The Sun. — London, England, 1856-06-28 00:00:00

- aIPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.) The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at 5 o'clock. Lord LYONS (late Sir E. Lyons) took the oaths and his seat as a Baron of the 'United Kingdom. His lord ship was introduced by Lord Foley and Lord Byron. COMMUNICATION WITH IRELAND. Lord CLANRICARDE begged to ask the noble duke what steps were being taken to improve and facilitate the communication between London and Dublin? The Duke of ARGYLL stated that propositions bad been made to the united railway and steam-boat com panies, and a letter had been received by the Govern ment from the proprietors, with the conditions for the performanee of the service, and the money required. That letter had been referred to the Post•ofsce authori ties, and was now under consideration. He had before stated the conditions required by the Post-office to be • fulfilled, namely, that the journey should be ()Wormed in eleven hours, and that the departure of the mail should not take place later than half-past seven in the morning. He did not think there was anything extraordinary in the conditions, as Capt. Huish of the North-Western It iilway bad stated some time ago that the journey could •be performed in the time mentioned. He could only assure the noble earl that at present the subject was receiving the utmost con sideration, with a view of bringing the negotiation to a successful termination. DULWICH COLLEGE BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second read ing of this bill. It was another of the bills founded on the recommendation of the Charity Commissioners. He wished the bill to pass this evening with the understand ng that it should he referred to a select committee. FACTORY BILL. On the motion of Lord DERBY, this bill was read a bird time and passed. - POLICE BILL. On the motion that this bill be read a third time, Lord ELLENBOROUGH complained that this bill was not to corns into operation until December. Such a circumstance, he considered, would involve a loss of time. It was his opinion that it would be desirable to appoint a chief constable before December, and that it would be wise to introduce a clause in the bill calling upon the magistrates of the several counties to meet in Octo ber next for the purpose of electing a chief constable. Lord PANNIURE said he would not object to the introduction of a clause to the effect started by the noble earl into the bill. The bill was then read a third time. OATH OF ABJURATION BILL. Their lordships then went into committee on this bill. Lord LYNDHURST objected to the bill, both in the form and substance. The noble earl took the oath f abjuration and struck out lines here, and inserted wards there, till all identity with the original oath was lost. Under these circumstances he did not understand how the oath was to be administered. Was the clerk at the table to take the oath of abjuration in his hand, arid strike out with his pen certain passages ? The noble and learned lord here repeated his description, given on a former evening, of the circumstances under which the objectior able passages were originally inserted in the oath of abjuration, and continued. The oath of alj na tion was to meet the fact of the existence of another family having claims upon the crow n . Th a t f ac t no longer exi s t e d. Why, then, should the oath itself exist ? Would it not be the logical conclusion for their lordships to come to, that it should be abrogated altogether ? (Hear.) After all, what were these oaths worth ? Who ever sup posed them to have any effect in times of difficulty ? (Hear, hear.) They had never prevented a revolution. (Hear, hear.) His noble friend (Lord Stanhope) had the other night addresed their lordships very strenuously in favour of the retention of one particular form of oath. He would, however, venture to cal their lordships' at tention to a passage which occurred in the works of that noble lord. He thought their lordships would, like him self, concur in the observations of the noble lord. Speak ing of the Jacobites, he said they still retained all their former opinions, and the oath, however it might trouble their conscience, did not influence their conduct. Such is, I fear, the inevitable result of every oath enforced by any government for its security. Examples of this are hut too common in all countries. Swearing allegiance to King George did not shut out ad Jacobites from Parlia• ment : swearing allegiance to King Louis Philippe did not shut out all Cerlists from the chambers. He (Lord Lyndhurst) quite agreed with his noble friend. And what said another very eloquent writer on the subject ? Mr. Macaulay said, speaking ou the subject of oaths : "Donut flatter yourselves that the ingenuity of legis lators will ev, r devise an oath which the ingenuity of casuists will not evade. Among the many mem nies which the troubles of the last generation have left :us, none are more plain than those which tell us that ; no form of words, ho, e •er precise, will save a government from destruction. Was not the solemn league and ceve nant burnt by the hangman amidst the buzzes of tens of thousands who had slit 'Abed it ?" He (Lord Lynd hurst) himself recollected that on one occasicn it was made a subject of merriment among several noble lords that they had broken many of these formal oaths. An other objection which he had to this bill was, that it embodied an insult to the Protestants of this country. The oath, it should be remembered, applied to Protes tants, and not to Catholic'. It respired them to state t at they made the declaration therein contained with out evasion or mental reservation. He should like to know at what period of our history it was ever supposed that Protestants were guilty of such mental reservations. Such imputations had no doubt been made (wt e .her rightly or wrongly he would not stop to inquire) against the Catholics ; but as yet he was unaware that they had ever been hinted at in the case of Protestants. Nay more, the words " on the true faith ofa Christian," whiela were inserted in this oath, were uncalled for. Die they add anything to the binding form of the oath ? If a Pro testant swore that he bore true allegiance to Queen Vic toria, did it add one iota to the force of that oath when he declared that he took it on the true faith of a Chris tian? He had, he confessed, heard it said of a noble and learned friend of his that the oath of allegiance was too meagre, that it was the modicum of an oath. He had the greasest possible rsspect for that noble friend, but to his opinion he would oppose the opinion of Lord Hale. Lord Hale considered that oath to be simple, polio, easily understood, and yet embodying the whole duty of subject and sovereign. But, after all, as he understood the true object of this bill, it was a bill levelled agaiuet the Jews. (Hear.) It was to exceole the Jews from Par liament, it could have no other object, nor could it an swer any other purpose. But eet the house mark in bow different a position the Jews would stand after the passin; of this bill. They were now on the de err sive ; they could not come into the other house' of Par liament it was admitted, but this bill would go further, it would actually exclude them. If the bid passed, what became of the argument that the Jews were kept out of the House of Commons by a mere pretext ? In answer to that argument it would be said, " There is now the vote of the two Houses of Parliament solemnly affiraii* that form of oath under which tl e J e ws are excludede" (Hear, hear.) Now he put it to their lordships to con sider whether it was possible, after what had taken peter in the other house, that this bill could be read a second time there. Would nut that house, considering whet had passed, think it extraordinary that they should