. With regard to Mr. Mündler, he knew nothing of that gentleman or of his qualifications, but was aware that he received £300 a year, and had his share of the travelling expenses, which, he believed amounted altogether to £650. Now, some four or five years ago, Mr. Uwins and the late Mr. Woodburn, the picture dealer, were sent, at the expense of the Government, to report on one of the collections at Venice—the Manfrini, he believed. No purchase was effected, but that single journey cost the country £400 or £500, or very nearly what was paid for the services of Mr. Mündler all the year round. As the suggestion that agents should be employed in every town of Italy and Germany to supply the place of a travelling agent, he would ask the Committee what the expense of purchases so effected would be. The ordinary percentage which a picture dealer expected on these commissions was 10 per cent, and at this rate the purchase of the Pisani picture would have cost £1,300 for agency alone. With regard to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) he would only say that, having for a long time enjoyed his friendship and been acquainted with his works, he wished the hon. Member had amused the Committee with extracts from his own writings, instead of quoting his very dull friend the Berlin pamphleteer. In his own pamphlets the hon. Member had, more happily than he had done to-night, reflected with great asperity on the management of the National Gallery; but after all, of what did he accuse the directors? The head and front of Sir Charles Eastlake's offence, as stated by his hon. Friend, amounted to this—that having made a mistake in the purchase of some picture, he had the candour and manliness to own it, and that on several occasions he had expressed considerable diffidence of his own judgment. Now, these were two errors into which picture collectors were not apt to fall; at all events, he had never heard that his hon. Friend and the noble Lord had ever done so. With regard to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), he thought it a very good one. If a certain sum (which should be a large and liberal one) were voted annually for the expenses of the National Gallery and the purchase of pictures, it would be much better than the present arrangement, and the deficiency of one year might be made up from the excess of another.

said, the collection to which the hon. Member referred was not included in the present Estimates. It was purchased in 1853, and paid for in 1854; but in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, he was sorry that he was not able to say on whose professional advice it had been purchased. The collection was bought in consequence of the advice of certain persons who were qualified to express an opinion upon it; but he was bound to say that they were not the trustees of the National Gallery.

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Stirling) had found fault with him for not having sent his laquais de place or gone himself to ascertain the authenticity of the Pisani picture. The best reason, however, for not going himself was, that he left Venice the day after he had been told this story. He was delighted now to hear from so great an authority as the hon. Secretary to the Treasury that there was no doubt that this Paul Veronese was an original. The hon. Gentleman stated that the letter, for the accuracy of which he (Lord Elcho) had to a certain extent vouched, was a tissue of misrepresentations. He could only say, however, that the facts he had stated were repeated to him before he left Venice and before he had seen the letter, which he, therefore, had reason to believe was correct. Then the hon. Gentleman stated that the constitution of the National Gallery was approved by the House. Now, the fact was, that the House never had an opportunity of approving it. The constitution was drawn up by the hon. Member himself at the Treasury, and the first time the House heard of it was when it was asked to vote the salaries of these gentlemen. He would remind the House, however, that exception was taken to the salary of the secretary and of the paid travelling agent, and that in 1855, upon the question of the latter gentleman's salary, a Vote was taken in a morning sitting in the month of August, when forty-five voted in favour, and thirty-eight against it. He might say, therefore, that the House had not been consulted as to the constitution of the National Gallery, and that when this point had been brought before the House only a narrow majority had decided in its favour. His hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury stated that a gentleman had offered £400 more than the nation had given for the Paul Veronese of last year. Then all he (Lord Elcho) could say was, that he strongly recommended the Government to accept the offer. His hon. Friend had so stoutly come forward in defence of these Paul Veroneses, and had taken the responsibility of the purchases so readily upon himself, that he (Lord Elcho) was reminded of a joke upon the subject made by his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty last year, who said that he didn't believe the picture was a Paul Veronese—he believed it was a Wilson. When the cleaning process was under discussion some years ago he remembered the present Under Secretary for the India Board came down to the House quite aghast, and he said, "What do you think I saw up there? Why, I found those ruffians scrubbing the 'Woman taken in Adultery.'" Well, that barbarous and unnatural proceeding had been defended by the hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench. His right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies said that Sir C. Eastlake had been harshly alluded to in the course of the discussion. He (Lord Elcho) was sure that he had said nothing with regard to Sir C. Eastlake which his most intimate friend could have objected to. He believed Sir C. Eastlake to be a thorough gentleman, and a most accomplished man, and in those respects he was perfectly fit for the situation which he held. He differed from his right hon. Friend as to the value of the Pisani picture. He did not say that we ought to have no pictures of the Venetian school. He admired those pictures as much as it was possible to do, but he objected to giving an enormous price for a second-rate picture by a second-rate master of that school, and he wished the Committee, by their vote, to mark their disapproval of the sum which had been given for it. He would also suggest that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cox) should limit his Motion to the reduction of the £5,000 for civil contingencies. Still he (Lord Elcho) was of opinion that the surplus over and above the purchase money for pictures each year should be carried over to the next; and that, if a special case arose, a special grant should be made for the purpose.

