said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the condition into which our science and art collections had fallen. He thought no occasion could be more appropriate than the present to endeavour to rescue these collections of art and science from the chaos and confusion in which they had been so long involved, and that the present time was well suited for arriving at some final decision with regard to the future management of these collections. They were near the end of their days, they were in the placid humour which gilds the autumn of life, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had exhibited a goodly balance, no political conflict was impending, but they might be engaged next year in some party questions, which would altogether preclude their dealing satisfactorily with this subject. He must say that nothing could be more illogical or more irrational than the manner in which we had hitherto treated these collections. He could perfectly well understand a Government arriving at the determination to have nothing more to do with those works, to disperse the pictures in the National Gallery to sell the treasures contained in the British Museum and expel Mr. Cole from Kensington to wander through the world with his own circulating collections. No doubt such a course would be profitable, because there was not a petty State throughout Europe which would not undergo considerable sacrifices in order to purchase and worthily to house portions of those inestimable treasures of art so unaccountably neglected by ourselves. Personally he should regret exceedingly the adoption of such a course, but it would be at least logical. We took, however, quite a different course. We had been excavating the great plains of Assyria; we were ransacking the tombs of Rhodes; we transport the Mausoleum bodily to Bloomsbury; Professor Owen buys fossil caves in block, and birds, hearts, and insects come trooping into the Museum just as we see them in old pictures marching into Noah's Ark. Sir Charles Eastlake was going abroad every year to buy beautiful pictures, which were hung where nobody could see them; Mr. Robinson and Mr. Cole were annually purchasing objects of art, which, in many instances, were stowed away in places of Cimmerian darkness, more adapted to the vision of owls and bats than to the optics of creatures accustomed to daylight. Our galleries had now become mere accumulations of objects, without order, system, or classification, and in many respects without even light. Whose fault was this? The Government would, no doubt, lay the fault upon the House of Commons; but, for his own part, he would not scruple to say that the fault in a great measure was that of the Government, and he would proceed to prove his statement. Every now and then the Government undoubtedly did make a spasmodic effort to do something with these collections, but so unpopular and injudicious had been their proposals—as in the case of the Exhibition Building at Kensington—that the suspicions of the country were always aroused on these occasions, and it would require a great effort on the part of the Government to overcome these suspicions. He would now consider the condition of the National Gallery. Last year the proposal was made by his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works that the collection of pictures in the National Gallery should be removed to Burlington House. On that occasion he supported the proposal of his right hon. Friend, because he regarded it as having been well and carefully considered. The House of Commons, however, rejected the proposal by a considerable majority. He believed the causes which influenced that rejection had been misunderstood. He had seen it stated in the newspapers, and had frequently heard in the course of conversation, that the House of Commons, and particularly that section of the House sitting below the gangway on the side where he usually sat, were so niggardly about our national collections, so indifferent to voting the public money, that they were carelesss whether more pictures were bought, or what became of those which were already in our possession. He believed that to be a great mistake, and that that particular section of the House, although embracing some of the most vigilant guardians of the public purse, would have been exceedingly glad to see some final decision with reference to the National Gallery arrived at, and that they would have cordially voted the money for the purpose for which it was demanded if they had believed the proposed settlement would be final and satisfactory. He took some pains last year to ascertain the real causes which influenced the rejection of the proposal of his right hon. Friend. First, there was the very able speech of the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners); then there was the feeling that we were not justified in handing over the present building to the Royal Academy, in addition to which it was thought by many that the present site was the best in London. But the real cause of the adverse Vote of the House of Commons was that a pledge was given in 1860 by Her Majesty's Government when they obtained a Vote of £18,000 for alterations in the National Gallery, that the National Gallery should be continued in its present site. For that he blamed the Government. They knew in 1860 just as well as now exactly how the matter stood, and that the System of patchwork which they proposed would be useless as a permanent arrangement, and that it would hardly provide at that time for the pictures actually within the building. They knew that while the accommodation would be barely sufficient for the pictures already in Trafalgar Square, there were other pictures at Kensington, the drawings of the ancient masters in the British Museum, and the pictures in the National Portrait Gallery, which also required accommodation. Here, then, was an instance of the hesitating, injudicious action of the Government. He said that the Government were to blame, because if they had put forth their strength, and had come forward with a well-arranged proposal for the extension of the National Gallery, the House would willingly have voted the sum that might be necessary to carry it out. The proposition, however, that they did make was in his opinion no better than pitching £18,000 into the fire because the requisite accommodation was not secured, and the internal alterations that were proposed rendered the National Gallery still more mean and discreditable than it was before. Bygones, however, were bygones. One thing was clear, that the House of Commons had decided that the National Gallery should remain at Trafalgar Square, and he was glad to find that his right hon. Friend had with good sense accepted his defeat upon that occasion. He hoped that the Government would in other matters connected with art show equal deference to the opinions of the House of Commons. The Government having made up its mind as to the site, should also decide at once as to what collections should be housed within the new building. This was all important. When we once had a clear and definite idea of what was to be provided for, it was easy to arrive at conclusions as to the probable rate of increase, and for the future effectual means might be taken to guard against the system of patchworks and makeshifts which had hitherto prevailed, and which was as expensive as it was discreditable. He would venture to suggest what he thought should be received into the new buildings. In the first place, he understood that the Raphael Cartoons had been removed from Hampton Court to Kensington. He would submit that the proper place for those cartoons was in Trafalgar Square among the ancient masters, rather than among specimens of modern art, and he was sure that Her Majesty, with her usual gracious con- descension, would not refuse her assent to that arrangement if it should be the wish of the House of Commons. Then, as to the drawings of the ancient masters now in the British Museum, he thought nothing could be more monstrous than the present system. The finished pictures of the great masters were in the National Gallery; but if any one wanted to study the earliest ideas and modes of drawing of those great men, which was more essential to a young artist than almost anything else, he would have to proceed to a confined room in Bloomsbury, and there turn over folios of drawings to be enabled to make the comparison he desired to make. There were at this moment at Bloomsbury drawings of pictures which were to be found in the National Gallery, so that a student had to carry in his mind the efforts of the pencil to compare them with the finished effects of the brush—a necessity that did not occur in any other country in Europe. Their removal was part of the recommendation of the Committee of 1860. They would require very little room, as excessive light would be rather injurious to them than otherwise. He then came to the modern pictures at Kensington, and he thought, when they were about to provide a new National Gallery, some decision should be come to with respect to those pictures. He believed that it would be most unwise, as well as most invidious, to admit the pictures of living painters into the National Gallery at Trafalgar Square. It would be unwise, because it would create an enormous pressure upon the space of the Gallery from the numerous presents that would be made. It would be unwise, because it might happen that some living artists might be more than duly represented as regarded the history of art in all ages and all countries, and because many pictures might obtain a temporary reputation which the judgment of posterity would not ratify. An invidious task of rejecting pictures would also be imposed upon the Director of the National Gallery, which ought not to be imposed upon any one. He found a confirmation of the views which he entertained upon the subject in the 11th Report of the Science and Art Department, in which Mr. Redgrave said—

"The practice followed in France might afford a suggestion towards the solution of these difficulties here. The works of the great living masters were placed in the Luxembourg, where they remained until time and death and the judgment of posterity entitled them to removal to the Louvre."