be asked to consent to such a bill ? He would not go Me ther, and say It might be thought an insult. Taking, theretereethese views of the bill, he should in committee move amendments, and especial) , he should ask their lordships to ceneent to the omission of the concluding words of tho oath cornmsnciug " without evasion," and going to the end, inclusive of the words "on the true firth of a Christian." The Earl of DERBY regretted that his noble frond had not been present at the second reading of the bill, as then he would have been better aware of the subject which - he-(Lord Derby) had in view. As it was, he must, with all respect for his noble and learned friend, say that it had never tell to his lot to hear the object of a bill so misrepiesentedas the object of this bill had been by his noble friehd. His noble triend charged him with bringing forward this bill for the purpese of excluding Jews from the other House of Parliament. He called upou h in to show how, supposing this measure bscsene law, the Jews would bo pieced in a worse position than that in which they then stood. The object of this bill was to en act as law that portion of the measure which had re• u sntey been b e f ore t h em in which both parties concurred. saving on one side that: question, Mich really was not material to the exact question before them, he pro- posed merely to embody and l as law the conviction which ex• fisted; both there elsewhere, that h so s much of the oath as rela...ed to the extincteew discarded. He (Lord o Lo t rd e p t e u r hirts might with proprieteeb e however, sympathise with his noble(4rie d in theY) could,i a stalking horse which the. alteration of n the oath (oralelf juration would cause to him. Re could conceive that h . B noble friend would find a gr eater difficult in ur 'n l their lordships to consent to any m easure for the atiis g - Rion of the Jews to the other house of Parliament than he felt at the present time. The measu re which he had brought for war d was intended by him as a measure of conciliation ; he hoped it would not be thought necessary for the H ouse of C01111110(.113 to insist upon any alt eration in the form o f wor d s i n t h e oat h. But supposing that should be the case, supposing the House of Common s should take that course, which he must beg to say he should consider an ill-advised one, then those who bad charge of the bill in that house would proceed with it no further, or if it came before their lord ships, it. would give rise again to a discussion simi lar to that which had already taken place. Into a discussion upon the value of oaths he should 'not fol low his noble friend, further than to say, if the objet- .irons which he had urged upon that subject had any weight in there, they applied qui:e3 as much to the mea sure which the noble lord himself brought in as they did to the bill then before their lordships' house. Lord LYNDHURST pointed out that this bill, if passed by both houses, would have a very prejudicial ef fect to the cause of the Jaws • inasmuch as it would be urged against them as a deliberate expression of opinion by the Legislature. Lord CA.NIPBELL pointed out that the title of this bill involved an absurdity when taken in consideration with the bill itself. It was called a bill to amend the " 0 rth of Abjuration," but in the form of oath contained in it, all mention of abjuration and renunciation was taken out. It was an oath of abjuration, which abjured nothing. The Earl of EGLINTON Peiefed out that the main object of the bill was to get rid of so mach of the existing oath as had become obsolete from lapse of time. Lord DEN NIAN suggested that the oath should be called an oath' of fidelity. This would get over the ab surdity pointed out by the noble and' learned lord. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH saw no objection to the bill, which merely left the Jews where they were. Thera he certainly always desired to see them. (Laughter.) He based his objection to the admission of the Jews to the other House of Parliament simply upon this—that to admit them would lead to the disparagement of the Christian religion. Their lordships had defeated by a large majority an attempt to introduce Jews into Parlia ment. Let them leave well alone. It was not desirabie for them to court a collision with the House of Com mons on the subject. If the House of Commons at tempted to force their religious feelings they would be ready to defeat that attempt, and he trusted the people of England would re=pent their principles ; but if they sought a conflict with the other house he doubted whe ther public opinion would be with them. Toe Earl of DERBY said his objection to remain pre cisely where they were was not an objection that referred to the admission or non-admission of the Jews. What he wanted to do was to take out of the oath everything that was avowedly, and by the consent of all parties in defensible. In the event of the House of Commons tak ing a course which he might consider unreasonable, It would be competent to him either to postpone or with draw the bill. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH thought the Par liamentary practice was, that when a bill had been once introduced, it could not be withdrawn without the con sent of the house. (Hear, hear.) The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said the noble lord admitted that he had introduced the bill in order to get rid of a clog which he had found inconvenient. (" Hear, hear," from the Earl of Derby.) Why, then, did he not pursue the manly course of connecting with the propo- sal to repeal the oath of abjuration one to exclude the Jews. The Bishop of EXETER said in reply to the noble and learned lord's (Lord Campbell's) remark that, if this bill passed these would be an oath of abjuration with no thing to abjure, he would observe that, except in the title, there was no mention in the bill of an abjuration oath. Lord LYNDHURST then brought forward certain amendments. He did not press them to a division, but stated that he would propose them on the third reading. The Earl of DERBY said that on the third reading he should be prepared to divide the house on the amendments. The bill having passed through committee, Lord RED ESDALE remarked that the opposition to this bill was rather unusual. It should be borne in mind that the object for which it was framed was simply to get rid of what was objected to by both houses of Parliament, without requiring either house to go any further. Toe Etrl of DERBY said he would fix the third read ing for Thursday next. A petition from a parish in Devonshire, complaining of the non-consecration of a new cemetery, was presented by the Earl of PORTSMOUTH, and accompanied by a de• tail of the circumstances by which it was prompted. The Bishop of EXETER explained the motives for his conduct in the affair, and some further discussion having taken place the subject dropped. ThetSardiocan Loan Bill was read a third time and _ _ _ Their lorthhipa then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—YESTERDAY. The SPEAICER took the chair at the usual hour. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The St. Sepulchre's Manor (Dublin) Bill was read a third time a!,(1 passed. The Perth Burgh and Harbour (No. 2) Bill was read a second time. INDIA. Mr. BUTT presented a petition from Meer Ali Morad, Ameer of Rhyrpore, in Scinde, complaining. of the un just seizure of his territories by the authorities of the Indian Government. TAX COL GEC rORS. Mr. HANKEY moved for a return of the names of persona employed in the assessment and collection of in come tax and land and assessed taxes, in the City of London, during the year ending the sth day of April, 1856 ; the capacity in which employed, rate of poundage, amount of salaries or allowances received, and whether employed in other duties or not ; and of the total amount of income tax, land tax, and assessed taxes in the same period.