trusted that the Committee, before coming to a vote on this question, would look to the real facts of the case, and would not be led away by any prejudice which might have been created by the unfair statements which had been made. It was admitted on all hands to be a matter of national policy that we should have a National Gallery. That Gallery had been founded by gifts to the country, and it had been augmented by valuable purchases. Those purchases had been in successive years sanctioned by Parliament, and it was now agreed that the collection should be not only maintained, but increased from time to time by purchases. It was also agreed that they should devote, not a small sum, but £10,000 a year for the purchase of pictures for the enrichment of the National Gallery. That sum, therefore, was voted each year, and was placed at the disposal of a board of Trustees consisting of noblemen and gentlemen who were well acquainted with art, whose names were before the public, and who were the advisers of the Government with respect to the purchase of pictures. Their secretary and director was Sir C. Eastlake, the President of the Royal Academy, who, besides being himself a most accomplished artist, was intimately acquainted with the history of art and with the quality of pictures. If the Government were not to be justified in acting upon the advice of so eminent an authority in matters of painting their action would be paralyzed, and it would be impossible for them to take a step safely in any department of art. It was impossible for the Government to have special knowledge upon a subject of this sort, and if Sir C. Eastlake were eminently fitted by his qualifications to advise them, they were fully justified in acting upon the advice of the Board of Trustees, and Sir C. Eastlake, the director. Under these circumstances the Government were advised by the Trustees to purchase a picture of first-rate European celebrity—the Pisani picture of the "Family of Darius before Alexander," which had long enjoyed the reputation of being a genuine picture of Paul Veronese. Hon. Gentlemen had spoken as if there were a doubt of the genuineness of the picture. In page 41 of the Estimates, however, would be found a passage from the manuscript notes of a German writer named Rumohr—a gentleman of first-rate authority in matters of art—quite as high an authority as his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), as the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham), or as Mr. Morris Moore. He ventured to think that on this subject Rumohr was quite equal to any of them, or to all of them put together. Rumohr said:—

"The celebrated picture of the wife of Darius mistaking Hephæstion for Alexander. In excellent condition; perhaps the only existing criterion by which to estimate the genuine original colouring of Paul Veronese. It is remarkable how entirely the genius of the painter precludes criticism on the quaintness of the treatment. The treatment of colour, especially in the flesh, and the excellence of the execution, are such as to render us almost unjust to other great colourists. In the presence of this work we forget for a time all other productions in painting."

Some years ago Lord Aberdeen authorized the purchase of this very picture for £10,000, and thought himself unfortunate in not being able to purchase it. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) apprehended, therefore, that there could be no doubt of the genuineness of the picture, of the reputation it enjoyed, and of the high value placed upon it. If a Government were to purchase pictures for a National Gallery, it seemed to him that they discharged their duty better by purchasing a great and celebrated picture, even at a high price, than by buying a number of second or third rate pictures. A nation could give high prices for pictures, and had large spaces in which to exhibit them; but few private individuals could hang up the Pisani picture of Paul Veronese, if it were presented to them, because no house of moderate dimensions would hold it. He contended, therefore, that such a picture was peculiarly fitted for a National Gallery. He had learned by experience, that there was scarcely any duty more difficult to discharge than that of buying pictures for a National Gallery—for himself, he declared that he would infinitely rather negotiate a loan for £10,000,000 than he; would undertake to purchase a single picture—yet he deliberately maintained that the Government were fully justified in having purchased this picture at the price they gave for it; and if they had to make the decision again, even after the criticisms of his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire and of his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, they would adopt precisely the same course as they had adopted. Did his noble Friend rest his case on the difference between £10,000 and £13,000? If so, that somewhat narrowed the point, because his noble Friend would admit that the finest picture in the world might be worth the larger sum. But his noble Friend said, the Government were wrong, because they gave too much for it. [Lord ELCHO: Hear, hear!] And because no picture by Paul Veronese was worth £13,000. But by what possible means: was the value of pictures to be ascertained? The Government were advised that the value given for this picture was not excessive, and they accordingly offered it. Was this a vote of censure upon the Government or upon the Venetian school, or upon the painter Paul Veronese? He owned he could not understand where the censure was to lie. He had been told that forty or fifty years ago the two painters whose works fetched most at auctions in this country were Rubens and Salvator Rosa. Well, that had been altered, and now his noble Friend said, they ought to buy nothing but Pietro Perugino and the pure Italian school. [Lord ELCHO: No, no !] At all events, his noble Friend would not have the Venetian school. [Lord ELHO: Yes.] Well, then, his noble Friend said he would have the Venetian school. He was at a loss to know on what principle the Government were to buy pictures for the National Gallery, or how they were to escape censure next year, even if they sought to profit by the admonitions that had been addressed to them. He trusted that, after the conflicting opinions which had been given on the purchase of these pictures, the Committee would see the difficulty that the Government had to encounter. The Government had acted for the best, and if they had not made a wise choice, they had at least taken the best advice that they could obtain. With regard to the establishment charges of the National Gallery, they had been settled in 1854, in a Treasury minute, which had been acquiesced in by the House, and there was every reason to believe that they had met with approval. He trusted that the Committee would not, by adopting the Amendment, deprive the Government of all power of purchasing pictures for the nation.