An arrangement might be adopted to keep at Kensington all works of modern painting which may be acquired by the nation. After the death of the painter selections from his works might be made and transferred to the National Gallery, There was another point to which he must refer, although he was aware that it was not within the right hon. Gentleman's Department. He referred to the number of duplicates of works of art in our possession in the National Gallery. As an instance, he might refer to the well-known picture, by Leslie, of "Uncle Toby and the Widow Waddell," of which there were three or four reproductions. There were National Galleries in Dublin and Edinburgh, and as Scotland and Ireland had contributed freely and graciously to the national collections, he thought that those specimens of art which were not wanted in London might be transferred to the galleries of those cities. The same remark would apply to duplicates in the British Museum and the South Kensington Museum. Then, as to the National Portrait Gallery, he thought that also should be transferred to Trafalgar Square, although he was aware that the pictures in that collection had not been selected upon principles of art. Still, there would be an advantage in placing that collection under the same roof as the National Gallery, and the Resolution by which it was constituted distinctly affirmed it was to have its place there. On the 4th of March, 1856, Lord Stanhope moved an Address—

"That Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to take into Her Royal consideration, in connection with the site of the present National Gallery, the practicability and expediency of forming by degrees a gallery of Original Portraits, such Portraits to consist, as far as possible, of those persons who are most honourably commemorated in British History as warriors or as Statesmen, or in Arts, in Literature, or in Science."—[3 Hansard, cxl. 1780.]

And they had been annually voting, ever since, £500 on the strength of that future connection. There were other questions of a gallery for objects upon loan for first-rate copies of pictures which never could be purchased, and for other purposes, upon which he should not enter. There was one point upon which he desired to lay stress. He found that an opinion prevailed that if the Royal Academy was turned out from the present building, there would be ample space to house the national collections. But it was easy to show by figures that this was not so. In the National Gallery there were 950 linear feet of wall space adapted for hanging pictures, and in the Royal Academy there were 750 feet, making a total of 1,700 linear feet. At this moment the nation owned 750 pictures, and according to the calculations of those who had charge of large collections, three feet of linear space was the average space required for each picture. There was, therefore, a deficiency in our available space of 500 linear feet, even if we had the whole building in our hands. He was told that the Turner pictures, if properly exhibited, would take up the whole space occupied by the Royal Academy. The annual average increase in the number of our pictures was thirty-five, requiring about 100 linear feet, and in the course of seven years we should require a space nearly equal to the Royal Academy, if only for our accessions. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, had taken a wise course in buying up the ground in the rear, and he trusted he would bring forward a Vote to commence building immediately, taking in the ground occupied by Dukes Court; otherwise, considering the time which would be necessary, the eyes would grow dim, and the faculties of Gentlemen present would fail them before they saw the pictures of the nation properly housed. He thought the Royal Academy ought to have due notice. As far as his own wishes and feelings were concerned he was sorry to see the Royal Academy separated from the National Gallery, but, as that was to be, he hoped the Government would deal with the Royal Academy in a liberal spirit. The Commission of last year had borne witness to the valuable services which the Royal Academy, since its institution in 1768, had conferred on the country, and Sir Robert Peel and Earl Russell had also expressed their opinions that it was to that body that the foundation of a National School of Painting was in a great degree owing. He had no adverse criticizm to make upon the management of the National Gallery. The Government had done wisely in putting it into the hands of the ablest man in England—Sir Charles Eastlake—and he was glad the trustees had the good sense to work harmoniously with him. It was owing to the standard which Sir Charles had set up that we had from small beginnings, in a few years, acquired a National Gallery which, as far as Italian art was concerned, was as instructive and as varied as any collection in the world. He felt proud of this noble collection, and proud that we had in Sir Charles Eastlake an Englishman with whose taste and know- ledge of Italian art hardly any foreigner professed to vie; but he felt humiliated when he saw the condition in which these pictures were—different schools mixed up with different schools, and various epochs thrust together without order and without sequence solely from want of room. It was perfectly astonishing to foreigners when they remembered at what a large cost of money many of these grand works of art were obtained, they came to the conclusion that the English mind was unable to appreciate the advantage and the increased interest conferred by a proper system of classification and exhibition. One of them once said to him, "You English seem to have enormous appetites, but very little digestion." As to the lamentable condition of the British Museum, he had so often brought it before the House that he was afraid to trespass again on its patience. It was enough to say that the whole system of arrangement was as bad as bad could be, and that the system of administration was even worse than the arrangement. He did not speak of the library department, which was an honour to the country and to the energy and genius of Mr. Panizzi; but as to the other departments, hon. Members need only go there to have the most conclusive evidence of their own eyes. On entering, the visitor was struck with the curious penthouse in which were crowded and hidden from view the marbles of the Mausoleum, of Branchide, of Cyrene, and other interesting objects of art. If you went upstairs to the Mammalia Room, you might see the heads and tails of certain animals, but he defied any one to see the bodies. If you went into the insect room, you would be glad to get out of it, so dark, dingy, and stuffy was it; and if you asked to see a specimen, ten to one but you would be told that it was shut up in a box for want of space to exhibit it. These were not, however, his chief complaints. What he did remonstrate against was the improper arrangement of the great department of antiquities which was far and away the most extensive, complete, and instructive in the world. If there was one thing into which of late years ideas of reform have entered more than another, it was in the conception of what a proper museum ought to be. Formerly a museum was a kind of strange old curiosity shop in which curious odds and ends were collected and arranged without any definite object. But now all this was changed. The object besides amusement, and far more than amusement, was instruction. It was intended for a different class than mere idle loungers, and for this purpose correct classification was essential. How, then, did we classify this great collection, and how did we instruct by means of it. In going through the British Museum the visitor first finds himself in the midst of a collection of Roman busts and inscriptions; he then passes into the end of a hall filled with Greek and Roman sculpture; thence he passes by Assyrian bulls into an Egyptian hall, and out of it into Assyrian bas-reliefs. No possible jumble could be more incongruous and grotesque. Mr. Oldfield, whose taste, learning, and accuracy were well known, proposed to the Committee of 1860 a most elegant, comprehensive, and yet inexpensive plan to do away with all these incongruities, and that for the future the antiquities should be arranged systematically and chronologically. The visitor should enter at the earliest period, first through Egyptian halls, then to Assyrian, and early Greek, the great works of Phidiac forming the centre of the whole, and from them to Etruria and Rome. Mr. Oldfield's plan was carefully sifted by professional authorities. The Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) signified his complete approval of it, and the Committee recommended it. The great objection which he entertained to the removal of the natural history collections was this—that instead of carrying out this systematic, chronological, and instructive arrangement it was intended, when the natural history collections were cleared out of the upper rooms, to have a wretched kind of avoirdupois arrangement by which all the heavier articles are to remain on the basement, and the lighter objects are to go upstairs. Nothing could be more mean or disreputable than such an arrangement. He believed it would be generally admitted that all the collections in the British Museum ought to be kept together. But the system of administration by trustees was radically wrong. From the evidence given before the Committee of 1860 and other information on the subject, he believed there would be no difficulty in retaining the collection on the present site and establishing a better system of administration. The Museum ought to be divided into three departments—the library, antiquities, and natural history—with a head to each, responsible for his own department, and responsible to a Minister who should answer in that House for the management of the whole institution. But he was sure that if the House allowed a separation to take place, they would never allow it to take place with a system of trusteeship such as that which was at present attached to the British Museum. He must say that in the case of the British Museum, as well as in that of the National Gallery, the Government was responsible for the existing position of affairs. For seventeen years remonstrance after remonstrance had been made to successive Ministers for more space. The Committee of 1860 made a recommendation which would have involved but little expense, which, he believed, would have been accepted by the House of Commons, and which would have met everything. It proposed that the whole block round the museum should be secured, and that according as additional space was required portions of the new ground should be taken up. But the Government did not adopt the recommendation of the Committee. Instead of that, in 1862 they brought in a Bill to remove the natural history collection—to remove certain portions of the collection now in the British Museum—and that Bill was rejected by a large majority. In 1863 they proposed that the Exhibition Building at South Kensington should be purchased to accommodate a portion of the national collection, and on that proposition they were beaten by a still larger majority. The fact was that the Government had brought forward nothing but unpopular schemes in connection with that subject, and it was no wonder that such schemes had not been accepted by Parliament. It was they, however, and not the majority of the House, who were the obstructives. The whole weight of opinion was against removal. It was the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Museum—he did not say the trustees, because the Committee had been overruled by Government ex-officios—that the collection might remain where it was at present. A paper signed by all the scientific men of England, with scarcely an exception, endorsed that view; the Committee of the House held the same opinion; yet, in spite of all that, the Government continued to propose measures adverse to the views of such competent authorities. He wished that every hon. Member of that House would take the trouble of reading two letters which had appeared in The Times on the 6th and 7th of October, 1863. [Who wrote them?] He did not write them; but he had read them, and he could say that they were most admirably written. Evidently they were written by a gentleman who had the whole subject at his fingers' ends. He gave chapter, verse, and figure for every department and every sub-department in the great collection. He showed that there was ample space where the Museum was at present, and that for a very small outlay space could be provided for these various collections. He ventured to say that if hon. Gentlemen read those letters they would say that those who had opposed the separation had not got the worst of it in argument. Having occupied so much time he would defer his observations with respect to Kensington Museum to a future day. He was perfectly aware that the subjects he had brought forward were subjects every one of which would require an evening to itself, if it was to be properly discussed, and he was equally aware that he was obnoxious to the reproof that these questions might have been raised upon the Estimates; but they knew how haphazard the estimates were, and how impossible it was for Gentlemen who took the greatest interest in questions connected with the Estimates to be present at the proper time to discuss them. He did not wish to approach the subject in a fault-finding disposition, but only to urge the Government to do something in the matter. He had, therefore, brought this question forward in detail, being most anxious to forestall the action of the Government, and he was convinced that if the Government would only incline a little to public opinion and a little to the opinion of the House of Commons, they would find Parliament disposed to act with every generosity towards them in their endeavour to redeem our national collections from the state in which they were—a state which was a discredit and a reproach to the wealth, the character, and the intellectual eminence of England.