— Ordered.. OUR RELATIONS WITH AMERICA. Mr. MOORE said he had given notice some time ago to bring forward a motion for discussion of the Aeleri can question, but he had postponed bringing it foruvaid until the papers had arrived. Those despatches had no w been received, and he begged to ask the noble lord at the head of the Government whether he could give him a day, or fix some certain period next week for the discussion. Lord PAL 'A ERSTON said it must not be attributed to want of courtesy to the hon. gentleman that be did not accede to his request. It was his opinion that in the present state of our relatior.s with America it was not desirable that any discussion should take place— (hear, hear)—nr Aber would it be conducive to a settle ment of the question. That opinion was shared by gen- tlemen who usually opposed her Majesty's Government and other parties; and therefore he thought it was right that no discussion cf the subject should take place. In that ca , e and on the part of her Majesty's Government he could not fix any day for such purpose, because by doing so it would be indirectly saying that GovEratnent acceded to the discussion of the question. Under these circumstances the hon. gentleman must exercise the pri vileges he possessed as an independent member, and avail himself of the first opportunity that presented it self if it was his intention to proceed with his motion. 111A/NrENAYCE OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS. Mr. A. SMITE asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he had any objection to stato the amount which hs was prepared to allow for the support of juvenile criminals in certified reformatories before the 30th day of Jude, on which day the Quarter Ses sions would assemble ? Sir G. GREY sail he hoped soon to make a recono. mendation to the Treasury relative to the suppert o juvenile offenders in certified reformatories. At present he was unable to state the amount. EDUCATION FOR THE ROYAL ACADENIY AT WOOLWICH AND SA.NDHURST. Col. BUCK asked the Under Secretary for War where di:tinct and official information was to be procured as to what amount of education was requisite for admi , sion into the Royal Academy at Woolwich, for admission into Sandhurst, or fur admission into the Royal Artillery service? Mr. PEEL said the required information for Sand hurst College was to be obtained from the Adj , itat:t- GenerAl there, and the Governor of the College ; f r the Royal Academy, at Woolwich, at the War-ofEce, Pall mall. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVAN itN45-1 N 28, 188 a. THE CRIMEAN TROOPS Mr. NOEL asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether, as an early day would be fixed for the entry of ti , e Guards into London, her Majesty's Government would consider the propriety of bringing up other regiments who have arrived from the Crimea on that occasion, so that an opportunity might be affected to the inhabi tants of this metropolis of welcoming portions of artil lery, cavalry, and infantry of the line also, and of testi fying the sense they entertain of the services rendered equally by the whole army during the late war. Lord PALMERSTON said her Majesty, nor these who advised her, had no intention of drawing a distinction between the Guards and the other triops that had served in the Esst, by naming a day for the entry of the Guards into London. Everything had bee❑ done by other branches of the army during the late war that bravery could accomplish, and the only reason for the Guards coming to London, any more tha❑ other regiments, was because it was the Guards who did garrison duty in the metropolis, and those brave men who were returning were to return► to their duties and their quarters in the metropolis. (Hear, hear.) It would be impossible to find accommodation for the other troops in the metropolis, nor a place to re view them ; but as they were to repair to Aldershot. where her Majesty would review them, the people of London, by the proximity of the camp to the metropolis, and the great facilities of reaching it, would have an opportunity of testifying their admiratio❑ of the valour, bravery, courage, and self-denial dis played by those troops during the late war. (Elear, hear.) It was not right to say that the welcome to the Guards to London would be an invidious distinction, because her Majesty bad visited and welcomed almost every branch of the army that had returned to this country and were stationed within a certain distance from her Majesty's residence. (Rear, hear.) LEGION OF HONOUR. Mr. H. BARING asked the Under Secretary for War why the Legion of Honour had not been distributed to those officers of the Crimean Army wbo had long since been selected by General Codrington for that decora tion ? Mr. F. PEEL said a list of the names of the officers and men had been forwarded to the French Government. As soon as the order had been received and published the distribution would take place. APPELLATE JURISDICTION (HOUSE OF LORDS) BILL. In answer to a question from au Hon. Member, Lord PALMERSTON said he was unable to name an early day for the second reading of the bill. It was an important measure, the result of a compromise, and was introduced under the sanction and authority of her Majesty's Government. Mr. DISRAELI protested against this bill being considered as the result of a compromise. It was a c onstitutional measure, which the Government ought to introduce and support as such, and not upon anything that had occurred " behind the scenes." Gove r rn Lo P ALMERSTON explained. The bill was a Govern Government measure, and so far from his having given any informatio n of what had occurred "behind the scenes," he luyi only stated what h a d appeare d on the stage, and been acted up to the foot-lights. (Laughter He alluded to the nature of the diecussion on this ques tion in the House of Lords. Sir J. GRAHAM addressed the Louse in support of a change in the appellate jurisdiction of; the House of Lords, a „a urged on the Govern-, ment the neces-ity of the bill now before the house being read a second tim e on an early day that, it may pass this session, He suggested an alteration in the standing orders with reference to entertaining pe cuniary claims from India, and als) that relative to ad dresses to the Crown. Mr. V. SMITH supported the suggestion with re `erence to India. - CHURCH-RATES ABOLITION BILL. Sir W. CLAY inquired of the First Lord of the Trea sury whether it was the intention of the Government to afford ficilities for proceeding with the further stages of the Church-Rat's Abolition Bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, on the part of the Government, said that it was the intention of the Government to press on several important bills as speedily as possible ; and under these circumstances it would be impossible for the Government to name a day on which the Churcl -Rates Abolition Bill could be brought on. The right hon. baronet laboured under a i mistake in believing the bill had been adopted by the Government. The Government intended to intro• dure causes in the bill at the proper stage, but tl - at stage had not yet arrived. (Laughter.) Slr W. CLAY said that on the explanation given by the Government be should abandon the bill. THE ORDER OF VALOUR. Captain SCOBELL asked whether the arrangements for the distribution of the Victoria Order of Valour were completed, or nearly so, and whether it would be brought intu operation at an early period ? Nothing, he said, was so bad in a subject of this kind as delay. The Baltic medals and the Crimean medals had been distributed much too profusely. All who were in the Baltic or the Crimea, whether they were worthy or unworthy, bad received them. With regard to the order in question, the