said, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What arrangements have been made for the discharge in the Outports of those duties which were formerly performed by the Controllers, whose offices are now abolished; and whether provision has been made for employing the Controllers whose services have been dispensed with upon duties as nearly as possible analogous to those which they have previously had to perform, and for securing to them their fair chance of promotion to superior situations as they may fall vacant?

said, that his hon. Friend was aware that the particular duties which were formerly discharged by those officers—namely, to keep duplicate cash books, in which entries were made of the payments and receipts which came into the hands of the collectors, had been abolished; and a simpler form substituted by means of the clerks at the outports, and the principal check was through the Controller General and the chief clerks in the London district. Since their dismissal arrangements had been made for the employment of some as collectors, some as clerks, some in other capacities, while some had retired on compensation. Where any had been transferred to offices lower in rank, it had been at the same salary, and always with their own consent. There were, however, a certain number on the redundant list, and he thought it would be impossible to employ all; but he could safely say that every effort was being made to reduce the number on that list.

said, with regard to the Fairs and Markets Bill, as there were a great many clauses in it, he did not think it would be just to go on with it in the absence of so many Irish Members. With regard to the other Bill, the Committee were almost unanimous in recommending that the expense should be provided out of the Consolidated Fund instead of out of local funds. It would be impossible for him to recommend that course to the House, and under those circumstances he thought the best way would be to let the measure wait until the beginning of next Session. The Orders were subsequently discharged. Billswithdrawn

Mr. Speaker, I have placed a Notice on the Paper of a Motion to refer the Petition of Mr. Irwin, which I presented to the House on Friday last, to a Select Committee. That Petition had been printed by the express direction of the House for the use of the Members of this House only. As that Petition contains allegations against an hon. Member who is now in his place, I beg to know whether I should not be doing right in bringing the matter forward before the other business on the Paper is proceeded with.

I am rather doubtful whether the hon. Member can plead Privilege in this case. Prima facieany question affecting an hon. Member would be a case of Privilege. In this case the allegations of the Petition appear to reflect upon the conduct of Mr. Lever as Manager and Director of a certain public Company, before he was a Member of this House; but the Petition makes no charges. as I read it, against his conduct since he became a Member of this House, or in his character of Member. Under these circumstances I am not aware that there is any absolute precedent upon the point, and it will be for the House to say whether they will permit the Motion of the hon. Member to be now Proceeded with, or whether it shall come on in its due course.

The Notice on the Paper does not state that the matter will be brought on at this hour of the evening. I am quite ready to state the course which it is my intention to make with regard to the Motion. If the hon. Member to whom that Petition refers, and who I observe is in his place, wishes the Motion to be proceeded with at once, probably the House will not object to that course.

Mr. Speaker, being engaged in most extensive mercantile operations, I am most anxious that the charge which has been made against me should be met at once—I am most anxious, now that the charge had been brought, that it should be gone into immediately, with a view of proving the utter groundlessness of the accusations that have been made against me in the Petition which had been presented by the hon. Member for Brighton.

Sir, it appears to me that at whatever period the transactions alluded to in the Petition are alleged to have taken place, it must be painful for any hon. Member to have these charges hanging over him indefinitely. I, therefore, assume it to be the general feeling of the House that the Motion of the hon. Member for Brighton should come on at once.

Then, Sir understanding it to be the feeling of the House that I should bring my Motion on at once, I beg leave to move—

"That Mr. Irwin's Petition relating to the Royal Atlantic steam Navigation Company be referred to a Select Committee, to inquire into the allegations of the said Petition."

seconded the Motion. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. George O'Malley Irwin's Petition [presented 19 the July] be referred to a Select Committee, to inquire into the allegations contained in the said Petition."

Sir, having looked into the precedents bearing upon the case now under the consideration of the House, I find that charges made against a Member of this House, whether in his capacity of Member or in his individual capacity, have, as a general rule, been received by the House; but not until after the Member accused has been afforded an opportunity of reading the Petition, and of knowing distinctly what the charges contained in it against him are, and until he had had a full opportunity of being in his place and of replying to them. In those instances in which the conduct imputed has directly affected the honour and character of one of its Members, in that capacity I find that the House had deemed it right to investigate the matter; they have thought it right to investigate the charges so made against one of its Members in respect to his conduct as a Member of this House. I will refer to two cases, one of which occurred a long time ago In the Year 1826 a petition was presented on the part of the Shareholders of a Coal and Iron Mine Company, containing charges of misconduct against certain persons, one of whom at that time occupied the position, one of whom at that time occupied the position of Chairman of Committees of this House. The House did then appoint a Committee to enquire into the management of that Company, with an especial direction that they should report on the conduct of certain Members of the House in reference to that company. The other case is one of very recent occurrence. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Youghal is present, but a petition was presented within the last few years by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield against the hon. Member for Youghal, directly affecting his conduct and character as a Mem- ber of this House, upon the ground that he had received pecuniary payment in consideration of his having advocated the claims of certain persons in this House. An immediate and searching investigation into the allegations contained in the petition was invited by the hon. Gentleman accused. The hon. Gentleman insisted upon and begged the House to institute a searching inquiry into the charges so brought against him. A Committee was appointed by the House to investigate the charges so brought against him, and the Committee came to a decision favourable to the hon. Gentleman against whom the charges were made. Now, there are two other cases which seem to me to be strictly analogous to the one now before the House. In the year 1849 a petition was presented by the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire, which I think bears precisely on the present case. It was a petition by the shareholders of the Eastern Counties Railway Company charging misconduct against Mr. Hudson, who was then Member for Sunderland, and a Gentleman, the Chairman of the Company, who was at that time Member for one of the boroughs in Suffolk, the petition charged them with misconduct and fraudulent practices as between them and the shareholders of the Company. The Petition was received, and was ordered to lie on the table—the accused Members having been heard in their places—but then the questions involved being of a nature which it was competent for the parties to have caused to be investigated before the ordinary tribunals of the country—namely, the Courts of Law, and bearing upon the Members only in their individual capacity, the House did not institute any proceedings in the matter; and I believe that in taking that course they acted upon a very wise and a very sound principle. Now, a precisely similar course of Proceeding was adopted shortly after that, in 1850, in the case of a petition presented against Mr. Feargus O'Connor a Member of this House, as connected with the management of certain landed estates. The parties petitioned this House to institute an inquiry into charges of fraud and mismanagement on the part of Mr. Feargus O'Connor. The petition was received, and Mr. Feargus O'Connor was heard in answer to those charges, and there the matter ended. Now, I am not aware that there are any other recent precedents to be found; but I think that the House will act wisely in this case by adhering to the principle established in the two last mentioned cases. The hon. Member having been heard in his place, and the House having heard him make a distinct and emphatic denial of the charges brought against him, I think that the House would act wisely if they proceeded no further in the matter, which may hereafter form the subject of inquiry in a court of law.

Mr. Speaker, the subject to which I am about to refer has been so widely spread throughout the country, and affects me so deeply, that as a mercantile man it would, I think, be highly impolitic that I should remain altogether silent with respect to it, even though the House should be of opinion that the case was one into which it was not called upon to institute any further inquiry. I did not make any statement the other evening except so far as denying the charges brought against me in general terms, but I said that I should be prepared to go into the whole subject this evening, and I am now fully prepared to do so. I have hitherto been satisfied with denying the allegations contained in this petition in general terms, but I am now prepared to enter into the matter with the proofs of the truth of what I have already stated in my hands, and I should feel exceedingly obliged to the House if they would allow me to read the petition paragraph by paragraph, in order that I may the more clearly be able to show that there is not the slightest foundation for a single charge which it contains. Having done that, I shall then leave myself in the hands of the House, and it will be for the House to say whether they will appoint a Committee of Inquiry or not. Sir, the first Clause, which is stated in the petition of Mr. Irwin, is

"That your petitioner was the original and real projector of the Atlantic Steam Navigation Company, now called the Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company (Limited)."

I rise for the purpose of suggesting to the House whether, after the emphatic denial of the charges made by the hon. Member himself, and the statement which we have just heard from the right hon. Baronet opposite, and after the general expression of the opinion of this House, it would not be consonant with our feelings to refer this petition to a Select Committee, whether it is worth the while of the hon. Member to take the trouble and occupy the time of the House by going through the petition seriatim. [Cries of "Order, order!"]