said, his advice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he complained of the difficulty and opposition he encountered in purchasing pictures, was to buy no pictures. It was his intention to vote for every reduction of the vote for purchasing pictures, because he did not think the public received sufficient advantage for the money so laid out. He was also of opinion that the House had no right to tax for these pictures those who never enjoyed the sight of them. The Committee were, in fact, voting away the public money for their own amusement.

said, he would acquiesce in the suggestion of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho), and therefore he would beg that his Motion might be withdrawn, and that the division should be taken on the reduction of the Vote by £6,541. He was astonished to hear it said by the Secretary for the Colonies that the House never appeared in so unfavourable a point of view as in looking after the expenditure of the people's money. He did not know what he had been sent to that House for, if not to look after the public expenditure.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had grossly, though of course unintentionally, misrepresented him. He did not say that the House was improperly occupied in canvassing the expenditure, but that he did not think it ever appeared to less advantage than when it was engaged in discussing the merits of individual objects of art.

said, that he had been charged by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies with having made a personal attack upon Sir C. Eastlake. He had made no attack upon Sir C. Eastlake's character; he had only impugned his judgment and capacity as Governor of the National Gallery, and he submitted that he had fully established his case. The Report drawn up by the Committee of 1853, which was the production of a noble Lord, a personal friend of Sir C. Eastlake, did not venture to whitewash him, and it was so against the evidence, that the Chairman of the Committee protested against his own Report. Mr. Van Rumohr, who had been alluded to, was the author of a bad cookery-book, but being a dilettante, he had a collection of bad pictures. He was, however, a protégé of Dr. Waagen, who induced the Prussian Government to buy his bad pictures. With regard to Paul Veronese, he was a painter of the third class, whose pictures were not rare. Correggio was one of the rarest of the Italian masters, and yet two of his most splendid and beautiful pictures were bought a few years ago of the Marquess of Londonderry for £11,000, which was considered a large sum at the time. The sum of £13,000 for one of Paul Veronese's pictures was, therefore, an extravagant and monstrous amount. The fact was, that a wretched daub had been purchased, which was found not to be by Paul Veronese, and then this purchase was made to cover that mistake.