said, he was glad to find that the hon. Member who had just spoken had taken a comprehensive survey of the principles upon which our national collections of art and natural history should be dealt with. He trusted the question would now meet with the earnest attention of the House, and that the tendency to witticisms and levity which had so often characterized the discussion of the subject would be laid aside, and that the House would assist the Government in their endeavour to give ample accommodation to our art collections. He was sure the House would adequately and fully represent the feelings of the country in so doing. The fact that no less than 11,000 persons visited the British Museum and 10,000 the National Gallery in a single day showed how popular those institutions were with the lower classes, besides instancing the good effects they had had in inducing a just appreciation of art among the people. The hon. Member had described in glowing but not in exaggerated language the deplorable state to which those collections were reduced for want of sufficient space for their accommodation. The hon. Member had truly described those collections as worthy of any reasonable expenditure, and no one would grudge the money necessary for their accommodation, it should be remembered that England possessed the two greatest works of art in existence in sculpture and in painting—namely, the Elgin Marbles and the Cartoons of Raphael. But the hon. Member, while lamenting that so much time had been lost in providing suitable accommodation for those collections, had adopted the old cry and the vulgar error of laying the whole blame upon the Government. As to the delay that had arisen from the rejection of the proposal of the Government last year, his hon. Friend had expressed the opinion that in that instance they were right. But the real reason for the delay was that two alternatives on behalf of which a good deal might be said had been under consideration for many years, with regard to both the National Gallery and the British Museum. The first proposition was to improve and enlarge the existing buildings, and the second to erect new buildings on different sites. The advantages of the latter alternative in the case of the National Gallery were justly obvious. The present National Gallery having been built twenty-five years ago, at a time when the best arrangement for the exhibition of pictures was not understood, was a very inferior building for the purpose to which it was applied. It was very inferior to any building that an architect would erect for the purpose at the present day. When compared with the exhibition buildings at South Kensington in 1862, with the exhibition buildings at Manchester or Dublin, every one must admit that the rooms of the present National Gallery were very inferior. He was one of those who were desirous of seeing the national pictures exhibited in rooms erected in the best possible manner for their being classified and seen. Of late so much experience had been gained in the method of building picture galleries, and so much scientific knowledge had been brought to bear upon the subject, that if they were now to build a new gallery they would get rooms which would amply accommodate any number of visitors—even the 10,000 which had been crammed and crowded together at the National Gallery on one holiday—and at the same time permit of that quiet and repose round certain pictures which was so essential to the enjoyment of works of art, while every room would be properly lighted and a means afforded of classifying the different schools. Those were the advantages offered by the alternative of building a new National Gallery, and he was sure that a building offering accommodation such as he had described would meet with general approbation. It had also been contended that the present building might be turned to better account if they applied it to some other purpose. On the other hand, it was said people were accustomed to it; many had acquired a fondness for it, and could not bear the idea of the pictures being removed. Others were anxious that the national building which contained our pictures should remain in the most prominent site of the metropolis, in the lingering and doubtful hope that if it remained in the hands of the Government it might ultimately be pulled down and a new one erected in its place worthy of a site which had been called the finest in Europe, and which was, at all events, the finest in the metropolis. A suspicion was afloat that some advantage was to be conferred upon the Royal Academy by the proposed change, and many Members did not appreciate the services rendered by the Royal Academy by means of the annual exhibition and of their schools. The popular taste was directed to the modern pictures rather than to the ancient ones, and it was obvious that that great exhibition of modern paintings was the greatest encouragement to art in the present day as well as a great gratification to all who were interested in art. He was not aware that the Royal Academy would have much to choose between remaining where they were and erecting a new building for their exhibitions, but he knew that whenever they did erect a new building they would take care to have galleries containing rooms where the pictures could be much better seen than at present. That was the only way in which the Royal Academy would benefit. The hon. Gentleman said that the real fault in the scheme proposed by the Government was that they had called upon the House to go to the expense of £17,000 in converting a useless hall into an excellent gallery. But it seemed to him that the fact of their having improved the building was no reason why they should permanently employ it for the purpose to which it was now put, although, no doubt, that expenditure would have been taken into consideration in the pecuniary arrangements connected with the transfer of the building. He denied that the Government had committed themselves in 1860 "for evermore" to use the building as a National Gallery. That was never intended to be a binding arrangement, precluding the Government from re-considering the matter. The delay in providing accommodation for the national pictures had arisen in a great measure from the change of opinion and vacillation of the Gentlemen who had sat in Committees or on Commissions appointed to take the matter into consideration upon the two alternatives which presented themselves, and until last year no decision whatever had been come to on the subject. When the House came to a decision on the subject, those who had the management of affairs would be glad to know in what direction the opinion lay. Though he still thought it would be a desirable thing to build a new Gallery on that new site, he was so anxious to make progress that he adopted the other alternative, and was prepared to make the best of the building in Trafalgar Square, taking care that all additions should be built with as much perfection and completeness as the state of science on the subject would allow. Fortunately the space in the rear of the National Gallery was very well adapted to the purposes intended. It was ample in extent, and if large additions were hereafter required for collections other than those now in the hands of the trustees there would be no difficulty in finding space for them. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that it would be a desirable thing if the Cartoons of Raffaelle could be placed in the National Gallery. These Cartoons were the property of Her Majesty, who had graciously allowed them to be exhibited to the public in a fireproof room at South Kensington, as part of that loan collection which was attracting so many visitors. At Hampton Court they were in a room very far from being fire-proof—there being a great deal of woodwork in the walls, which was not put in modern buildings, and there being many residences in the Palace, whence arose those risks of fire which they were most unwilling to see in the neighbourhood of such priceless works of art as the Raffaelle Cartoons. He ought to have mentioned, with reference to the adaptation of the space in the rear of the National Gallery for its extension, that it possessed this advantage, that being secluded from public view the architect would not be subjected to the temptation of sacrificing the convenient and best distribution of his interior to external symmetry and impressiveness, and the building might be erected there with greater economy than if it were in a greater thoroughfare. His hon. Friend then proceeded to deal with the British Museum, in which it was not his province to follow him. Those immediately connected with that establishment were better qualified to reply to that part of his speech. He would only say this, that he did not agree in the observations made with respect to the alterations in the mode of classification. He had in his office a plan prepared for a building that would adequately exhibit those objects which the trustees of the British Museum in their resolution of 1852 wished to be removed elsewhere. That decision of the trustees had been the starting point of the subsequent measures, and the plan referred to would adequately carry it into effect.