rules were excellent, and he trusted they would be adhered to. Sir C. WOOD said he believed the arrangements were all but-completed ; and as soon as they were, the order would be brought into operation. TURKISH DECORATIONS. Mr. KNIGHTLEY asked the Fir-t Lard of th© Trea sury why the British officers belonging to the Turkish Contingent, on whom the Sultan had conferred the Order of the Medjedjie, were not permitted to wear that decoration ? Mr. LABOUCHERE believed that the Sultan had expressed a wish to decorate not only certain officers of the Contingent, but also other officers who had served with the British army in the Crimea, for their services during the war. The question as to the second class of officers was under consideration, and would be speedily determined. He believed that they would be put on the same footing. RAILWAY ACCIDENTS. Mr. OTWAY said he wished to put a question to the Vice-President of the Board of Trade as to the accidents which had occurred on a certain line of railway. He did not hesitate to say that almost every accident which oc curred on the South-Eastern railway, between Sept. and Dec. of last year, might have been prevented with ordi nary precautions. The annual report which was presented to the Board of Trade by the gentleman who reported on these accidents stated that these accidents were to be attributed to negligence and to laxity in the observance of regulations. One by which four lives were lost was caused by a train coming in collision with another, which was proceeding in an opposite direction. He was himself last year, in one of the tidal trains of the South- Eastern Railway. It started a few minutes before the appointed time, and they ran into a coal waggon which was being shunted upon another line, Ode of the passengers was seriously injured. No notice, however, was taken of this occurrence in the annual report of acci dents. Sometimes accidents occurred through want c.f punctuality, but there was an arrangemebt on that line by which punctuality would po , itively cause an accident. It appeared that the London and Brighton Railway Com pany started a train at 8 o'clock. It was a slow passenger train, and stopped at two stations before it got to Reigate. It was due at Riegate at a quarter to 9. The South- Eastern Company started another train from the same terminus a quarter of an hour after the Brighton train started. It was an express train, and was timed to arrive at Reigate a minute before the Brighton train arrived there. He contended that such an arrangement was very improper, and he suggested that th e Board of Trade should interfere in the matter. A sensible man and a great wit had said that they would never have safety in railway travelling till a prelate was killed on a rail way. If some patriotic prelate wished to sacrifice him self to his couatry, he would advice him to travel by one of these two trains, and he would in all probability suc ceed in his object. Mr. LOWE said the Board of Trade had power to in spect a railway before it was opened, and it could not be opened till the board had certified that it was in a-fit state. After it was opened the board, had no power. It was a question whether the Government should have power to interfere with the conduct of railways, and it appeared to h'ra that the Government should not inter fere, as the safety of the public depended on the respon sibility of those who had the management. At the same time he was bound to state his opi,pion and that of his department, that the case mentioned by his hon. friend was one that those companies ought to look into. One train was started at eight o'clock and another at a quar ter past, which was due at Reigate a minute before the train which first started got there, and which it could not pass without collision. If any accidtnt should hap pen after this matter had been mentioned the responsi bility of those two companies would be very heavy in deed. Mr. JAMES MACGREGOR said a rule was laid down to provide for the public safety, which was th7st no train should be allowed to proceed till a telegraph lied arrived from the next station that the preceding train had passed that station, and that the line was clear. If this rule were observed a mere error of print would not affect the safety of the train. DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES. Mr. MOORE said he was not satisfied with the answer of the noble lord on the question of America. He thought it right that he should state why that answer should be unsatisfactory to the house, and why he should persevere in the motion of which he had given notice. When the noble lord gave notice that the papers which comprised the whole of the matter in dispute were to be laid on the table of the house, he acceded at once to the suggestion of postponement tll the papers were pro duced. He did not think, hawovar, that any device, however plausible or adroit, that her Majes ty's Government might resort to, could by any possibi lity change or modify the nature of the question which the house would ultimately have to decide. But they were told by the noble lord that it was unwise even now to stir the question, that doing so might be injurious to the public service in connection with negotiations on another subject, and which in some unaccountable aay was supposed to be connected with this, and that any expression of opinion on the subject would be likely to interfere with it. Iu fact, the oracle to which they were indebted for all public virtue, the Sibylline papers con nected with the blue book, was again on the tapis, but he had no faith whatever in the discretion of the priest ess, and he thought the sooner they superseded her functions the better. They had heard too much of Par liamentary discretion on this subject. They were told the same thing before, and the consequence was that they were drifted into a war before they were aware of it. He did not think that discussion on that subject would have been injurious. On the contrary, he believed that whatever was done well in the last war was done in consequence of public opinion expressed in that !mine and out of it ; and that all the disasters arose from t'-ie holes and corners of official retreat. As a general ru'e he had no faith in the dogma the noble lord had propounded, and with regard to thie particular case he could see nothing which should induce the house to pause. On the contrary, be believed there were hun dreds of thousands in this country who believed that the country had been humiliated and wronged, and that this was a case for watchful jealousy, so that at the pre sent moment the state of public opinion in England was drifting, not into a war, but into a state which might lead to war. If that were so, was it just or wise in them to remain silent, and allow the people to have this feeling? Was it not, on the contrary, their duty to interfere to prevent such a feeling from growing and festering, if they believed it to be unjust? He believed that such a course would tend far more to secure the respect of the people of America than all the circumlocution of all the diplomatists in the world. If the government of the United States ha f not been deceived and offended, if they had taken no steps but those consistent with their own dignity, was it not the duty of that house at once to make atone ment, and to pass censure on those by whom the public interests had been imperilled ? If, on the other hand, our Government bad done nothing but what they were right in (Lino, was it not their duty to sustain the ser vants of the Crown ? But there was another course which he c ould not understand ; to say, en the one h an d, th a t our minister had done his duty towards his sovere'gn and his country, and yet be was to be dismissed ; and, on the other hand, to receive with open arms the minis ter of America. Such a