The propriety of taking that course is a matter for the consideration of the hon. Member for Galway himself.

Mr. Speaker, I shall, with the permission of the House, pursue, as upon the whole the most satisfactory to all parties, the course which I had determined to adopt. This is Mr. George O'Malley Irwin's petition. The first paragraph of the petition says—

"That your petitioner was the original and real projector of the 'Atlantic Steam Navigation Company,' now called the 'Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company (Limited).'"

Now, my answer to that statement is, that I first conceived the idea of the Galway line towards the latter end of 1856, and that the first time I ever saw or heard of Mr. Irwin was on board one of my ships, the Antelope, at Gravesend, in March, 1858. The Antelope was carrying out troops for the East India Company. That was the very first time I ever had the opportunity of seeing Mr. Irwin. I may further observe that on referring to a Report laid before the shareholders of the Company, I find in it that the Directors of the Company make these observations—

"Prior to the incorporation of your Company Mr. John Orrell Lever, M.P., one of your first Directors, having satisfied himself of the geographical advantages of the ports which constitute the ocean termini of your line, placed some steam-ships between Galway and New York, and commenced negotiations with several Railway and other Companies and with the Government authorities for the purpose of permanently establishing a line of steam-ships between Galway and America. To his foresight and energy is, therefore, due the origin of this the shortest line of communication between the Old and the New World, which it will be your privilege permanently to establish."

I received no money whatever from the Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company for my ships and for the expenses which I had incurred in establishing that service, from the month of June, 1858, to the 1st of January, 1859. I, therefore, entirely deny that Mr. Irwin had anything to do in projecting this Company. Now, in the second paragraph of the petition he states—

"That petitioner having obtained the consent of Mr. John Orrell Lever, now one of the Members of your honourable House, then of 'Hanging Ditch, Corn Exchange, Manchester,' to act as Managing Director to the projected Atlantic Steam Navigation Company, he addressed a letter to your petitioner in the following terms:—'Liverpool, June 1st, 1858. Sir, I shall be happy to act as Managing director of the projected Atlantic Steam Navigation Company. Yours most truly, J, Orrell Lever. To G. O'Malley Irwin, Esq., Burlington Hotel.' (As set forth in petitioner's answer to question 4,571, p. 8, of 2nd Report form the Select Committee on Packet Contracts.)"

Now, my answer to that is, that in the month of March, 1858, Mr. Irwin called upon me at the office of my brokers, and stated that he had just Baron Rothschild and Mr. Peabody, who had consented to become Directors of a Company to work the Galway line under my management. He brought upon that occasion with him the draft of a prospectus in which their names appeared, and he told me that I must go with him to call on Baron Rothschild the following day, as the Baron was anxious to have personal explanations from me and an opportunity of conversation touching the undertaking. He also said that, prior to confirming the arrangement, I must write a letter consenting to become the Managing Director of the Company, which I accordingly wrote and gave to Mr. Irwin, supposing it to be intended for the information and assurance of Baron Rothschild and Mr. Peabody, which I have since found not to be the case. Therefore, upon that head, the House will be good enough to understand that he obtained that letter from me under fraudulent pretences. Then, Sir, the third paragraph of the petition is as follows: —

"That Mr. John Orrell Lever having, accordingly assumed the management of the said Atlantic Company, by such means was enabled to get from the funds of the said Company £209,954, out of which there was to be deducted £127,000 for his ships to the Company, balance left being £82,954 according to the now published accounts of the said Company."

Now, I do not think it necessary to take the slightest trouble to refute such an imputation as that; he had mentioned the matter to several parties; I do not think it worth while to give an answer to any observations coming from such a source as that. On the 1st of September last I made a public speech to my constituents, in which I took occasion to answer some of the observations which had been made with respect to me by some of the shareholders of the Company. I will beg leave to read to the House what I then said, as I conceive it to be a perfect answer to any observations that might be made with respect to myself. I stated at Galway, as reported in the Galway Express —

"That real fact is that by all these transactions I have been personally a very heavy loser, while it is a matter of notoriety that had I taken advantage of other opportunities which were within my reach, I might have made a considerable profit. At the time when the Company was fully formed, I had a fleet of steamers which I proposed to transfer to the Company at a valuation price. In the course of the negotiations that followed the bills of sale were produced to show what was actually paid for the several steamers, and it was finally arranged by the Directors (I may mention that the articles of association expressly excluded me from voting on the subject) to offer me for a portion of the fleet a sum less by £11,000 than the actual cost. Having promised the Company to accept their own price, I felt bound to abide by the result, and I accepted the proposal made without any hesitation."

This fact is, I think, conclusive upon this point. The money received for all the preliminary expenses and losses incurred — the published Reports of the Company shew that £s;27,000 was the sum to the paid for these expenses, and for obtaining a regular service of steamers for six months, including my losses on the first vessels, which losses amounted in the gross to £17,000 out of the £27,000. This sum of £27,000 was included in the gross sum. Some of the ships were purchased in the usual course of trade, and were sold in the same manner. Deducting theses charges there is a total sum of £81,000 due to me, which, in the ordinary course, ought to have been paid to me in cash. I accepted, instead of that £81,000, £10,000 of bills of the Company to enable me to pay the current expenses of the ships, and I took the £71,000 in full paid-up shares of the Company's stock. Therefore I think with respect to that paragraph the statement I have made to the House answers that effectually. Now the next paragraph is —

"That petitioner as originator of said Company is most desirous to have the subsidy sustained by Parliament, provided proper means are taken to prevent the committal of false and fraudulent pretences, such as have been practised by said Mr. John Orrell Lever and other officials and managers who were introduced by him into the Company."

This paragraph, I believe, I have already answered in my observations upon paragraph No.1. The fifth paragraph of the petition is —

"That your petitioner's anxiety to see the subsidy sustained by Parliament is perfectly reconcilable with the determination to expose and punish false and fraudulent proceedings, alike injurious to the Government of the country and to the public."

The Directors and Shareholders of the Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company understand their own interests and possess full power to order any investigation they deem necessary. As far as I am concerned, I shall only be too happy to meet any inquiry from whatever source it may come. The sixth statement is—

"That false and fraudulent pretences have been practised by Mr. John Orrell Lever, and the officials and managers who were introduced into the Company by him, in circulating under the name of the 'Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company's New Line of Steam Ships to America,' imaginary ships which never had existence, with fictitious tonnage and fictitious horse-power. That year petitioner sustains his charge by extracts from the publications and advertisements of the Company, which were extensively circulated in 'October' and 'November, 1858,' after the Company had been duly constituted, and after the articles of copartnery had been executed on the 24th of the previous month of September, 1858,' and which were as follows;—'Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company's New Line of Steam Ships, to America,' &c., carrying Her 'Majesty's Mails, and taking passengers and cargo,'" &c.—

Steam Ship,	Captain.	Tons Burden.	Horse Power.
'American Empire.	Johnson.	3,000	1,000
'British Empire.	Williamson.	3,000	1,000

'For freight or further particulars apply to John Orrell Lever, Corn Exchange, Manchester, &c., as by reference to said advertisements and publications themselves, and to your petitioner's letter, published in 'The Times,' of July 19th, 1860, stating that the above ships never had existence, may more fully appear. That no attempt had been made to answer or refute even a single charge so publicly made and widely circulated."

To that I answer that I publicly repudiated the statement, not that I should answer anything that appeared in a paper from such a source as that, but I felt it due not only to myself but to the Company which I had originated to give an explanation, and it was on that account that I made the speech to which I have called the attention of the House. I wrote a letter to the brokers of the Company who had the charge of all the advertisement, and in answer to that letter this is their reply with respect to the allegations of the petition charging "fictitious names of captains," "fictitious tonnage," and "fictitious horse-power."

"London, July 22nd, 1861.

Sir,—In answer to your note of this day with reference to the advertisements which we inserted in the London daily papers in October, 1858, of the steamships British Empire and American Empire, of 3, 000 tons burden and 1,000 horse-power respectively, we beg to state that said advertisements were drawn up by us; that we were then arranging for the purchase of Transatlantic steamers of that burden and effective horse-power; that it was intended to transfer those vessels from foreign to the British flag, and change their names when transferred. The names of the commanders, you will remember, were officers in your own employ. We may add that we distinctly remember answering to the above effect Mr. Irwin's inquiry as to the steamers in questions at the time the advertisements appeared, and we can only express our surprise that Mr. Irwin should now have the audacity to make such groundless chargess.—We are, Sir, your obedient servants, Bake, Adam, and Co. John Orrell Lever, Esq., M.P., 40, Cannon Street."