The concluding portion of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman has, I confess, rather alarmed me. I had hoped that the declaration of the Government would have been more definite and clear as to what they intend shall be done. Some months ago I presented to the House a petition from the trustees. All the difficulties were stated in it. The petition stood over simply and solely that the Government might take the subject into serious consideration, and my right hon. Friend concludes without informing us what the Government would do, or whether the opinion of the House should be taken on that which would be the basis of all future proceedings—namely, the continuance of the collections together, or their separation. Unless the opinion of the House be taken on that point. I foresee that sufficient accommodation will not be provided. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) commented with very great freedom on the state of the British Museum and the management of that great institution. As to the state of the British Museum, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The collection is so extensive—so much is added to it from year to year, and the space is so inadequate, that it is not creditable to the country that the magnificent collection contained in the Museum should remain in the state in which it now is. But he must forgive me for saying that when he attributes that state of things to the want of management in the Museum he casts censure on the trustees which they do not deserve at his hands. The trustees were bound to add to the collections if they wished to make them worthy of this great nation. They were added to in order to bring the collections into that state of perfection and completeness adverted to by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Cowper). For nearly fifteen years the trustees have urged upon the Government the necessity for additional accommodation, and since no effective response has been made to that application they are not to be blamed for the present inconvenient mode in which the collections are exhibited. But when I say this, let it not be supposed that I cast off the blame he throws on the trustees in order to fasten it on the Government. I am not going to do any such thing. I know the difficulties the Government have in dealing with the subject. But we have arrived at that point where I think the Government may and—1 might venture to add—ought to take the matter in hand, and the sooner they do so—my firm belief is—the better they will settle the question. I do not believe any Session will be more convenient for briging the matter forward. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of everything that has taken place from the commencement with regard to the different applications which have been made to the Government on the subject. Nobody took a more active part both in and out of office in regard to it. Nobody takes a deeper interest—nobody is better qualified to take that interest and to advise the House as to what should be done. The difficulty this Session has certainly not been the want of funds—the want of a surplus—but, unfortunately, for some reason we remain where we were ten years ago, although the collections of natural history and antiquities are extending so rapidly, that unless increased accommodation is provided they must be closed to the public. It is very well known that I was one of those trustees who thought it would be better to keep together the magnificent collections you have got, provided you could find space enough for them; and this could have been accomplished by purchasing the whole buildings around the Museum. If that had been done, I say, without the slightest hesitation, doubt, or distrust, no country in the world either has, or ever will have, such a magnificent collection of art, literature, and natural history as would then be brought together on the same spot for the use of those who wish to study. One way in which that might have been done——and it might be done now, without any great expense to the public—would be to purchase the whole of the buildings around the Museum, to pay for the purchase at once, but not to pull down the houses except to the extent and according as you want the space to provide increased accommodation. In this way you would have the rents of the remaining houses to discharge the interest of the purchase-money, and you might gradually add to your buildings as your collections required increased accommodation. The expense, no doubt, in the end would amount to a considerable sum, but it would be spread over a number of years, so that the pressure would be comparatively slight. There are two courses open for the Government and the House to take. The one is to keep the collections together where they are now; the other to draw a clear line between the two sets of collections, between the objects of antiquity and those of natural history and then to remove these latter objects to some other place. This would be a most intelligible line to draw, and if it be thought, for the purpose of better management, and also on considerations of economy, that such a division would be better than the other course—namely, that of having all the collections together, then I would ask the Government to lay that alternative before the House by a proposition, and let it be decided upon once for all. In that case the trustees and the Government should take active and immediate steps for having the opinion of the House carried out. If they did not, a great deal of blame and responsibility would fairly and justly rest upon them. But some decision must be come to in this House, and, depend upon it, if you do not come to a decision now you will only be postponing the difficulty from year to year and making it still greater. I would urge upon the House to decide whether they will keep the collections together or provide separate accommodation for them. A plan should be submitted, and the sense of the House taken upon it, and having determined which course we shall take let us abide by it, and then take care that no time is lost hereafter. Not a day, at least not a year, should be allowed to pass before accommodation is provided for these collections in a manner suitable to their great value, and creditable to the country which has the good fortune to possess them. I thought on behalf of the trustees I should say this much in reply to the censure which my hon. Friend passed upon them. No doubt their position is a difficult one, and the want of accommodation presses upon them on every side, and they find it impossible to provide for the collections. It was due also that I should venture earnestly and respectfully to press upon the Government, some of whom are our Colleagues, that no time should be lost in coming to a decision upon the subject. The trustees cannot stir until the Government do decide; and when that decision is come to I hope the House will take care to see that it is ratified, and that the plan, whatever it may be, shall be immediately carried into effect.