I must confess that the contrast which this discussion exhibits to the scene I have just left produces a painful impression on my mind. I have just come from the town of Manchester, where the contributions of a few spirited and intelligent merchants have, at the expense of £100,000, procured for the people of that neighbourhood, and for those who choose to go there from other parts of the country, the temporary enjoyment of witnessing a magnificent collection of pictures; and now, when I arrive in this House, I find the representatives of the people haggling and boggling about a petty sum, and seeking to censure the Government for having given what my hon. Friend calls the excessive amount of pound;13,600 for a picture which the Secretary for the Colonies and the Secretary to the Treasury have properly denominated as a picture of worldwide reputation. It is in vain for the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) or for the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) or his valet de place in Venice, to tell us that Paul Veronese was not a master of great value, and that the picture in question is not one that eminently deserves a place in a national collection. It may be true that Paul Veronese is not reckoned so high as some other masters of whom the Committee has been told; but there is this peculiarity with respect to Paul Veronese, that not only is he a great example of colouring, but he is one of the most instructive painters in point of composition whose works could be placed in a gallery where instruction as well as gratification and enjoyment are the objects for which the pictures have been collected together. I hope the Committee, after having had the amusement of listening to the observations of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire, and hearing the personalities of the hon. Member for Brighton, who has probably vented his long-pent-up stream of indignation against that amiable, accomplished, and distinguished man, Sir Charles Eastlake—I hope, now that those two hon. Members have had their swing on their favourite topic—that the Committee will gravely and seriously consider the question before them, and will, if they think that Parliament was right in wishing this country to possess a gallery of pictures worthy of its reputation, if they think that Parliament was right in having placed at the disposal of the Government from year to year, a sum for the purchase of pictures—come to the conclusion that the Government has purchased for this National Gallery a picture of great value, which has long been an object of attention to everybody who has visited the country where it was placed, which the Government of that country was very much indisposed to allow to quit their territory, and the possession of which will do honour to this country, and conduce greatly to the promotion of those objects for which a national gallery is useful and valuable. I trust that the Committee will regard the subject seriously, and not put it on the narrow ground on which it has been placed by some hon. Members, but will consider that the question on which we are about to vote is, whether this country is to add to the collection in the National Gallery, or whether Parliament will altogether change the system which has hitherto been pursued, and decide that henceforth no addition shall be made to the national collection of paintings.

Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £16,624, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the National Gallery, including the purchase of Pictures, to the 31st day of March, 1858."

then said, that he was sorry to give the Committee the trouble of dividing again, but the last was not the question on which he wished to take their opinion. His Motion referred to the salaries of the Secretary and Travelling Agent, and therefore, as he deemed that of the Secretary, which was fixed at £750, to be exorbitant, he should propose that it be reduced to £500; while, regarding the office of Travelling Agent to be vicious in principle, and useless in practice, he should propose that that office, as well as the salary attached to it—£300 per annum—be abolished. With that view, he should move that the Vote be reduced by a sum of £550.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £22,615, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the National Gallery, including the purchase of Pictures, to the 31st day of March, 1858."

said, that he rose in accordance with his notice to call the attention of the Committee to this subject, and to ask two questions of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He trusted he should justify himself in the eyes of the Committee for so doing by saying that when he had the charge of the department in Canada, to which the Vote referred, he had been directed to draw up a Report as to the most practicable mode of withdrawing this Vote from the Estimates. That Report had been officially submitted to the Government through Sir Edmund Head, but had not been adopted by the Colonial Office, and, although he could not venture to complain of that, he wished to state the reasons why he dissented from the principle upon which the Vote was framed. In the Report which he had prepared he had pointed out that if it was necessary that this item should be omitted from the Estimates the best plan to adopt would be to pay down a certain sum which, if administered with proper economy, would render the Department self-supporting. His suggestion then not having been adopted, as he had stated, he was induced to lay before the Committee certain facts connected with this matter, in the hope of persuading the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies to reconsider the opinion which he had pronounced in his despatch. The present state of the Indian Department was by no means satisfactory, and might easily be amended by putting the whole charge of the Department upon the Canadian Legislature. The Committee was aware that the sum which used to appear on the Estimate had been greatly reduced, the sum which used to be employed in purchasing presents for the Indians having been no longer needed, and all the money now asked for was for the support of the Indian Department in Canada, so that the Vote which a few years ago was something between £12,000 and £14,000 had now dwindled down to £3,500. This country had assumed the care of the Indians in such a manner that to do away now with the support which was granted to them would assume the appearance of a breach of faith. He was aware that some persons said that the Indian tribes were in a moribund state, and the sooner they were destroyed the better; but the weakness of a dependent was no reason, in his opinion, for withdrawing all support after this country had assumed the care of them. Others, again, said that the presents to the Indians produced a demoralizing effect, and in that opinion he concurred, for he knew that as soon as the rifles or coats or blankets were given to them they used to sell them, and get very drunk with the money. He did not approve of the system of presents, but he could not assent to the principle of putting the whole charge of the Department on the Indian funds. Almost all the tribes in Upper Canada had had a reserve of land for their own use, which becoming more valuable from the spread of white settlements had been sold, and, the proceeds having been invested, had become a small annuity, and upon that fund it was proposed to place the whole charge of the Indian Department. The result of such a proceeding would inevitably be to swamp those funds. The books of the Department, containing registers of the land sales, were voluminous; the correspondence was very extensive; and the interests of a large proportion of the white population who had purchased lands from the Indians were involved in this question. That was one argument against the abolition of the department, but his principal reason for objecting to such a measure was the total ruin in which it would involve the red men. He would also ask the Committee to consider whether the Indian funds were capable of sustaining the burden which it was proposed to throw upon them. In 1855 the cost of this department exceeded £8,000, £4,777 of which was defrayed from the Indian funds, and the balance was provided from the Imperial exchequer. The proceeds of the Indian lands were about £9,000, and if the whole of this charge were thrown upon the Indians they would have only about £350 left for the support of 6,300 persons. The Indians, he must observe, could not enter into competition with white labourers, in consequence of their ignorance of the English language. With regard to the question whether the Imperial Government ought or ought not to support these Indians, he rested his case upon the practice which had hitherto been pursued. Great Britain, in dealing with the aboriginal tribes, had recognized a species of sovereignty in the red population, and had promised them protection in return for the territory they had ceded. During the American wars we had petted the Indians and made them most glowing promises, but when they were no longer useful as military allies our sympathy for them seemed to have ceased. A Committee of that House which sat in 1837 expressed an opinion that, as far as was practicable, the Indians should be placed solely and entirely under the control of the Imperial authority, and the same view had been taken by Lord Glenelg, Colonel Bruce, Lord Elgin, and others who had considered the subject. He (Viscount Bury) thought that if for the purpose of saving a trifling expense, they took this small sum from the remnant of a great people, they were submitting this country to great degradation, He thought they ought manfully to face this difficulty, and he would leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. He wished, before he sat down, to call the attention of the Colonial Secretary to the claims of the old officers of this department, who had entered it at a time when they were required to perform military services, and in the expectation that when they were invalided or were no longer fit for service some provision would be made for them. Four of these officers, namely, Mr. Chesney, Captain Anderson, Colonel Napier, and Mr. Ironside, had served with great distinction in the department for upwards of forty years, and he hoped the Government would consider their claims to retiring pensions.