Therefore I think that a letter from such eminent shipowners and shipbrokers must be a perfectly satisfactory answer to these charges of Mr. Irwin. Now the 7th paragraph is—

"That your petitioner has observed with regret and alarm, although some changes are alleged to have taken place in the direction of the Company and said Mr. John Orrell Lever has ceased to be a Manager of Director, that the other officials and Managers referred to who were introduced by him and cognizant of and participators in the false and fraudulent pretences are in many instances retained."

Now this is a charge against the present Board of Directors, and not against myself. I ceased to be a Director of the Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company some twelve months ago, being very much engaged in a great number of mercantile pursuits of an important character, and I at that time believed that I was transferring the management of that Company to better and more able hands. I am sure that I need not make any observation upon the character or position of the present Board. Suffice it to say that they have not only discharged their duties and carried out the service in a manner creditable to themselves (although I am not a Director), but also beneficial not only to the mercantile community but to the people of Ireland generally, and that they deserve not only the thanks of the mercantile community but the thanks of the people of Ireland. Sir, the eighth paragraph of the petition is—

"That both the Government and the public, as well as your petitioner, his friends, relatives, and numerous Irish farmers, have been deceived and defrauded, and will still further be deceived and defrauded unless there shall be a searching inquiry into the false and fraudulent pretences practised by the said Mr. John Orrell Lever and the other officials and Managers who were fully cognizant of and participators therein."

Mr. Irwin and his friends, under the Limited Liability Act, possess the power of calling the Directors to account and of bringing forward their charges. Mr. Irwin does not produce the name of a single shareholder who has demanded investigation, nor has he a single share in the Company. Here is a certificate to that effect which I have obtained from the Secretary to the Company: — "Mr. George O'Malley Irwin is not a shareholder in the Atlantic Company, nor has he ever held a single share in the company since its formation." So that he never was affected in any way whatever. I think, therefore, that that is a perfect answer to anything that can be said upon that head. Sir, the ninth and last paragraph is —

"That said false and fraudulent practices have thwarted and brought disgrace on this great national enterprise, and eventually caused and have been the grounds of the termination of the company's contract by the Postmaster General, the Right Hon. Lord Stanley of Alderley."

Now, all that I have to say in answer to that is that this is not the reason which given in the Postmaster General's Report laid before Parliament for the abrogation of the contract. Now, I think that the House ought to know something of the antecedents of Mr. Irwin, and it might be very useful that I should furnish them. My information has been derived from official documents which have been obtained at very considerable expense from the Courts in Dublin, and which will exhibit to you the character of this individual who brings these charges against me. In November, 1834, Mr. O'Malley Irwin was indicted for forgery. The trial came on on the 28th and 29th of November, 1835. The charge was for having forged a letter purporting to come from Mr. Johnston, Assistant-Barrister, of the country of Mayo, containing the resignation of that gentleman, and contriving by such means to obtain the appointment of Assistant-Barrister for himself. Mr. Irwin was sentenced to nine months imprisonment and fined £50. Mr. Irwin brought an action against me, which came on for trial on the 4th day of December, 1860, when the plaintiff seeing that the verdict would be in my favour agreed to a nonsuit. In the same month the costs in this action were taxed. On the 25th day of May, 1861, Mr. Irwin was taken in execution. On the 12th day of June, 1861, he came up for hearing before the Insolvent Court upon a petition, and obtained his discharge from custody. Mr. Irwin is now under process of passing through the Insolvent Court to liquidate the costs of the trial which he has put me to, amounting to many hundred pounds. The case is to be heard on the 30th of the present month, and I believe this petition has been brought forward for the purpose of influencing the conduct of the Judge on that occasion. I shall now read a curious passage from the Appendix to the second Report of the Select Committee on packet and telegraphic contracts. During the course of the trial to which I have referred, Mr. Serjeant Shee put the following questions to Mr. Irwin: —

"Were you not in kilmainham goal for nine months for forgery?" — "Mr. Irwin: No."

"Mr. Serjeant Shee: Were you not in Kilmainham Gaol for nine months, on the sentence of a Judge of a superior Court in Ireland, for forging the name of Mr. Johnston, the Assistant-Barrister in Mayo?"—" Mr. Irwin: Certainly not."

But Mr. Irwin, finding that Mr. Serjeant Shee had the necessary proofs in his possession, made, a few minutes after his explicit denial, the following extraordinary admissions: —

"Mr. Serjeant Shee: Just listen to me; I will not ask you any question which it is not my duty under the circumstances to ask you, and I will ask the question in as little an offensive manner as I can. Were you indicted for the forgery of that letter which I read?"—" Mr. G. O'Malley Irwin: Certainly."

"Mr. Serjeant Shee: Were you convicted?" — "Mr. G. O'Malley Irwin: Certainly."

"Mr. Serjeant Shee: Were you sentenced to nine months imprisonment in Kilmainham Goal?" —"Mr. Serjeant Shee: Did you remain the nine months in goal?" —" Mr. G.O'Malley Irwin: Certainly."

Now, Sir, I leave this case in the hands of the House. I only regret that the Committee could not be appointed — if it is not to be appointed — because it would have afforded me ample opportunity to give an answer to these most impudent, audacious, and untrue allegations. My own wish is that there should be an inquiry, because I want to show by undeniable proofs that there is no ground whatever for the charges which have been brought against myself; and that the Government of Lord Derby, in granting the subsidy, conferred a boon on the mercantile classes of both Europe and America.

The hon. Member having made his statement will now be pleased to withdraw.

Mr. Speaker, I think it was quite natural, but altogether superfluous, for the hon. Member for Galway to go into the statements he has made with reference to this petition, because I cannot for a moment think that the House will seriously entertain this Motion. I was very glad, indeed, to hear what was stated by so high an authority as the right hon. Baronet opposite, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I entirely agree with what fell from the right hon. Baronet; and, undoubtedly, looking to the nature of these transactions, and the precedents bearing on the case which have been alluded to by the right hon. Baronet, I do hope and trust that the unanimouse feeling of the House will be that there is no occasion to refer this petition to a Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to explain that I merely seconded the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, as no one else seemed disposed to do so, in order to enable the hon. Member for Galway to make the explanations which he has now done to the House.

In placing this notice on the paper, I certainly acted in deference to what I conceived to be the express desire of the House; but having presented the petition, having seen the documents which are referred to in it, and having heard the explanation or statement of the hon. Member for Galway, I must now say, while it is entirely in the discretion of the House to decided whether it is desirable that the petition be referred to a Select Committee for investigation; and while I am perfectly ready, as I was before, to be guided by the judgment of the House, that unless I hear a very distinct expression of opinion against the reference to a Committee it will be my duty to persevere in my Motion. I certainly do not desire to place myself in a hostile attitude, but I confess for my own part that this is a matter which can be best dealt with and brought out by investigation. Unless I hear a very distinct expression against my Motion, I am afraid I must press for the appointment of a Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the petition which has been presented to the House by the hon. Member for Brighton, if I understand it rightly, brings charges of fraud against the hon. Member for Galway. I apprehend that it is perfectly clear that the allegations contained in that petition are totally untrue—and under those circumstances it would be worse than a mere waste of time to refer the petition to a Select Committee. It appears from the documentary evidence which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Galway, that Mr. Irwin the petitioner never had a single share in the Comapany—and I apprehend that his name if connected with any company would be sufficient to ruin the undertaking. The Galway Contract, which has so often formed the subject of discussion here and out of doors, was not given to Mr. Lever, but it was given to the Irish people. That contract was a real bona fide undertaking; and any allegation to the contrary might be carried by Mr. Irwin to a competent legal tribunal. I contend that this House ought not to interfere in such an investigation. The allegations contained in this petition are now brought forward by the same party that caused the shipwreck of the steamer in Galway Bay, and the death of the unfortunate pilot. It is patent to everybody—it is perfectly clear that the intention is to disparage the company, in the same manner as the object at first was to disparage the Government that granted the contract.