said, he gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper) that he contemplated the erection of some temporary building at the back of the building in Trafalgar Square. [Mr. COWPER; Not temporary.] He did not understand it to be, strictly speaking, a temporary building, but he understood him to say that they should make the best of the buildings they now possessed, with the view hereafter that these buildings might be taken down and something better put in their place. He maintained that this was in reality making a temporary arrangement. We were a great deal too fond in this country of erecting temporary buildings, or "make-shifts," and we spent immense sums of money very unwisely in that way. If all that the country spent in make-shifts had been applied to the erection of one building they would have had one that was both useful and handsome. A well-considered plan should be proposed for a handsome building which would be a per- manent structure for all time. The National Gallery was so unsatisfactory that it ought to be pulled down as soon as possible, and a really good building erected in its place. Everybody knew that the portico of the National Gallery was nothing more than a cast-off portico of Carlton House. The building was really erected for the portico. The great fault of the National Gallery was that it was not high enough. Hon. Gentlemen taked of its being on the finest site in the world, but they could never have a handsome building if they had not height, which was a necessary element of beauty and magnificence. That was a feature in architecture which we did not understand in this country. We erected low buildings and expected them to produce a great effect. While height added much to beauty it also contributed greatly to convenience. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had spoken of enlarging the British Museum by purchasing the buildings adjacent to it. That might be an exceedingly desirable, but it was a very expensive mode. Space in the air cost nothing, and why should they not raise the Museum two or three stories higher? The same plan would apply to the National Gallery. If it was raised sufficiently high, the building would accommodate three times the quantity of things that it does now, and it would then really have a fine effect. At present, to a person going up Parliament Street, the building was almost hidden by the Nelson column and the spray from the fountains. And when they got near it it looked as though they could throw a stone over it. If a really good plan were submitted to the House, he was sure they would not grudge the money for the erection of a handsome building. To provide accommodation piecemeal would be throwing the money away, and the country would never be satisfied if a proper building should not he erected. The House should take a lesson from Paris upon this subject. If they could not carry out a good plan in one year, let them take three years.

said, he did not think the Government were to blame with reference to the National Gallery, as they had proposed a scheme last year to remove it to Piccadilly, which had his humble approval, but which received the support of only a minority of that House. He thought it would have been much better to erect a new building wherein they could make efficient arrangements and avoid all the difficulties and inconveniences that now existed. The House, however, had determined otherwise, and they preferred the situation of Trafalgar Square for the National Gallery. While we had the finest collections in the world, we had the worst arrangements for their accommodation. He thought, as the House had determined the National Gallery should remain on the present site, they ought not to grudge the money for improving it as far as possible. The collections in the British Museum were the finest but the worst arranged in the world. He did not think they ought to be divided, nor was it necessary. He could not entirely concur with the plan of Professor Owen. He ventured to think land could be obtained adjacent to the present site, and that it was unnecessary to go elsewhere, and this would be a great advantage to the public. The question, however, turned upon whether the House would agree to divide the collections or not. The House alone could decide that question. He believed the advantages in favour of keeping them together were predominant, and, if sufficient accommodation could be found in the neighbourhood, that plan would be, he thought, more economical and desirable than any other which could be adopted. If the House were of opinion that it would be well to have a separate building for the collections of antiquity, proper buildings could easily be erected for the purpose of accommodating them. With regard to the National Gallery, the Government might submit plans and estimates for a new building, and he had no doubt the House would make a good selection. The whole question was one which admitted of an easy solution.

Before, Sir, you pass to another subject I will say a few words especially in answer to the appeal of my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Walpole). First, however, I must refer to the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) who brought forward this Motion, and whose speech resolved itself into a Bill of indictment against Governments generally and the present Government in particular. According to him everything is wrong about the British Museum and the National Gallery. The Government have always adhered to unpopular plans and rejected popular ones; and the unpopular plans have always been those of the Government and the popular ones those of my hon. Friend. It is one of the duties of a Government to endure such pelting as this with patience, and therefore I will take patiently those kind offices which the hon. Gentleman has bestowed upon us to-night. The last thing that I should think of would be to retaliate upon him and insinuate that he has himself introduced into this matter elements of division, confusion, and delay. It is not, however, fair to say that the Government have been slow to respond to the wishes of the House of Commons, What are the questions which have been raised? Originally, when my noble Friend now at the head of the Government (Viscount Palmerston) was at the head of another Administration he proposed to transfer the National Gallery to South Kensington. That step had, if I mistake not, been recommended by a Committee of this House, presided over by Colonel Mure, who reported in favour of a site being obtained at Kensington. A vote of this House afterwards showed its disinclination to adopt that plan, and it was at once abandoned by the Government. Then the Government proposed to purchase the buildings at South Kensington as well as the land—I do not speak of the land now—with a view to the speediest and amplest accommodation of the national collections which they proposed to remove from the British Museum. The House rejected that proposal, and it was at once frankly, absolutely, and finally abandoned by the Government. Then the Government proposed, with reference to the National Gallery, with a view to the immense advantage of one complete and comprehensive plan, and one great structure for the accommodation of the national pictures, that we should start afresh upon the magnificent site of Burlington House, and make a complete National Gallery worthy of the country and of the collection. Again the House differed from the Government, and the Government never dreamed of recurring to that plan. What have the Government done in which they have not deferred to the wishes of the House? The hon. Gentleman says that they have not deferred to the wishes of the House because they have not extended the British Museum upon its present site; but such a wish has never been expressed by the House. [Mr. GREGORY: The division upon the Bill of 1862 for the transfer of the collections.] That turned upon an entirely different matter—a question as to the government of the Museum, and had nothing to do with the question of removal. And what happened in 1863, when we proposed to purchase the land at Kensington for the purpose of accommodating the natural history collections? [Mr. GREGORY: That was not stated.] Several objects were mentioned, the accommodation of the Patent Museum, the National Portrait Gallery, and others, but my noble Friend at the head of the Government distinctly stated that the main reason for purchasing that land was the provision of full and ample accommodation for the natural history collections in the British Museum, and that vote so explained by my noble Friend was carried by an overwhelming majority. The presumption arising out of that is, that when the House voted the purchase of the land they intended that the Government should follow up the purchase by the erection of buildings. Therefore, in every case in which the House has expressed a wish the Government has deferred to it. We have never set ourselves against the desires of the House. My hon. Friend has returned to the subject of the extension of the Museum upon the existing site. In dealing with that question we had to consider, first, what amount of additional accommodation was required; and secondly, what was the price per acre of the land that it would be necessary to purchase in order to give that accommodation. Professor Owen, the highest authority whom we could consult upon every subject of natural science, and the person who is immediately responsible for the natural history collections of the Museum, stated that a space of eight acres would be required for the full accommodation of those collections, and he supported that statement by reference to what had been done or was doing by foreign countries in which large natural history collections existed, and where the amplest and wisest measures had been taken for their accommodation. The next thing that took place was, that a Committee of the trustees inquired into the cost of land around the British Museum and they found—I speak from memory only—that its price was £50,000 per acre. We have now obtained a site at South Kensington, the cost of which per acre was only £7,000. Now, as we are specially responsible for the proposals which have been made to the House of Commons upon this subject, I must say that although this country ought to be liberal with regard to the provision which it makes for the na- tional collections, still, especially considering the great jealousy entertained by many of the expenditure of large sums upon the metropolis, it would have been wrong to have parchased the space required at a price of £50,000 per acre when we could obtain a site in an eligible situation for £7,000 per acre. That has received provisional sanction by the vote of this House for the purchase of the land at Kensington in 1863, upon a statement distinctly setting forth that the accommodation of these collections was one of the main purposes for which it was to be acquired. If there be those who say that the House of Commons did not give that vote with a view to placing the natural history collections upon that land, I should like to know for what purpose did the House agree to purchase these seven acres; and I should like my hon. Friend in the next ingenious and able speech which he makes upon this subject to put a construction upon that vote which snail not convict the House of Commons of insanity, and shall at the same time show that it did not contemplate the removal of the natural history collections to Kensington. I now come to the appeal made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole), and I can assure him that if he felt any alarm with reference to this subject, that alarm was entirely groundless. There was not a word which he said upon the subject of the duties of the Government to which we do not entirely subscribe; but if the correspondence has not proceeded at the rate of an express train in the 19th century it has not been entirely our fault. My right hon. Friend knows that at present the Government are proceeding in the matter in concert with the trustees of the British Museum, and it is impossible for them to propose a vote until a plan has been decided upon, which they can submit to the House, and according to which it is intended the buildings shall be erected. It was impossible for the Government to choose a plan without obtaining the opinion of the trustees, and this difficulty has arisen, that while the persons who were selected to pronounce upon the comparative merits of the designs gave their judgment in favour of Plan No. 1, the trustees of the Museum stated that having reference to some internal conditions Plan No. 2 was, in their judgment, more convenient. That being so, it was the duty of the Government to invite further communication with the trustees, in order to see whether the great architectural merits of Plan No. 1 could not be combined with the convenience of internal arrangements of Plan No. 2; and it was necessary that these communications should be brought to a close before the Government was justified in placing a proposal upon the table of the House. There has been no delay on our part. I quite admit that it is the duty of the Government to make a proposal to the House, in fulfilment of what they believe to be the proper and natural construction of the vote which was arrived at by the House in 1863. That is the course which the Government propose to take, and hon. Members will thus be afforded an opportunity of arriving at some decisive judgment upon the matter. I fully concur—setting aside all question of who is to blame—in the view that the present state of things is unsatisfactory and little creditable, and that it is the duty of the Government to labour with all the energy which they can command for the purpose of placing things on a better footing.