said, he was sure the Committee would be of opinion that his noble Friend had only taken a very natural and honourable course in pleading, in his place in Parliament, for those who were the special objects of his care when he was at the head of the Indian department in Canada. The noble Lord had on this occasion expressed similar opinions to those which he had communicated officially to the Government, and he (Mr. Labouchere) could only repeat the answer which he had given to the noble Lord in his official capacity. It was quite true that the expense of the Indian department had been in the course of regular and constant diminution for several years. He must say, however, that the House had not acted harshly or precipitately, but had always desired, in carrying out what they conceived to be just and proper principles, to do so with as little inconvenience as possible to those Indians whose interests were affected. Earl Grey, when Secretary of State for the Colonies, gave notice of his intention to withdraw the chief item of expense, the presents to the Indians. At that time the sum voted by the House was £13,000 or £14,000. All that was asked for this year was about £3,500. The chief point in dispute between himself and his noble Friend was as to the management of the Indian estates. His noble Friend thought that the cost of management should be defrayed by the Imperial Government, while he (Mr. Labouchere) held that, as a general principle, where estates were granted for a particular object, the cost of management ought to come out of the estates themselves, and could see no reason why this principle should be departed from in the case of the Indians. In considering this question he had had the benefit of two Reports,—one from his noble Friend, advocating the views which he had expressed in that House, and the other from his immediate predecessor, Mr. Oliphant, who entertained entirely opposite opinions. The able Governor General of Canada, Sir E. Head, would soon be in England on leave, and he (Mr. Labouchere) would discuss this subject with him and obtain his advice upon it. What his noble Friend suggested was that the Government should ask that House to vote a sum of £80,000, which should be invested in Canadian securities, and the interest of which should be devoted to Indian purposes. He (Mr. Labouchere) felt that such would not be a proper application of the funds of this country, and that he could not ask the House for any such sum. He himself felt the greatest sympathy with the Indians, whose welfare must, be believed, depend mainly on the conduct of the Canadians and of the Canadian Government, and it was therefore with much pleasure that he had that day learned that an Act had passed the Colonial Legislature, giving to the Indians the same political privileges as were enjoyed by the whites. He gave his noble Friend full credit for the ability with which he managed the affairs of the Indian department while he was at its head, and for the zeal with which he had brought this subject before the House. He could assure him that his attention would continue to be directed to this subject, and that it would be his anxious desire to do what was right by this very interesting portion of the Canadian population. As to the details of the pensions he was at present not sufficiently informed, but he would make inquiries into that part of the subject.

said, that some years ago he visited some of these Indian settlements. He found the people exceedingly comfortable and very well spoken of by their neighbours. His impression was that the grant ought to be withdrawn.

said, that the position of the Indians must mainly depend on the conduct of the Canadian Legislature. He hoped, however, that Her Majesty's Government would keep an eye on these Indians until they settled down into the habits of civilization.