Mr. Speaker, I think it must be quite obvious to the House that we have to choose between two alternatives—namely, either to appoint a Select Committee to investigate this question, or not to discuss this question in the House. It is quite clear that we have no materials for discussion before us. A petition was presented. The hon. Member for Galway denied in the most distinct manner the truth of the allegations in that petition, so far as they bore upon him. He did what appeared to me a superfluous thing in going into details of these statements, because it is impossible for us to know the grounds upon which these statements rested. It is sufficient for this House that the hon. Member for Galway should give a general denial to the allegations of the petition. If this petition bore upon the conduct of the hon. Gentleman as a Member of this House—if its allegations imputed to him, for example, that he abused his powers as a Member of a Select Committee upstairs—if they impeached his character in any way in his legislative capacity, I think it would have been incumbent upon the House to take notice of the petition, and to appoint a Committee to investigate it. But, Sir, that is not the case. The act, imputed do not concern the hon. Gentleman in his character of Member of this House; and they, moreover, took place before he was elected. Therefore, it is doubly clear as it seems to me that there are reasons why we should not interfere. Therefore, I shall give my vote unhesitatingly against the Motion of my hon. Friend, if he should think it necessary to go to a division. I cannot, however, but hope that, seeing the general sense of the House is against taking any further notice of this subject, he will hardly think it necessary to press his Motion to a division.

rose together, the latter giving way to the former.

Mr. Speaker, it is my intention only to interpose for one minute between the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) and his wish to address the House. Now, Sir, having voted for the reception of this petition, and agreeing with what has just fallen from my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, I trust that the hon. Member for Brighton will not press this matter to a division. I have had long experience in this House, and my recollections and impressions entirely concur with those of the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I do not think that in modern times inquiries have been instituted into the allegations of a petition affecting a Member of this House, unless they touch his conduct on some conviction of conduct unworthy of his character and position. I have read this petition very carefully, and I do not see any allegation in it affecting the hon. Member for Galway, except antecedently to his taking his seat in this House; and these allegations are capable of being substantiated before a legal tribunal of competent jurisdiction and thoroughly capable of dealing with them. If prosecution before such a tribunal should be instituted and conviction ensues, of course it would be open to call upon this House to proceed against one of its Members who had been convicted of being engaged in fraudulent transactions, but in the absence of such conviction, and in the absence of allegations affecting the conduct of a Member of the House as such—although I am as jealous of the honor of the Members of this House as any one can be—I would certainly advise my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton not to persevere in his Motion, which on the whole, I think, would not be in accordance with the ends of justice or conduce to the honour of this House.

put the Motion which was negatived without a division.

This Vote is the difference between the sum granted on account and the sum constituting the whole amount of the Estimate asked for on the part of the trustees of the British Museum this year. The gross Estimate for this year—£100,414—will be found about £400 less than the total sum voted last year. There are several small increases and decreases upon the different heads included in this Estimate which I do not believe it necessary for me more particularly t notice; but there are two large items, the one of increase and the other of decrease, upon which I think I ought to make a few observations. The increase of amount to £3,300, under the head of salaries; the decrease to £2,700, on the Vote for special purchases. The increase of £3,300 arises in consequences of alterations made in the Museum, partly, I may say, by recommendations of this House, and partly in consequence of the retirement of the keeper of antiquities which, has led to the department being placed under three keepers instead of under one. The House may recollect that a strong pressure was put from different quarters upon the trustees of the Museum, about two years ago, to induce them to take into consideration the propriety of giving longer vacations to the clerks in the institution, and also propriety of giving them some increase of salary. The vacations were extended in the course of last year, and an increase in the salaries of the assistants will be made this year. In both of those respects—namely, vacations and salary, the asssistants of the Museum are now put more nearly on a footing with certain other departments of the State than they were before; and if the House wishes the same able gentlemen to fill the offices in this establishment who have hitherto filled them it cannot expect them to remain in the service of the trustees unless they receive salaries somewhat proportionate, not only to the labours they have to undergo, but proportionate also to the knowledge and the acquirements they are required to possess. Now, the great improvement effected is that the assistants are divided into two classes, an arrangements which affords quicker facilities for promotion than have heretofore existed. The only other observations I have to make on this increase is, that the Department of Anti- quities is now placed under three different gentlemen of great ability and high attainments. I may mention that Mr. Birch, whose reputation for a knowledge of Egyptian antiquities is not only European, but is unrivalled in Europe, will for the future be entirely employed in the charge of those antiquities. The keeper of the classical antiquities is a gentleman known probably to every hon. Member of this House for his energy and enterprise in excavating at Budruom the ruins of what was once one of the seven wonders of the world—the ancient Halicarnassus. Unfortunately, the specimens which he obtained remain under a glass shed, which is a discredit to the nation; but I hope that before I sit down I shall say enough to induce the Government to promise that some better accommodation shall be provided for these works of art. The other large item which I mentioned is a decrease of £2,700 for special purchases. Last year I had to ask for no less than £3,700 on that account. One of the purposes for which that sum was asked was the purchase of part of the collection of the late Lord Northwick, another was the purchase of one of the most valuable sets of manuscript which we have obtained of late years, belonging to the Duke of Laudersdale, and illustrating the history of the reign of Charles II., and the third, and most important, was the obtaining, at a cost of £2,000, of a most beautiful collection of minerals, which will, I believe, make the collection of mineralogy in the Museum always unequalled. This year we only ask for £1,000 for the purchase of some Oriental manuscripts, the property of Colonel Taylor, which I am told are valuable not merely on account of the quarter from which they come but because they contain materials for history with which we were previously unacquainted. [Mr. LAYARD: Hear, hear!] As the hon. Member cheers that statement, I presume that I am rightly informed. In accordance with the practice which has usually been adopted by those who have moved these Estimates, of informing the House of any events which have occurred in the previous twelvemonths, I ought to mention that we have during the past year lost two trustees—the Earl of Aberdeen and the Duke of Sutherland—but eminent as those Trustees were, their places have been filled by the election of a nobleman and a gentleman who will worthily occupy them—I allude to the Duke of Northumberland and Sir Thomas Phillips. The only other ob- servations which I will make have reference to the Reports of two Committees which were appointed last year to inquire—the one into the South Kensington Museum, and the other into the British Museum. The Report of the first-named Committee recommended that certain institutions in the Metropolis, including the British Museum, should be opened in the evening for the benefit of persons who are employed all day. The Trustees were most anxious that that should be done if possible, and seriously considered the practicability of carrying out the recommendation. I hope that the members of the Committee have read the valuable report prepared by that unfortunate gentleman, the late Mr. Braidwood, of the Fire Brigade— a man whose loss the country must seriously and sincerely deplore. The Trustees referred to Mr. Braidwood and the architect to consider whether it was possible to open the Museum in the evening consistently with the safety of the collections. Mr. Braidwood in his report, which contains most valuable information, pointed out that if the Museum was to be lighted with gas, with which alone it could be lighted so as properly to display its contents, these inconveniences would follow:— That it was a property of gas to dry everything within a room in which it was burning, especially the roof, the ceiling, and any timber which there might be in it, and that if a fire took place in a building so desiccated nothing could stop the progress of the flames; that the gas would materially injure the animal and vegetable collections; that it would greatly discolour the stones and marbles, and that that discolouration when once it had taken place could not easily be got rid of; and that if an explosion ever took place, against which absolute security could not be provided, it would be attended with most destructive consequences, to the risk of which such valuable collections as those contained in the British Museum ought not to be exposed. Upon this report the Trustees came to the conclusion that, however anxious they might be to give the benefit of these collections to the humbler classes, it was impossible to open the Museum at night. So much for the Report of the Committee on the South Kensington Museum. Another Committee was appointed to inquire into the British Museum itself. I think that the objects of my hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) in moving the appointment of that Committee were twofold—First, to ascertain whether it was necessary that the collections should be separated; and secondly, to discover whether accommodation could not be provided for the collections which are now in the Museum without such separation. After the Report of that Committee was made, it was the duty of the Trustees to consider what could be done to provide additional accommodation for the collections which are still undivided. They referred to the Government—as the sum to be voted for such a purpose must depend upon the Executive Government—to ascertain what is their opinion as to the propriety of separating the collections or keeping them together. The Government have not been able, and, considering the pressure which has been, put upon them this year, I am not surprised that they, have not been able, to give a specific answer to that question, but having regard to the collections which are now in the Museum, and to the valuable collection which has within the last three days arrived from the ancient Cyrene, I am sure that it will be impossible that such important and interesting works of art should be left under the glass shed and should not be exhibited, as the public have a right to demand that they should be. It is not for me to express my opinion upon this subject. It will be for the Government to say what they recommend should be done, in order that the Trustees may consider the question of providing additional space, with reference not merely to what they have to accommodate now, but also to what they may have to accommodate in the future. If any of the collections should be separated from the rest, of course, less accommodation will be required; if they should all be kept together the accommodation which will be required will be of very considerable extent. Of one thing, however, I am sure, and that is, that for collections so valuable as those in the British Museum the country will not grudge any reasonable sum that may be required. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by formally moving the Vote.