said, he rose for the purpose of taking exception to the explanation which had been offered to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in seeking to acquit the Government of the responsibility which devolved upon them for the present position of affairs in reference both to the National Gallery and the British Museum. So far as he could recollect there was considerable vacillation of opinion in regard to the National Gallery anterior to the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) as Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced to the House that his Government had come to a deliberate conclusion on the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone) would probably remember that when that announcement was made it was received with unanimous approbation, he might almost say with acclamation, by hon. Members on both sides of the House. And what was the nature of the announcement? That the long-pending negotiations—they ought rather to be called intrigues—for the purpose of removing the National Gallery to Kensington would be brought to a close; that the Government were determined to disconnect themselves altogether from the Kensington party; that the National Gallery would be devoted to its original object, and that some arrangement would be made for the benefit of the Royal Academy. That being so, the present Government acceded to office, and the subject was again brought under the notice of the House in 1860. The noble Lord at the head of the Government then stated that he had deliberately arrived at the same conclusion as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks; that he believed it was the general wish of the House that the National Gallery should be appropriated to the purpose for which it was originally designed, and that a new habitation should be found for the Royal Academy. On the faith of that statement it was that the House had voted a sum of money for altering the National Gallery in such a manner that it might conveniently be adapted to the exhibition of the whole of the national pictures. Notwithstanding, however, that the Government must in 1860 have been convinced that it was the wish of the House of Commons that that scheme should be carried out, they deferred taking any steps with that object, and at last came down to the House to ask it to reverse its decision. Was it not clear, then, that the Government were responsible for the vacillation which had taken place upon the subject? But the House, instead of reversing, adhered to its decision, and he should now like to know what steps had since been taken by the Government in the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was entirely silent as to whether the requisite arrangements had been made with the Royal Academy for the purpose of enabling them to remove their pictures from the National Gallery. Was the right hon. Gentleman not, then, he would ask, fairly open to the remarks which had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Galway, with reference to the National Gallery? The same observation might be made with regard to the British Museum. In speaking of the British Museum the right hon. Gentleman relied upon the authority of Professor Owen, but he seemed to have forgotten that the question of the exhibition of the natural history collection had been very carefully considered by a Committee of the House, which was presided over by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite). The opinions of Professor Owen had been controverted by several very eminent men who had been examined before that Committee, and the result arrived at was, that we were not to have eight acres of natural history, embracing every variety of stuffed whales, and all sorts of animals, but that it would be better to have a more limited exhibition of types of animals which avoiding minute details impossible for any one but a highly-educated natural historian to comprehend, would present to the public a general view of the whole scope of natural history. But, notwithstanding the Report of the Committee to that effect, the Government still persevered in pressing their own scheme upon the House, which, however, rejected by a large majority the proposal for a natural history exhibition extending over eight acres. And what was the effect of that decision? To bring the House back to the question which had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole)—namely, the practicability of exhibiting all that was necessary of the natural history collection in a much more limited space in the immediate precincts of the British Museum itself. He, for one, could not admit that the decision at which the House had arrived to purchase land at Kensington was tantamount to an adoption of a scheme to which they objected; it was simply the expression of a desire on their part to avail themselves of an excellent bargain by means of which they would secure for £7,000 a piece of land for which at some future period they might expect to get £20,000. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Subject to contract.] Subject to contract! Yes, but the contract had no real existence; it was purely fanciful, and the very Commissioners who were said to have made it had recognized the doctrine that the land might be appropriated to the purposes of science and art by selling it and applying the proceeds of the sale to that object. The House, therefore, might deal with that land as it pleased, provided the money realized by it was ultimately made available in the direction which he had just mentioned. That being so, he must protest against the doctrine of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the purchase of the land irretrievably bound the House to an eight acre exhibition. That was a question which was still entirely open for the consideration of the House, and he felt quite satisfied that, whenever the matter came fairly before them, it could be shown that not only the most convenient but the most economical course to adopt for the exhibition of the natural history collection was that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge—that was to say, not sweeping away the houses until the space was actually required; but buying from the ground landlord the land in the neighbourhood of the British Museum, extending the limits of the Museum as the necessity for such extension arose, and keeping the houses on the property for the benefit of the rental which they would afford. There was a vast open garden space behind those houses, which would admit of the required extension for many years to come, and when that space was exhausted the houses might be pulled down. Under these circumstances, it was, he thought, desirable that it should be understood that the House had reserved to itself full authority to deal with the matter, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fallen into a grave error in the supposition which he had made.