course was calculated neither to cause us to be respected, nor was it consistent with the dignity of this country. Mr. Crampton had not been dismissed on any fastidious fancy, but the gravest possible allegations had been brought against his con duct and character, and the conduct and character of her Majesty's Government, by the Government of the United States, and it concerned that house to inquire into thoie allegations, and to pronounce a verdict upon them, to prove to the people of England and the people of America that whatever might be the folly of our di plomatists, at all events the people of England were not re-ponsible. He thought they were bound to pronounce an opinion on this question, and if the house would allow him to do so, he would bring the question forward when he had the opportunity. THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS. Lord J. RUSSELL, reverting to the statement of Lord Palmerston on this,bill, said he thought it would be a very seriouse-vil if a bill of this kind were deferred to a late period in She year. It would be a matter of reproach to the house if they were not to give such a bill full con-ideration. His noble friend said that the present exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords was not satisfactory. He thought that in the first place Government should show why it was that a jurisdiction which bad been so long, exercised by the House of Lords, and which had been jealously guarded by that house, had all at once become unsatisfac tory. He ,hought in the next place they should state why it was necessary to pass a bill which limited and restricted one of the most important prerogatives of tho Crown, namely, that of the creation of peers. He thought in the third place that this was a bill which if passed int ) a law would deeply affect the independence of the Legislature. He wished therefore that the Government would not delay the bill, but that the house shoald have ample time for discussion before they even consented to the principal of the measure. Mr. MALINS, without expressing an opinion on the bill, wished to impress on the house the necessity of doing something with regard to the appellate jurisdic tion. At present, owing to Lord St. Leonards declining. to sit, Lord Lyndhurst's great age, and Lord Brougham's illness, the Lord Chancellor had to sit alone on appeals. SITE OF THE NATIONAL GALLERT. On the motion that the house resolve itself into Mom, reittee of Supply, Lord ELCHO rose to submit a motion for the issue of a Royal Commission to determine the site of the New National Gallery. The noble lord having claimed the in-, dulgenee of the house on the ground that he was still and invalid, and having stated that he was in the anomalous, position of being unable to vote for his own motion, as, with the view of going abroad, he had paired off for the' remainder of the session, said the question raised by the motion was one of considerable importance, as upon its determination would depend whether a large sum of the public money was to be laid out providently or improvi dently. (Bear, hear.) He would first explain his reasons for bringing forward a motion on this sub- ject. By a bill now before Parliament, called the National Gallery Site Bill, the house were called upon to affirm the proposition that the site of the National Gallery should be fixed at Kensington-gore. Now he was not prepared, and many other hon. gentlemen were not prepared, to vote upon that proposition one way or the other. He had given notice of the present motion be cause he thought the question would be more properly brought before the house in that form than by the bill ; and he had to thank the noble lord at the head of the Government for the courtesy with which he had post poned the second reading of the bill until the motion had been disposed of. The motion naturally divided itself into two parts, as it raised the questions, first, whether a royal commission should be issued to determine the site of the National Gallery, and, secondly, whether that royal commission, if issued, should likewise consider the de sirableness of combining with the National Gallery the fine art and archmological collections of the British Mu seum? The question as to the site was a very simple one —were the house prepared,without any further inquiry, to vote for the removal of the National Gallery to Ken sington-gore ? He was not prepared so to vote. One rea son why delay was. imperative was the great difference of opinion upon the question which existed both in and out of the house. Some gentlemen were anxious at all price, at all hazard, to remove the National Gallery to Kensington-gore ; others thought that, of all situa tions which could be selected for a National Gallery, Kensington-gore was the worst ; others, again, said that if Kensington-gore was the only alternative its removal there might - perhaps be desirable ; and that was the view taken by the committee of 1853 ; another class thought that from the commanding and central position which the National Gallery now occupied it ought not to be removed. Various arguments would no doubt be brought against his motion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had heard it argued in the first place, that Parlia ment was committed to the site of Kensington -gore by the vote of 150,0001. for the purchase of the ground, which had been moved by the right hon, gentleman op posite (Mr. Disraeli), when Chancellor of the Exche quer ; in the second place, it was asked what was the use of further inquiry when there had been commissions and committees without end ? (liedi ) Thirdly, it was said that the committee of 1853 had determined upon accept ing the site of Kensington -gore by a resolution em bodied in their report. With regard to the first objection having carefully looked through all the discussions which had taken place on the subject, he thought that Parlia went was in no way committed upon the question of the site. When the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) in an able speech explained his scheme, although he sha dowed forth a National Gallery as one of the purposes to which the ground might be put nothing specific was determined. Oa that occasion the late Mr. Hume ob jected to the removal of the National Gallery from its present central position, although he cordially approved the industrial scheme proposed to be carried out at Ken sington-gore. He (Lord Elcho) must here disclaim any intention to interfere with the industrial scheme proposed by the Royal Commission, of which Prince Albert wasthe able and active head, a scheme proposed in consequence of the defiziency of this country in the arts of design as ap plied to manufactures. The hon, member for Warwick shire, as well as Mr. Hume, raised his voice on the oc casion to which he had referred against the retrieval of the National Gallery, so that nothing had then passed to commit the house. In 1854 the question was again brought before Parliament, as it was found that 27,5001. beyond the sum already voted was required, and then an hon. friend of his, now on the Treasury bench, whose vote he was afraid would not now be given 'o him, but whose sympathies he knew were with him, be meant the hon. member for Poole (Mr. Denby Seymour), objected to money being voted for the removal of the National Gallery, and said he distinctly remembered that no pledge had been given on the part of the house that it should be removed. With regard to the second objection he had mentioned, he certainly admitted that a number of inquiries had taken place, for there bad been no less than two commissions (appointed by the Treasury) and five committees. The commission of 1850 inquired into the state of the pictures, and recommended, in conse quence of the dust and dirt accumulated on them, that they should be covered with glass. The commission of 1851, of which the present Duke of Somerset was a member, reported in favour of one or two sites in Kensington-gardens —one, the end of the walk near the Bays water-road ; the other the paddock near Kensington Palace. The first committee was appointed in 1836, and only considered the question of the occupa tion of part of the building by the Royal Academy. There hal always been something unfortunate about the National Gallery ; it had been a ricketty child from its birth, for no sooner was it erected than a question arose as to its occupation, and a great part of it had always been occupied by the Royal Academy. The next commit tee, which sat in 1841, merely inquired into the number of visitors to the gallee.