said, he had hoped that at the commencement of the Session some announcement would have been made by the Government upon the subject of enlarging and rearranging the British Museum. The state of congestion in which that establishment found itself was apparent to every one. He was aware of the pressure upon the financial resources of the Government, and he had such an objection to shreds and patchwork, that he would prefer allowing matters to remain as at present rather than to adopt any temporary expedient that would not be creditable hereafter. Rather than see another sculpture den he would prefer to see the present conservatory round the portico of the Museum, ugly and unsightly as it was, continued and extended, and he sincerely hoped that no plan for removing the grand staircase, and constructing two rooms of sculpture, which must be badly lighted and unfit for the purpose, would be adopted by the Trustees. Next year he hoped the Chancellor for the Exchequer might be able to adopt the suggestion made by the Committee which sat last year, and of which he (Mr. Gregory) was the Chairman—namely, to buy up the block of houses around the Museum. That would not only be a good investment, but it would enable the Government to lay down a plan admitting of gradual enlargement, and at the same time carrying out the system of rearrangement which was urged upon the Committee by all the witnesses—a systematic chronological arrangement of the statues. An hon. Friend near him, whom all received as a high authority in all matters pertaining to art—the hon. Member for Lambeth—he begged pardon, for Southwark (Mr. Layard)—that hon. Gentleman recommended a sculpture hall, but if this were found too difficult or too expensive to obtain, then lateral galleries. He (Mr. Gregory) believed a hall would be difficult and expensive to construct, but lateral galleries would not. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) had alluded to the removal of some portion of the collections. Upon that point great difference of opinion prevailed, but throughout London there was great anxiety in different parts of the Metropolis to have local museums, and he thought that portions of the collections in the British Museum, if it were resolved to remove them, might be handed over to one or other of the local museums, the Trustees still retaining a proprietary right, and exercising a supervision over them. The Committee thought the ethnographical collection should be removed, and it was also suggested that the drawings of ancient master should be removed to the National Gallery whenever the nation possessed a gallery capable of receiving them. With respect to prints the case was different, as they afforded instruction to the archaeologist and the student in history. Upon the question of removing what was called the mediaeval portion of the collection, there was great difference of opinion. He, as Chairman of the Committee, prepared a Report in the sense that the mediaeval portion of the collection should be removed to whatever place of Parliament should decide, but the Committee did not agree with him, and a recommendation to enlarge the British Museum was adopted. He still adhered to his own opinion upon that point, both upon the ground of economy and for the interest of the collections themselves. It was not fair to call upon the country to pay for two similar establishments in close contiguity with each other. It was said that the objects of the South Kensington Museum and the British Museum were different—that the latter was archaeological and historical, while those of the Kensington Museum were educational and for the improvement of art. Practically, that appeared to him to be a distinction without a difference, the means of educational improvement were to be found in the British Museum and the materials for archaeological and historical research could be found at Kensington. He adhered to his former opinion that the mediaeval collection should be removed from the British Museum. He was aware that there was great difficulty in separating what ought to be place in the British Museum from works of mediaeval art. But Mr. Newton had thrown out a hint, showing that a canon might be laid down—perhaps rather a vague one—but still effectual for the purpose. He proposed to draw a distinction between Christian art and Pagan art. The line of demarcation might be difficult, but still it was only in a few instances that any doubt could be entertained. But in any case he thought the British antiquities representing the history of the nation ought to be retained in the British Museum, whether they were ante-Christian or post-Christian. But he had heard rumours that it was the intention of the Government next year to remove the whole or part of the natural history collections from the British Museum. He was satisfied that any attempt to transfer the natural history collections from their central position at Bloomsbury to a remote and less accessible situation at Kensington would give rise to great dissatisfaction. The weight of the official and scientific evidence taken before the Committee was against such a course, and if attempted it would be met as the proposed removal of the national collection of paintings to Kensington was met on a former occasion—by an adverse vote. The proposal was disapproved by Messrs. Gray, Marshall, Waterhouse, Professor Huxtable, and others. Professor Owen himself, the only name which those in favour of separation could quote, declared that he should infinitely prefer Bloomsbury, if he could only obtain sufficient space for his collection. The great arguments in favor of retaining the natural history collection where it was were three. First, the popularity of the collection with the middle and lower classes, a fact capable of being proved by a reference to statistics. In the next place, the importance of a central situation for such a collection had been strongly insisted upon. Lastly, there was the question of economy. If they built a natural history gallery at a distance from the great national library they would have to from a new library, the first cost of which, Professor Owen admitted, would be £30,000; and it would require a large annual sum to keep it up, and to purchase books of the same kind as they were also purchasing for the library in Bloomsbury. Then, the risk to many fragile articles which it contained, and which it was admitted could not be removed without great peril, ought not be forgotten. He wished to open the eyes of the public to the outrageous proposition which the Government had apparently entertained in 1859. On the 10th of July in that year Professor Owen submitted a plan to the Trustees, in which he said that with the utmost economy of space he should require for the present wants of his collection, and for its probable extension within the next thirty years, a building of one story covering ten acres, or a building of two stories covering five acres. On the 21st of the following January the Trustees actually voted, by a majority of 9 to 8, that it would be cheaper to provide for the natural history gallery upon a site not contiguous to the Museum. That crazy, rash, and extravagant scheme was actually in contemplation last year. It was calculated that the expense of five and a half acres at Kensington would be £27,500, and at Bloomsbury, £240,000, the building on either site costing £567,000, making thus a total of £594,500, against £807,000. But that estimate was erroneous. It was proved before the Committee that the price of land at Kensington was misrepresented in that calculation, and that it should have been £53,000, and not £27,500. There was a space of 61,155 superficial feet in the British Museum which was devoted to natural history, and which could not be used for antiquities, as it was on the second floor. The space of 61.155 superficial feet represented £122,310—that was to say, it would cost that sum to provide buildings which they had already. Mr. Smirke, the architect of the Museum, declared that, beside that, the fittings alone would cost £80,000, as the old fittings in the Museum would not be available. Taking into account these figures, the 5 1/2-acre plan at Bloomsbury would cost £656,000, and the plan at Kensington was estimated to cost £730,000, but he really believed it would cost £1,000,000, to say nothing of the large staff requisite for such an enormous building. But he would ask was all the space necessary which Mr. Owen required? The student of natural history who wished to go through the whole of the galleries would have to traverse a distance of nearly five miles. Professor Owen contemplated a great hall for the exhibition of whales. It was shown that the skins of whales could not be procured, and that, if they were procured, the stench would render it would render it totally impossible for any one but a professor to enter the place where they were kept. He could fancy a notice being posted," Shut at present on account of the stench." Even if the natural history collection were removed, not an iota of space would be gained for the antiquities, and, in his opinion, the plan was the most extravagant, the most useless, and the most unpopular which could be devised. It was proved before the Committee last year that scientific men did not require the exhibition of all the specimens, and that it would weary and disgust the public. There were nine species of crows, some of them so closely allied that only the most scientific men could distinguish them. Mr. Gould, and a host of scientific witnesses said, the public did not require to have in the galleries nine specimens of crows and thirty -nine specimens of warblers, all resembling one another. What was required was a liberal collection of type specimens. He regretted that a man whose name stood so high as Professor Owen's should connect himself with so foolish, crazy, and extravagant a scheme, and should persevere in it after the folly had been pointed out by most unexceptionable witness. A plan was proposed which struck every one in the Committee by its simplicity, its artistic and scientific character, and, above all, by its economy. Mr. Oldfield proposed a plan which was approved by the architect of the Museum, to make a chronological arrangement of the sculptures, and to provide at the same time for the perfect exhibition of the natural history specimens, by giving up the whole of the second story of the British Museum for the purpose. It would separate the natural history collection from the exhibition, and save the enormous expense which was clearly intended by the removal to Kensington. He congratulated the trustees on the changes which had been made, and on the liberality which had been evinced by Her Majesty's Government in improving the position of gentlemen who well deserved the increased salary and liberty accorded to them after long delay. But, while giving that praise, he must be allowed to qualify it with reference to one gentleman, who he regretted, to say, was no longer connected with the Museum. He could not speak too highly of Mr. Oldfield. He believed that every member of the Committee appreciated the knowledge and taste displayed by Mr. Oldfield in the evidence which he gave last year, and the labour which he must have under gone in preparing a plan which was, in his opinion, the most perfect ever submitted for the rearrangement of the British Museum. Mr. Oldfield was a gentleman who was examined before every Committee and every Commission which bad inquired into the subject. He was the person who arranged the Assyrian Gallery, the Egyptian Gallery, and the Greco-Roman and Roman Galleries, and the Temple Collection, and every one who had seen the admirable manner in which he had succeeded in those arrangements must be satisfied that the loss of his services would be a serious loss to the institution. Mr. Oldfield was most anxious to remain in the Museum, and offered to take any office, provided he was directly responsible to the Trustees and had an opportunity of submitting his views to them instead of submitting them to his superior officers, who might refuse to allow them to go before the Trustees. He even offered to serve gratuitously, if he were placed in this position with regard to the Trustees. In choosing Mr. Newton, the Trustees had chosen a very learned and a very worthy man, but the Trustees ought to have made such arrangements as would have continued the services of a man who had done such good service as Mr. Oldfield. He joined in the congratulations of the right hon. Gentleman at the additions which had been made to the Museum. He rejoiced particularly at the accessions which, it had received from Africa, and, as M. de Chaillu had been very much abused, it was only fair to him to say that he had behaved in the fairest and most liberal manner. He had acceded at once, without any cavilling, to the valuation which had been put on his collection by the Trustees. Mr. Panizzi also deserved great credit for the zeal which he had shown in forwarding all plans for obtaining accessions to the Museum, and the Admiralty also ought to have their meed of praise for the assistance which they had given. Another matter he wished to allude to was the Campagna collection. At the close of last year the Russians were in negotiation for this collection, and the Trustees, when they heard of this, sent Mr. Newton to Rome to purchase it. Some understanding was entered into between him and the French agent with regard to the particular things which each wanted. The next thing they heard was that the French Government had purchased the whole of the collection for £192,000. Through Mr. Robinson the Directors of the Kensington Collection had secured all that portion of the mediaeval collection which they required, but the British Museum had not obtained one single solitary thing. It was notorious that Mr. Robinson had had many difficulties in his way; but he was not a man to be easily overcome by difficulties. He went from Cardinal to Cardinal and from Monsignore to Monsignore until he obtained what he required, and if the British Museum had not a man at their command whom they could employ in negotiations it would he well if they would put their commissions in the hands of a gentleman like Mr. Robinson. He hoped next year when the Government came forward with a plan it would not be a thing as of shreds and patches, but that it would be one which would make the Museum a real pride to the country. Above all, he warned them against any attempt to separate the natural collection from the other collections, for that proposition, he was convinced, would meet with strong opposition both in London and the country at large.