said, that in 1852 the Government and the people were directly at issue with regard to the removal of the National Gallery. The Government endeavoured to drag all the public exhibitions and buildings down to Kensington, but the House succeeded in keeping them where they were. When Colonel Mure's Committee was appointed in 1852 not one hon. Member whose views were in favour of keeping the National Gallery in Trafalgar Square was allowed to serve upon it. He declined, therefore, to be bound by the decision of a tribunal against which at the time of its nomination he protested as being unfairly constituted. The right hon. Gentleman said they accepted the Report of that Committee as the best exponent of public opinion. How, then, was it consistent for the Government to introduce a Bill, as they were about to do, for severing the collection of the British Museum, a proposal directly in opposition to part of the Report of that Committee. He shared the regret already expressed that the Government in this matter had not formed 3ome comprehensive plan and acted upon it. It was especially to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman, who was a distinguished patron of art, justly celebrated for his taste, had not applied himself to the mastery of the whole subject a few years ago, when a decision by him would have been attended with very great advantage. Bearing in mind how London was spreading in every direction, the Government, as it appeared to him, ought to fix upon some central position such as that lying at the bend of the river between those two magnificent edifices St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey, and sny, "Here we will cluster our finest buildings." Depend upon it if this were done the neighbourhood would soon assume a worthy appearance. Dealing, as they were, with 3,000,000 people, he believed that commercially, socially, and politically, it would be of great advantage to have some central point at which the vast population could meet daily. To us this would be like the Agora at Athens, or the Forum at Rome, and no other site that he knew of was so well suited for the purpose as Trafalgar Square. The land between that and Westminster belonged almost entirely to the Crown. Instead of pursuing the course which had been adopted with regard to Government buildings he would have carried out the noble design of Inigo Jones for the re-building the Palace at Whitehall. He never would allow any portion of the Crown property to be sold or devoted to any purposes inconsistent with these public improvements. Instead of hankering after Kensington, and proposing to drag the National Gallery or the British Museum all the way there, a central site like Trafalgar Square should have been chosen, and then gradually they might have worked up to it. Charing Cross was the natural point for a great bridge to be thrown across the river. On that point he remembered speaking to the late Mr. Barry, who said he would not have a common bridge between two such cities as those lying to the north and south of the Thames, but a broadway of width proportionate to the immense population clustered on either bank. Regard being had to the Thames Embankment and other great works which were going forward in connection with it, he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a man of taste, not to overlook the enormous advantages derivable from the proximity of great edifices to one another, and the consequent advantages of the Trafalgar Square site. For like reasons, he deeply regretted the decision which had been arrived at as to the new Law Courts, which was mainly owing, he believed, to the fact that the lawyers did not wish to walk across the Strand with their wigs and gowns on. But of this he was quite sure, that in purchasing the seven acres of land at Kensington the House never supposed that they were entering into such a contract as that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared they had sanctioned. Unless he was much misinformed, it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had prevented the growth of the natural history collection in the British Museum, since 1852, on the ground that if it were improved in its present position the House would never consent to anything upon a grand scale being sanctioned down at Kensington. He was told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer when asked for money on behalf of the collection always said, "If we grant it, the public won't assent to a great expenditure at Kensington. Don't improve it, but let the public year by year feel how necessary it is to do something on a great scale." [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Totally groundless.] He was glad to receive that assurance. But how was it, then, that the natural history collection had not been allowed to receive proper development? Professor Owen had told him that the question of site was altogether a secondary one in his eyes, and that the collection could be improved in its present position. What he objected to was the wasting of ten or twelve years of his life, which he would gladly have devoted to the making of this collection. A building quite adequate for the purpose might, he (Mr. Seymour) believed, be constructed at comparatively little cost at the site where the British Museum now stood, and if the adjoining houses had to be purchased the value of the ground would not be as great as that at Kensington. He could not understand the limited views which the First Commissioner of Works had always held as regarded Trafalgar Square and the space proposed to be taken in its vicinity. The First Commissioner of Works said he was coming to the House for powers to take the land on which St. Martin's Workhouse and the barracks stood for the National Gallery, but it was to be regretted his scheme did not include further improvements for giving a better communication between Leicester Square and the Strand. It would be much better to set inquiries on foot as to whether the large space behind the National Gallery to the top of Leicester Square could not be turned to advantage for the purpose. If the Government bought the land requisite, he believed an estimate for the works requisite to open up a great line of communication with Regent Street might be obtained from some of the public companies, by cooperation with whom and the Metropolitan Board of Works plans adding greatly to the beauty of the metropolis might be carried out at no very great expense.

said, that considerable interest was felt in Ireland with regard to this matter. It was doubtless well known that the Curragh, which was a large open space many miles in extent, had been used from time immemorial by the public for various purposes, sometimes military, sometimes agricultural or pastoral. A large portion of it also had been used for the racing. It was impossible to define exactly the rights of the Crown over this extensive plain; in fact, he believed that hardly any Member would venture to offer a confident opinion upon the subject. In years past the Crown seemed to have the power to give charters to certain individuals as to liberty of pasturage. Other rights had doubtless been exercised by the Crown; and of late years rights had been exercised to a considerable extent in the way of granting leases for small portions of the Curragh for various purposes. A notable instance of this had occurred lately in the plain having been taken possession of by Government for a camp and for rifle ranges in connection with it. They would find, on the other hand, that there were extensive public rights in connection with the Curragh; that rights of pasturage were claimed by certain corporate towns in Ireland; that in some Acts of Parliament the Curragh was described as a common; and that almost within his own recollection the county of Kildare appointed an officer—a Conservator of the Curragh—whose duty it was to see that no encroachments were committed. It had also been asserted by lawyers that the public possessed the right of traversing any portion of the Curragh on horseback and on foot. Some time since some women were summoned for trespassing on the Curragh, but the magistrates refused to convict on the ground that the charge could not be maintained unless the prosecution proved an ownership in the soil. A stipendiary magistrate, acting upon the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, did subsequently, he believed, commit some of these people. The question was, however, re-considered; and it was generally held by those competent to give an opinion on the matter, that the magistrate had no right to send those persons to prison at all. He mentioned this circumstance merely for the purpose of showing how doubtful were the rights claimed by the Crown, and how desirable it was that the disputed points should be determined before any definite steps were taken with reference to the Curragh. If the rights of the Crown were to be defined by legislation, he thought that it should be preceded by inquiry, in which the public on the one hand, and the Government on the other, would have a full opportunity of stating their views. He understood that the military authorities complained of the great inconvenience resulting from the doubtful nature of their right to exercise the powers of police for the proper maintenance of discipline and order in the camp, and that it was partly with a view to remedy this grievance that the Government proposed to take the steps they intended. If the public really possessed any rights over the Curragh, those rights had undoubtedly been materially interfered with by the establishment of the camp. One-third of the Curragh was occupied by the camp and the ranges, and there could be no doubt that certain rights both of highway and pasturage were obliterated altogether. Some years ago he was informed that a Royal Commission was to have been issued upon this subject, but he could never discover that any steps had been taken in that direction. He would now ask whether it was intended to lease the whole or only a portion of the Curragh; if so, on what terms and conditions, and to whom that lease was to be granted; and whether the War or any other Department would have the right of selling or otherwise disposing of any portion of the Curragh, for other than public purposes. He wished also to know whether it was intended to propose any legislation on the subject during the present Session?