-y. The committee of 1850, though they thought the site not as advantageous as it might he for the preservation .rd the pictures, could make no re commendation on the subject in ignorance of the site to which it was proposed to be removed. In 1847-48 a com mittee sat, of which the late Sir R. Peel, Lord Carlisle, the noble lord the member for London, and other dis tinguish ed 'nen were members, and they came to the unanimous decision tl.at the National Gallery ought not to be remov ed from its present site. The last committee sat in 1855. The result of these inquiries was not conclusive or satis factory. Indeed the reports on the subject were most contradictory. He now came to the committee of 1853, and he imagined that it was to carry out the views of that committee that the Government now proposed to remove Lhe National Gallery to Kensington -gore. He was quite ready to admit that that committee came to a resolution accepting the site of Kensington -gore for the National Gallery, but it was merely on the idea that there was no other alternative, and the resolution to that effect was only carried by a majority of one. A paragraph inserted in the report for removing the National Gallery to Ken sington-gore was, undoubtedly, carried by six to three, hut if the substantive -motion had not been carried by a majority of one the committee would not have affirm ad the acceptance of the site. lie was in the minority, and he was supported by the hon. memter for the University of Dublin, who was the financial secretary of the right hon. gentleman opposite at the time when the decision was arrived at. He was also supported in the minority by the late Sir W. Molesworth, and he thought that all that he had stated showed that the opinion of the com mittee on this subject was anything but unanimous, and that too much weight must not be attached to a decision accepting the Kensington-gore site as the only alterna irive. The chairman of the committee on the occasion was Col. Muir, and there was no doubt that if ho had had occasion to give a casting vote on the subject he would have voted against the Kensington-gore site, for he drew up a draught report condemning it. He therefore could not help thinking that the case of those who based their views in favour of the removal of the National Gal lery to Kensington on the report of that committee was not very strongly supported. The committee, he re peated, adopted Kensington -gore site because they be lieved there was no other alternative, but if honourable members looked over the Parliamentary papers and documents they would find that no less than 13 other sites were suggested as available or desirable for the National Gallery. It was not, therefore, on the sup- posed want of alternatives that the how() was obliged to adopt the proposed site. These were the reasons which induced hun to desire that there should be some fur ' ther inquiry to determine the site of the new Na tional Gallery. But besides this there was a larger and wider question, to which he should shortly call the atten tion of the house—namely, whether it would not be de sirable to combine with the new National Gallery the fine art and archmelogicel collections of the British Mu seum. This subject had frequently engaged the atten tion of Parliament, and it would be, no doubt, lee in the recollection sef the noble member for London, who moved the vote for the British Museum, that the ques tion as to what should be done with the collections in the British Museum was more or less brought before the house. The right hon. gentleman opposite, formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer', gave what was a true ac count of the origin of the difficulties connected wish the collections in the Museum. Since those a Alections, formed by Sir Hans Sloane, came into the possession of the natiou continual additions had been made to them, until the Museum had become a perfect Noah's ark, containing birds, beasts, fishes, and other things, ar ranged without system, while each department appeared to be in a state of chronic congestion. He was told that two cases which had arrived from Edinburgh must re• main in the cellars along with a hundred others, and that when a new bull came from Nineveh a stable was ob liged to be built for itin someout-of-the-way place. With regard to books, however, he was told by M. Panizzi that in consequence of the vote of 140,0001. for a new read. ing-room there was space for 1,500,000 volumes. The committee of 1853 were in favour of combining with the new National Gallery the Fine art and archm)- logical collections of the British Museum. It the collections were to be moved, they must be moved as a whole. When the question came before the committee of 1853 he had hesitated to give an opinion upon it, and he had moved to recommend the appointment of a commis sion on the subject. The 11th resolution of the commit tee was to this effect. He was happy to say that in this proposition for the appointment of a commission he had the concurrence of Lord Ellesmere, whose opinion on these subjects was entitled to the greatest weight. The question of site depended not only upon whether it should be determined to combine our collections, but on the manner in which that was to be carried out ; whether it, was to be done in a handsome manner, worthy of the, arts, or whether it was to be done economically. It, might be done in such a manner, however, as to keep, both considerations in view. He had had considerable delicacy in mentioning Kensington Palace as a site, be cause that was a royal residence, and he spoke in utter ignorance of the intentions of her Majesty with regard: to it. It must be remembered, however, that the gardens' of Kensington Palace were now open to the public, and' the privacy of the palace as a royal residence was ther e -1 fore destroyed. Still, if it were determined to erect on that site a palace worthy of the arts it would not pre-' elude her Majesty, or any future sovereign who might fed so disposed, from erecting a royal residence in clos e connection with the gallery. This was the case in Paris,: in Berlin, and in Florence; and there would be this great, advantage, that on state occasions the two might be thro wn' together, as was done with the Tuileries and the Louvre gallery, so as to form one magnificent suite of moms. If her Majesty sbould co:lsent t; such a sacrifice as giving up Kensington Pal ac, - ; for the benefit of the public, iure he wai that Parliament and the country would he ready to offer any equivalent which her Majesty at any future time might desire. Another way in which it had been suggested that this combination could be carried out was to give Burlington-house to the Prince of Wales, to clear away St. James'sPalace and Marlborough-house, which would give a frontage of 1,100 feet, and there to erect a National Gallery in connection with a new suite of Royal reception-rocms, which were very much needed. Another site was that of Kensington-gore, where, al though there was ample room in the lower part of the ground, the frontage was somewhat restricted, and where no one