said, he was not at all surprised at the opinions expressed by his hon. Friend who had just sat down. In the Committee of last year, over which the lion, Gentleman presided, there were no less than seven Gentlemen who as Trustees were, in fact, on their trial in reference to the management of the Museum, but who, nevertheless, on the most important divisions came down when several independent Members were absent and outvoted them on almost every material point. The consequence was that his lion. Friend as regards the Report of his Committee was made to stand in the position of parent to a child which was not his own. In 1850 a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire Into the management of the British Museum, but not one of the most important recommendations of that Commission had been carried out. It recommended, for instance, the abolition of the trustee system, and the creation of a Board—a recommendation in which he fully concurred, for it was impossible to carry on a large Museum under the trustee system. What was wanted was one man, one idea, and one controlling intellect. The Commission also pointed out how inadequate the present building was for the purposes of the Museum, and it appeared to him that the trustees were responsible for this state of things. At present the front rooms of the building was nearly useless on account of the portico which excluded the light. An enormous hall had been built merely to show the backs of books. Two galleries had been constructed to contain the Assyrian marbles, and when they were done it was found that the marbles could not be seen. Then the portico, which was probably intended for the Trustees to walk under and dispute, had been enclosed in a hoarding, within which were placed the marbles from Halicarnassus, from Budruom, and from Cyrene. There they were virtually excluded from public view, and were suffering injury from the soot and rain which beat in upon them. Day by day, as one thing was built it needed to be patched up in order to adapt it for the purpose for which it was really intended. These things were discreditable, and no saving was effected by such a policy. On the contrary, money was thrown away for nothing. With regard to the proposed separation, he thought it far better that art should remain at the British Museum, and that science should be transferred somewhere else. In no country in the world were the two brought together. Even, if the collections were retained under the same roof there should be a separate and dis- tinct administration for art and science; the two collections should he kept distinct, with a separate staff, a separate establishment, and separate entrances. He quite agreed that the worst thing they could do was to patch. To do so was to throw away money, and in the end have to do the thing over again. As to the removal of the ethnological collection, that might be advisable, and some witnesses went so far as to recommend its transfer to the east of London, where it could be seen by seafaring people to whom it was people to whom it was asserted, it would prove of especial interest. Original drawings should not be kept in the Museum. They should be in the National Gallery, near the pictures for which they were frequently the first sketches; probably few hon. Members knew that over the cases containing the birds and other objects of natural history was one of the most interesting collections of portraits in England. £2,000 a year was actually being pent in the purchase of portraits many of which might be had for the asking in the Museum. Why not transfer them to the National Portrait Gallery? As to the removal of the mediaeval collection, he did not agree with his hon. Friend, for it was almost impossible to draw the line between ancient and mediaeval art. The reasons for giving mediaeval art to Kensington were rather extraordinary. It was said that that was an educational establishment; but, if art education were desired, he would rather take a student to an Etruscan vase than to a bit of Palissy. At the same time it was marvellous to see what had been done at Kensington by Mr. Cole within a period of seven years. A very eminent French artist M. de Triqueti, in an article in the Revue Nationale, had expressed his surprise at what had been done there, and said that if the British Museum had only such a head as Kensington, France and every other country might despair, for England would have the finest art collection in the world. As far as the history of art was concerned, no collection could compare with that in the British Museum, but it was almost useless on account of its bad arrangement. Under the present system, the recommendations of those best calculated to judge of the requirements of certain collections were set aside, and it was in vain that they protested. It was, indeed, a bad system, and he trusted something would be done to reform it. At the beginning of the next Session he would bring the whole question before the House, and move distinct Resolutions with a view of reforming the administration of the Museum and of getting all the collections put under one responsible head. He must say he thought Mr. Oldfield's plan for the enlargement of the Museum perfectly feasible, and he believed that by adopting it in a few years a great deal might be done at no great expense. Mr. Oldfield was a most valuable servant, and be deeply regretted the cause of his having left the establishment. He (Mr. Layard) only wished that gentleman could again be employed, and he believed if it depended on his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) Mr. Oldfield would soon be there again. As to I constructing a building adapted to the purpose required, they need only look to the new reading room to see what could be done when they were not trammelled with an architect. Mr. Panizzi had given them a magnificent hall in every manner admirably calculated for its purpose. He had not shown it to a single person, whether Englishman or foreigner, who did not so consider it. With regard to the enlargement of the Museum, be trusted that some definite scheme would be laid down, which, if it could not be carried out at once, might at least be carried out as adequate means were found, and which in time might produce a complete building worthy of the nation.