said, that since June, 1854, the Curragh had been used as the site of a large encampment. The numbers were to be limited to 10,000, but they had not always been so. The Curragh was Crown property, subject of course to those common lights referred to by the noble Lord. It was decided, after some communication between the late Lord Herbert when at the head of the War Department and the Office of Woods and Forests to lease the Crown rights to the War Department for the term of twenty-one years, subject to termination, if deemed advisable, at the end of seven or fourteen years. It was not intended to introduce any Bill during the present Session; in fact, no Bill was required to authorize the Commission- ers of Woods to lease the Crown rights over the Curragh to the War Department, As the War Department might find it necessary to erect buildings of considerable size and importance during their lease, they had asked for a right of purchase if they should find it necessary, and the arrangement upon this point was to the effect that the War Department should ascertain the value of the fee simple of the property, paying to the Crown one-half after deducting any preliminary expenses which might have been incurred, and that they should take any steps which might be found necessary afterwards for obtaining an Act of Parliament to ascertain, define, and extinguish the rights of common. With regard to the terms of the lease, the Commissioners of Woods had received from the War Department to the present time for the occupation of the Curragh and for the right of taking gravel for military roads, and for letting ground to booth-holders, £170 a year, and they had in addition to pay £350 a year to the Ranger of the Curragh, making together £520. The War Department would, therefore, during the continuance of this lease, have to pay every year the sum of £520. It was proposed that the gentleman who had acted for many years as Ranger should retire upon a pension equal to his salary, and that the office of Ranger should remain in abeyance while the lease lasted, as it was found that the exercise of the duties of his office was inconsistent with the rights of the War Department as lessees of the Crown.

wished to know if the whole of the Curragh was included in the lease?

said, that it was, subject to the rights possessed by the Turf Club for racing and other purposes. The lease had, of course, been made subject also to such rights of commoners and others as might be found to exist. All that would be leased would be the Crown rights, whatever those rights might be.

said, that when the camp at the Curragh was formed the Government said there would be no infringement of the rights of the commoners, but he had always apprehended an interference with those rights. He had from the first objected to the course adopted by the Crown in reference to this matter, because the Crown possessed no rights whatever upon the Curragh. He believed that a more atrocious invasion of public property had never been heard of. There used to be 30,000 sheep, the property of the people of the neighbourhood, kept on that plain; but the number had been reduced more than 20,000, and no compensation was allowed to these persons for the loss of their privileges. In England the Government purchased at a great expense the ground for Aldershot camp; but in Ireland they went and occupied land for a similar object in a most violent and outrageous manner. The Curragh belonged to the Irish people, and the Crown had no right or power to dispose of it. He hoped to be able to get up a subscription for the purpose of trying the question of right against the Crown. The Turf Club and the gentlemen of Kildare had acted supinely in the matter, but he trusted they would now bestir themselves in order to have the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench on the subject. The lease which the Government were secretly arranging was a most unpopular as well as most unwarrantable proceeding, and he would do his best to resist it.

said, he was not so anxious as his hon. and gallant Friend to go to law about the matter, hut he had no conception that such a cool and deliberate scheme of spoliation as that apparently contemplated by the Government would have entered their heads. It was a matter of notoriety for years past that the Government had a faulty title to this land. But the affair was much worse than he thought, and he was glad it had been brought before the House. They had no right to transfer the land to the War Department, yet they proposed not only to do that, but to make permanent erections upon the Curragh. The camp there was a nuisance and an eyesore, and yet it was sought to perpetuate it. There was no knowing where all that would end. The Curragh was a place of national renown, and ought not to be cut up and destroyed. The bargain which the Government were about to make was not only illegal, but would be most obnoxious to the whole country. Barely 12,000 sheep were allowed to feed where there used to be 30,000, and the office of the ranger was to be put in abeyance. It was most essential that there should be an officer like the ranger to look after the Curragh and make such regulations as were required for the convenience of the community resorting to it. He earnestly hoped that Government would re-consider the matter before coming to a final determination upon it.

said, he did not think it desirable to continue the discussion. He thought the Government from what bad taken place must be convinced that it ought to pause before embarking on the illegal course which they were contemplating. He denied that the Crown had any right whatever to these lands, and maintained that there ought to be a full and fair public inquiry, with a view to the protection of the public interests, before the proposed lease was entered into. What was complained of had arisen in consequence of Irish interests not being understood by any one connected with the Government.

said, that he viewed that as another instance of the great inconvenience which had arisen since the passing of the Act 14 & 15 Vict., owing to the distinction between Crown and public property, and also of the aggressive spirit shown by the Commissioners) of Woods and Forests in encroaching upon what might be deemed public rights. The respective rights of the public and the Crown ought to be ascertained in regard to that property, and he regretted that the noble Lord (Lord Naas) had not proposed the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the subject.

said, he understood that the learned Lord Advocate had consented to hold a meeting of the Scottish Members to consider this Bill, and that it was not therefore the intention of the hon. and learned Member for the Ayr burghs (Mr. Craufurd) to persevere with the Amendment which he had moved on the second reading.

said, he wished to know whether the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop) upon the same subject, and which the majority of Members from Scotland believed to be a better Bill than that of the Lord Advocate, was to be read a second time, so that the two Bills might be considered together. If that were not done, it would be under a great disadvantage as compared with the rival measure.

said, he understood that his hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment did not intend to divide on the second reading of the Bill, with the understanding that there should be a meeting of Scotch Members to consider the measure after the second reading. Beyond that no undertaking had been made by him (the Lord Advocate), and he intended to carry the Bill this Session if possible. The Scotch Members would meet to discuss, and not to decide upon the provisions of the Bill, and every Member would be perfectly free to take what course he might think proper. With regard to the Bill of the hon. Member for Greenock, he had given no pledge whatever, and it was his present intention to oppose it.

said, he approved of the course which was proposed to be taken. His object in introducing his Bill was, that the whole question should be considered by a Select Committee. He had no desire that the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend should be rejected, but he held himself free to take what course he might think best.

said, he would adopt the course which had been taken on the understanding that the Bill would be brought before the meeting of Scotch Members and that he would be at liberty to reserve to himself the right of action when the Bill next came before the House.

said, he rose to move—

"That this House has heard with regret that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has approved of a programme of music for the opening of the Dublin Exhibition from which all Irish music has been excluded."

The Lord Lieutenant, in approving of this programme, had deviated from well-established precedents. A former Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (the Earl of Eglinton) opened the Exhibition at Cork in 1852, and approved of a programme, in which there was an Exhibition Ode written by an Irishman, and set to music by an Irishman. On other occasions he had devoted much attention to Irish music. The Earl of Eglinton was a popular Lord Lieutenant, and what he did was worthy of the attention of Lord Wodehouse, if he wished to study how to gain the heart of the Irish people. Lord Eglinton, on the same day, attended a concert at which Irish melodies were performed. In 1853, at the opening of the Dublin Exhibition, an Exhibition march was performed, composed by Dr. Stewart, which was afterwards repeated in the presence of the Queen and the Prince Consort. However, as there were not many Members present, he would postpone his Motion until Monday evening—