who had given attention to this matter believed that there could be erected a building which would be an ornament to the metropolis. Immediately in front of this site there were two parallel dusty roads, and the low ground behind looked towards Brompton and parts of London little frequented except by those who were in the habit of going to Cremorne Gardens. There was one plan by which the proposed combination might be satisfactorily and economically carried out. He had already referred to the crowded state of the British Museum. If you sent the botanical collection to Kew, that of zoology to the Z )ological Gardens, and the mine rals and foasils to Burlington-gardens, where it would be at the back of the learned societies, which were, he un derstood, to be lodged in Burlington-house, and in the immediate neighbourhood of the Geological Muieum in Jernayn-street, there would then be in the British Mu seum three sides of the quadrangle for the reception of paintings and sculpture, a space greater than this country was at ail likely to require. It would be desirable, in order that all these questions might be set at rest, that there should be a cenuniseion to inquire. If that com mission should report against the desirableness of com bining the various collections, he for one should be op posed to the removal of the National Gallery from its present site. (Hear.) A great deal had been said of the extent to which the pictures in that collection suf fered from dirt and dust ; but in that respect they were no worse off than were the various private collections in the heart of London, such as those of the Duke of Nor thumherland, Lord Ellesmere, Lord Westminster, the late Mr. Rogers, Mr. Hope, and various ethers. lie believed that the pictures might to a great extent be protected against these evils by unproven ventilation, by the use of doors to check the entrance of dust, which had only lately been introduced into the National Gallery—and which, when he .went there the other day, he found carefully tied open—and by co vering the pictures with glass. He was himself one of the majority of ten to one which voted for the removal of the National Gallery; but ha voted for that removal only with a view to the combination of the collections, such as was to be found at St. Petersburg, Berlin, Naples, Florence, and other continental cities. If that scheme were not carried out, he should be very much tempted to keep the National Gallery where it was. The commit tee of 1847 and 1818 said in their report, which was drawn up by Lord Carlisle, the chairman : " After careful deliberation, they unanimously concurred in the opinion that, taken into account the commanding na ture of the site occupied by the present building, to which it would perhaps be difficult to find a parallel in our own or any other capital; its accessibility and nearness to the chief thoroughfares and centres of business, which are fed by what has been described in a well-known phrase as ' the fullest tide of human existence;' the aids to economy, which, without sacrificing the beauty of effect which a new front and addi tional height would confer on the structure, would be fur nished by the rare circumstance of only one ornamental front being rendered necessary from the disposition of the ground, and by the means which are at hand for making use of the whole of the present interior, due regard beiug paid to the convenience of the Royal Academy in procuring suitable ac commodation elsewhere ; the space for further enlargement which, in the process of time, and concurrently with the exi gencies of the collection, might bo supplied by occupying the uncovered ground now in the occupation of public establish ments in the rear of the present buildings; for all these rea sons your committee would recommend that whenever it is undertaken the enlarged and improved National Gallery should be on the saute site as at present." Another point on which it was essential that the house should be informed was, what were the intentions of the Government as to disposing of the present National Gallery, and as to the accommodation of the Royal Aca demy. If that society were to be permanently lodged at the national expense, it became a question whether there ought not to be an inquiry how far it fulfilled the objects for which it was established, and a decision ought to be come to as to whether it should be a self-elected or a re• presentative body, or whether its members should be no minated by the Crown. He was convinced that the best way of dealing with this question would be by the issue of a Royal Commission ; but at least he hoped that the house would not assent to the bid for marking out the site of the National Gallery, which was the next order on the paper. Either that bill was premature, or there was something behind it of which the house was not aware. Unless the Government had plans and every thing ready they could not mark out the site, and if they had such plans prepared the house ought to see them. In reference to the production of plans he confidently anti cipated the support of the right hon, gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), who, in supporting the vote of 150,0001. for the purchase of the land, said that all further plans must be submitted to the house, which would not, he was certain, consent to the erection of any building with ea fsvery rigid scrutiny into all the arrangements, and without taking care that all the talent of the country should be brought into competition. With reference to this public competition, he (Lord Elebo) was of opinion that designs ought to be received from the whole civilised world, and that they ought to be publicly exhibited. If such a plan were pursued we should not be likely to make such mistakes as we had hitherto done, and in stances of which were to be found in the monument of the Duke of Wellington, standing where it was sup posed no sta'u) could ever have stood ; the front of Buckingham Palace, which had had to be painted over; the National Gallery ; and the fo un t a i ns i n Trafalgar square, which gave to foreigners the impression that these things -gould not be managed except under a Government haying somewhat of a despotic character. It behoved the house to take care that in this instance no similar mistake should be made. He was not pre pared to admit that the country which had producel a Reynolds and a Wren was wholly destitute of a taste for the fine arts, and he trusted that the Govern ment world refrain from coming t ) any hasty decision on this matter by acceding to the motion which he ven tured to submit to the house. The noble lord concluded by moving— " That an humble address ba presented to her Majesty, playing her Majesty to be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to determine the site of the new National Gal lery, and to report on the desirableness of combining with it the fine art and archaeological collations of the British Museum, in accordance with the recommendation of the select committee of the National Gallery in 1853." Mr. M. MILNES said that his noble friend had al lowed his imagination to run wild, and indulging in every conceivable supposition, bad sketched out a magnificent edifice for the fine arts, the basis of which rested on his own prolifie invention, while its completion was not likely to be realised during the life of any man among them. Beginning with the hypothetical surrenderon the part of her Majesty of two of her ancestral palaces for the purposes of a National Gallery, the noble lord went on to fill up a large portion of one of those parks which the inhabitants of the metropolis so highly valued, and not content with these extensive projects, he must needs also knock down the whole of Pall mall with a view to the erection of this imaginary structure. It was obviou3 that unless they dealt