said, he had taken part in the Commission referred to by the hon. Member for Southwark, and he was of the opinion that the Resolutions, of that Commission were of a most useful character. The noble Lord the Member for London, who was not in the House that night, and whom, perhaps, they might never see again in the House, but whose absence they would all regret, appointed that Commission, which sat for about two years, and recommended a distinct division between the departments of science and art, and pointed out the necessity of each being governed by a separate head. He had never been able to understand why the Resolutions of that Commission were not carried out. He was aware, however, that several of the Commissioners, and perhaps in that capacity they did not see the same necessity for carrying out their recommendations as before. Still, year after year passed away without bringing the desired conclusion nearer. The same confusion and the same congestion of articles existed, and the same want of accommodation to the public for the purposes of' information. No one change had taken place of any considerable benefit, except the construction of that great room, for which they had to thank Mr. Panizzi. He believed that the reason no advance was made was because they did not boldly and at once confront the question of separation, the collections in the Museum being, from the confusion of subjects, repulsive to people of taste. He trusted that the Government in examining the matter would look the question of separation boldly in the face, and decide upon it one way or the other. With regard to the lighting of the library of the British Museum in the evening he could not admit that the evidence of that much-lamented gentleman, Mr. Braidwood, was to be taken as conclusive. As long as gas was unscientifically made the injury to books was very great, but when gas was used, such as that consumed in the House of Commons itself or in the library of the Athenaeum, in a chamber separated from the building by thick glass, no injury whatever need be sustained by the books. If the great dome of the British Museum were lit with gas in this manner the library might be made accessible to tho population of this Metropolis on winter evenings without danger. He hoped that this subject would again come under the consideration of the trustees. He adhered to the opinion that a more efficient government of the Museum was required. The Trustees were most diligent in their attendance; but, after all, it was a government of amateurs. A government of amateurs was a very good thing in its way, but this was an institution too great to be; governed by amateurs. Then look at the patronage of the Museum. Who were the personages who appointed every clerk, and, he believed he might even say, every housemaid about the building? The Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chancellor, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. He had felt quite ashamed to write to these personages when he wished to recommend some young man for appointment or promotion in the British Museum. Of course, in such cases it always ended in a delegation of some kind or other, in which the names of these high functionaries were, no doubt, sometimes improperly used. He agreed in all that had been said in regard to the character and conduct of Mr. Oldfield. The officers of the Museum were gentlemen of great attainments, and the small addition made to their remuneration had been in every respect well merited.

said, that the discussion of the evening had traversed rather a large field, but in the few words which he wished to address to the Committee he would not attempt to touch upon the great variety and diversity of the topics which had been introduced into the debate. He was bound to say, however, that the view presented to the British public and to the Government was most disheartening if the pessimist sentiments of hon. Members who had spoken that night were to be generally adopted. The Museum contained the richest and most magnificent collection in the world. But they had been assured the Government was bad, the building was bad, the arrangement of the collection was bad, the Museum never could do well as long as an architect had to do with it; and lastly, the principal librarian, in the opinion of one hon. Gentleman, although he believed he stood alone, was bad also. Well, the Government were of opinion that the case of the British Museum was one that called, and had long called for consideration; and the reason it had not had practical consideration was, not that the Government were unwilling to entertain it, but on account of those abundant differences of opinion of which the discussion they had bad afforded ample evidence. They were all agreed that something ought to be done, but not what that something was. The hon. Member for Southwark did not agree with the hon. Member for Galway, except in one proposition, that there ought to be no patching, and nothing could be easier than to subscribe in general terms to such a doctrine. But when they came to consider what was meant by "patching," they would find one Gentleman meant exactly the reverse by that opprobrious term of what another meant. If, for example, a body of gentlemen called before them the greatest living naturalist, whose splendid genius and high character ought to have exempted him from being the object of the terms indulged in by the hon. Member for Galway in speaking of Professor Owen's plans — if they had heard from that Gentleman that a space of five and a half acres for the exhibition of his specimens of natural history were required, and then cut down that five and a half acres to two acres—he should consider that not altogether unlike patching. No doubt the pressure for space acted injuriously and caused great inconvenience. He would admit that it had reached a point that was scarcely compatible with the cha- racter and credit of the country. The Government were sensible of the evil, and they were of opinion that the difficulty ought to be faced without "patching," but by the adoption of some plan giving large and complete provision for a great length of time. But in order to fulfil that condition it was essential that there should be a separation of the collections, and that this separation should be drawn between the natural and scientific objects and the objects of art. The Government had thought it right to do something to elicit the opinion of the House of Commons. The Committee had made a Report, but he doubted whether it expressed the general sentiment of the House, and the Government were not prepared to act on that Report. The tendency of the Report was to keep the collections together, yet the Committee were not absolutely and uniformly of that opinion, because they thought that the ethnological collection had better be kept elsewhere. Those who were for keeping the collection together might be divided into two classes—those who advocated it on grounds of prudence and expediency, and those who favoured it on grounds of principle. Those who held the latter view maintained that, as the Museum had its origin in a private bequest, it would be to profane the intentions of its founder to separate or remove it. Of that opinion there seemed to be a few advocates. The Committee had abandoned it, and the hon. Member for Galway abandoned it because he proposed to give up the mediaeval and ethnographical collections, and would also give up the drawings. That being the state of the case, he thought it was the duty of the Government to consider what course was dictated by prudence, public convenience, and a due regard to public feeling. He agreed with those who entertained the opinion that whatever was done ought to be done in such a manner as that it might not require hereafter to be undone. If, therefore, the Government were not prepared now to adopt the largest plan which had been laid before them, their endeavour must be so to adjust their present measures that they might do nothing which they would have to retract hereafter, or which would cross and traverse public feeling. The hon. Member for Galway had adverted to some plan which he seemed to think was in contemplation, and which he had aimed at prevented from being carried into effect; but he could assure him the Government, neither alone nor in conjunction with the trustees, sought to do anything without the approval if the House. He must as the same time distinctly tell his hon. Friend that the Government would not found their proceedings on the Report of the Committee, because, although in principle it gave up the idea of union, yet it contemplated that which the Government thought was unreasonable and inconvenient —an indefinite extension for an indefinite period on one and the same spot of vast and heterogeneous collections. The buildings connected with the British Museum admitted, he believed, in many parts, of considerable architectural improvement, while there were portions of the ground within the precincts of the present site not occupied which might be occupied for the purposes of the Museum. There were two sources of increased accommodation, while he believed it was admitted that certain branches in the Museum could he and ought to be removed. His hon. Friend the Member for Galway threatened to raise popular emotion, which, he hoped, might not end in popular commotion, with respect to the removal of the natural history collection. Now, he was disposed to admit with him, that, whether owing to tradition, or custom, or positive convenience, there was a certain amount of public feeling which would welcome the preservation of the zoological collection on the present site, and he might observe that no absolute necessity for entertaining the question of the removal of that collection existed at the present moment. But without raising any question which may hazard the future solution of the points in dispute, he thought it was open to Government very greatly to enlarge the accommodation afforded by the Museum. The present hour was not the time to enter into details on the subject, but he might state it to be the opinion of the Government that no necessity now existed for raising the question connected with the removal of the zoological collection. Improvements in building and the occupation of unoccupied space would, he believed, be useful so far as they went, and would afford increased accommodation for a considerable period. He might add that he did not think his hon. Friend's allusion to Professor Owen involved any want of respect for that distinguished man, any more than what had fallen from him might be construed into a want of respect for the hon. Gentleman himself. He would, therefore, say veniam petimusque damusque vicissim, and would assure his hon. Friend that the Government would take the proper opportunity dining the recess of bringing the subject under the consideration of the Trustees, and endeavouring, in concert with them, to hit upon some plan which would so relieve and improve the British Museum as to lender its condition satisfactory to the House and the country.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), if he could state, with any degree of certainty, whether it was intended to render generally accessible the drawings of the ancient masters in the British Museum, and whether they were to be displayed there or at Kensington? To the working artist they were of the utmost importance.

said, he could not conceive how any alteration of the natural history collection was to take place. The solution of the question appeared to him to consist in the adoption of Mr. Oldfield's plan, which, by the arrangement he suggested, gave the whole of the chronology, the archaeology, and the architecture in a very complete system. He was afraid that, however the so-called system of patching was decried, he did not see how they could progress satisfactorily without it. But with all its faults they might well be proud of the Museum collection, which was one of the finest in Europe; and as for the library, probably it was the finest in the world. With regard to the Campana collection he admitted they were outbidden upon it; but at the same time he believed if a Minister of the Crown were to rise and ask for a Vote of —100,000 for such a collection, hon. Gentlemen would be somewhat unwilling to grant it.

said, he gathered from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was going to do what many of them so much disapproved— namely, to carry out the plan of Professor Owen and those who supported him. He would, no doubt, first remove the mineralogy and the palaeontology, and then the zoology must follow. That would bean underhand mode of working. They ought to be told plainly what was intended. Kensington Museum was an admirable thing; but they were not to be treated as children, and to have a good object revealed to them only bit by bit. There should be some distinct determination of the House upon the subject before the divisions of the collection were attempted to be carried out. The government of the British Museum was admitted on all hands to be defective, but many persons had left their collections to the nation upon the understanding that they were to be in the charge of trustees, and the trustees could not be at present got rid of. He should like to see these- national collections under the control of a responsible Minister of education sitting in that House; but as the Committee of Council were at present without a responsible head in the House, he objected to this duty being entrusted to them.

said, he wanted to know whether it was intended that the archaeological collections of the British Museum, the finest in the world, were to be broken up? The reason why the British Museum was overcrowded was that they were omniverous, and were not satisfied with having a perfect national collection, but filled up the rooms with useless articles.

asked whether there was any probability of the Museum being opened of an evening, an advantage which a great number of working people desired?

said, he would remind the Committee that nothing was more easy than to find fault, and nothing more difficult than to find a remedy. If the Trustees of the Museum needed any justification in respect of the censures aimed at them, it was to be found in the conflicting opinions delivered that night, which showed that whatever the Trustees had done, they would have been blamed for something. Upon the retirement of Mr. Hawkins it was arranged that three keepers of departments should be appointed, and the question was who should they be. Mr. Birch, the senior of his department, had been appointed keeper of the Egyptian department; Mr. Newton, who had been in the Museum many years, and who was one of the most intelligent gentlemen alive, was appointed as keeper of the classical antiquities, and he (Mr. Walpole) would stake his existence that a better appointment could not have been made. The keeper of the coins also was a gentleman thoroughly conversant with that matter; and if Mr. Oldfield had been appointed instead of any one of these gentlemen an injury and an injustice would have been done. Nobody took greater pains than he (Mr. Walpole) personally took to preserve Mr. Oldfield's services for the public, and he believed that unless Mr. Oldfield had thought that he would not be in so independent a position as that to which he naturally aspired he would have remained. The hon. Member for Southwark had made a serious attack, as he had often done before, upon the constitution of the government of the Museum. And if he were to respond to the hon. Gentleman's question of what sort of government was best, he might, as an abstract principle, prefer the government of a single authority; but the Trustees had been working for many years, and working in a way which had been attended with great advantage to the establishment, and he thought it would be a serious thing to disturb that government. His opinion was that it would not be desirable to change the Trustee management. Each head of a department was responsible for his department; so that the public had undivided responsibility in each department, subject only to that control which must be always exercised in establishments which were composed of several divisions. As to the Campagna collection, the non-purchase of that collection was not owing to any delay on the part of the Trustees. With respect to the additional space required, an expression of his personal opinion on any particular plan would now be premature; but he might say that all the plans which might be submitted to them would receive the attentive consideration of the Trustees, and he hoped that such an arrangment would be made as would contribute to the better exhibition of the very valuable collection, for the due arrangement of which the existing accommodation was decidedly insufficient.

said, that, even without opening the Museum by gaslight, a great deal might be done to afford the people greater facilities for visiting it. It was at present closed at six o'clock in the evening, though there was daylight till nine. He should like to hear some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman on that point.

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter had been most carefully considered. The Trustees had gone into the minutest details. He himself had recommended that the Museum should be kept open till half-past eight in the evening during the summer months, when he found that it could not be opened by gaslight; but, on referring to former experience, it appeared that when it was kept open till eight o'clock the people would not come between six and eight, and that the number who might be expected to visit it between those hours would not be at all commensurate with the additional expense which would be in curred by keeping it open till eight.

said, he objected to the name of the Bishop of Durham, and should move that it be omitted. The right rev. Prelate was not only Visitor of the University, but he had the appointment of the whole of the governing body, and being deeply interested in the existing state of things, he was not a proper person to be named one of the Commissioners. Amendment proposed, in lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words "the Right Reverend Father in God, Henry Montagu, Lord Bishop of Durham."

said, the situation of Durham University was peculiar, as having been constituted by an act of the Bishop and chapter. As the Bill proposed to give a legislative and remodelling power to the Commissioners it seemed desirable that there should be some person upon the Commission connected with the Church. He had applied in the first instance to the Archbishop of York, who had been a member of the Oxford Commission, but the numerous avocations of his Grace unfortunately prevented him from serving on the Commission. Under these circumstances he hoped the name of the Bishop of the diocese would be allowed to stand.

said, he would move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the beginning of the clause to the word "furthering," and to insert "in order to promote useful learning and religious education." That would place the words in the sequence in which they stood in the Act from which the Bill professed to be taken. The fault of the University of Durham was, that it was only a seminary for curates.

said, the principal effect of the Amendment would be to leave out the words "practical knowledge," though the hon. Member wished to make the education generally useful.

said, that was not the object, but that religious education should not stand first.

said, that at present the Durham University was under the sole control of the Bishop of Durham. He had been informed by a letter he had lately received that the Bishop of Durham was a near relative of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the Dean of Durham was a brother of one of the Under Secretaries of State for the Home Department, and that the drawer of the Bill was a nephew of the Professor of Divinity in the University, who received £4.000 or £5,000 a year for lecturing four or five times a week to eight or ten young men. Of course he (Mr. Fenwick) did not believe a word of this statement, and he only brought it forward on the present occasion for the purpose of giving the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of giving it a direct contradiction or a fit explanation. The Bill, however, as it stood, did nothing to alter the state of things to which he had alluded— namely, the absolute control exercised by the Bishop of Durham over the University; and as long as that continued it was quite impossible that the University could answer the purpose for which it was originally founded. The present Bill gave no real power to the Commissioners, and they would, in fact, prove utterly useless. He would, therefore, move as an Amendment the omission of the words in the clause which, if left out, would obviate the objection he had referred to.

said, the very coarse imputations and personal motives which had been scattered upon the promoters of this Bill did not offer much encouragement to bring forward measures of the sort, which he believed was a measure dictated by a liberal and comprehensive spirit. The hon. Member said he (Sir George Lewis) had been influenced by motives of personal relationship—[Mr. FENWICK: No, no!]—to the Bishop of Durham, in order to give him some sort of advantage. Then that an Under Secretary of State was brother to the Dean of Durham, and that there was some relationship between the draftsman and officers of the University. Now, he would take upon himself the entire responsibility of the measure. He had no objection to omit the paragraph which was opposed; but he did not think its omission would have the slightest effect.

said, the debate was very instructive. The University of Durham founded the University out of their own funds, and the hon. Gentleman said they did it because they found they were an object of envy. That was charitable at least. It was objected to ecclesiastical persons founding a University out of ecclesiastical funds that they made religion their principal object. He thought the discussion was a warning to individuals as to corporate bodies, however wealthy they might be, never to do anything for anybody.

said, he would then move the insertion of a clause similar to one contained in the Oxford and Cambridge University Acts, declaring that it shall not be binding upon the person taking a degree to make any declaration whatever, but that until he shall have subscribed a declaration stating that he is a bonâ fide member of the Church of England he shall not be eligible as a member of the Senate, or to hold any office for which such a degree heretofore constituted one of the qualifications. Clause (Oath, Declaration, or Subscription not to be required)—brought up, and read 1°.

said, he thought it would be better to leave this matter to the discretion of the Commissioners.

said, he objected to that very objectionable measure being proceeded with at that late hour (quarter past one.)

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would show sufficient determination to persevere with the Bill.

said, he strongly objected to the clause as inconsistent with the existing law relating to capitular estates.

said, that the Chapter of Windsor was dissimilar from the cathedral chapters generally, and that the Military Knights once formed an in tegral part of the Chapter of Windsor. The Bill proposed to take two of the canonries, and give the profits of one of them to the Military Knights, assigning the other to increase the endowments attached to local livings.

said, he also objected to the application of the funds of one of the suspended canonries to the increase of the two livings in Windsor.

said, there were no livings in England which had a greater claim to have their endowments increased than had those of Windsor.