in a less fanciful spirit with this question, they could never hope to arrive at any prac tical decision upon it. The scheme of the Government appeared to possess many advantages, the foremost of which was the removal of the pictures contained in the National Gallery from the existing building. The noble lord had slurred over the consideration of the damage done to the pictures by their retention in their present position, alleging that they were no mere liable to in jury than the paintings at Northumberland-house and in other private collections similarly situated. But it should be borne in mind that the uniform testimony of the a iquisees examined before the committee of which both he and his noble friend had the honour to be members, went to show that there was no analogy in this -respect between a private gallery and a public exhibition. The evidence of Mr. Dyke especially met this argument of his noble friend, and it must be obvious to every one that a public resort, with its exi gencies of veet laaion and the other arrangements requi site for a crowd of visitors, could not be included in the same category with a private gallery the pictures of which were exposed to comparatively slight deterioration. He bad the highest respect for the authori y of Lord Elles mere, but when that distinguished nobleman said that the frequent inquiries which this subject had undergone only made it rive for further investigation by a commis- Bien, he (Mr. Milnes) must be permitted to remark that, if counsels of that kind were to prevail, the present ge neration at least must give up all hope of seeing any practical result attained in this matter. In asking thus publicly for the concessions from the Crown which he had named the noble lord had adopted a course hardly consistent with constitutional'president. Proposals as to concessions of that nature ought to be initiated by the responsible advisers of the Sovereign. (Hear.) He was astonished to hear the noble lord suggest, as a means of preserving the pictures from injury, that they should be covered with glass. It was well known that by interpos ing such a medium between the spectator and the pro ductions of the painter's genius the charm of such works of art was materially diminished. No one who had visited the splendid gallery at Dresden and gazed on the magnificent picture by Raffaelle which adorned it, and which was covered with glass, could for a moment doubt the truth of this assertion. He did not think Kensington gore was too remote a site for the National Gallery. That situation, while it would be sufficiently removed from the crowded parts of the me tropolis, would yet be within easy walking distance from them. He would not, however, object to the ap pointment of another commission to examine into the subject if he thought it would lead to any more definite conclusion that had followed the series of inqui ries which preceded it. But the proposed commission would be just as much at sea as those that had gone be fore—it would have ten or a dozen different sites placed before it, from which it whould have to choose one. Tne scheme proposed by the Government possessed certain defi mite a Ivantagt s, one of e !rich was its cheapness. The Great Exhibition had pr )ved so remunerative that the commissioners, under the superintendence of Prince Albert, had been enabled to make the country a magni ficent gift of one-half the laud necessary fur a site. He did not agree with his noble friend in the opinion thaV the locality was a disadvantageous one, but, on the con trary, it possessed this importantadvantage, that it was expansive. The frontage might be narrow, but there was a large extent of ground in the rear which would afford, oportun d i e ti s e ir s a f b o i r e e t n o l d ar o g s in o gj o he su b ch ui a ld n in ex g, his noble fi iend's expect a ti ons , an d to render it a fit re ceptacle, a t s to should realisebe thought ceptacle, not only for the pictures, but for all the worts of art belonging to the nation. The military authoiat es had refused to give up the barracks at the back of the National Gallery, and it was therefore impossible the present building - could be extended, and the objection of want of room for expansion would equally apply to the suggested site in Pall-mall. The advantage cf expan• sion would of course ho obtained if a building were erected in any of the parks. He remembered that the late Sir R. Peel contemplated the erection of a building in Hyde -park, which should contain all the national treasures of art ; but that hope was entertained in those legendary days when there was an ar trial surp'us in the exchequer, and it was impossible to Fay when the country would be restored to the same fortunate posit ion. His no ble friend had said that the opinions of the committee were much divided on the subject ; and that might have been the case before the question was discussed ; but after prolonged discussions and repeated divisions his (Mr. Milnes's) motion that the proposition of the commission ers should be adopted was agreed to without an opposing voice. He contended, then, that the Government were fairly justified in supposing that the question was to a certain degree concluded, and in acting upon that deci. sion to the extent they had done. He thought, consider. lug all the circumstances, that it would be well to adopt the alternative proposed by her Majesty's Government. IiatsCHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I think the house will agree that my noble friend has done good service by laying before them the ample and clear eipo sition of his views upon this subject, and by assisting them in the consideration of the question he has brought under their notice, not only by criticising the plan pro posed by the Government, but also by submitting to them—with a candour for which I cannot sufficiently commend him—the various alternatives he recommends for their adoption in preference to the plan of her Ma jesty's Government. We have not selected any one of those plane, but unless some one of them should appear preferable to that adopted by the Government I appre hend that the house will be prepared to accede to the proposition we have submitted to them. In approach ing the examination of this question I think the house will see that it resolves itself into two branches. The first question we have to consider is whether the Na tional Gallery shall or shall not be removed from its present position in Trafalgar square. (Hear.) Upon that point I fully admit to my noble friend that this house is perfectly free to come to any decision it may please. It is not concluded by any previous decision on that subject, but on the other hand, as the purchase of a part of the estate at Kensington -gore has been made, and as this house voted a grant in augmentation of the purchase money, I must say I think the house at the time it made that grant contemplated its application to the purposes of a national gallery. If lion: gentle men refer to the debates which took place at the time, I believe they will see, from the language used iu proposing the grant, that such an application of it was within the distinct contemplation of the Government and of the house. For my own part, after having given careful consideration to the subject, I must confess it seems to me that the arguments in favour of the removal of the National Gallery from its present position in Tra falgar-square greatly preponderate. It is true, as my noble friend has stated, that the commissions which have instituted inquiries on this subject have arrived at diffe rent conclusions; but the last and most complete inquiry was that of the committee of 1853, of which Col. Muir was the chairman. That committee investigated the sub ject with a full knowledge of the results of the inquiries of previous commissions and committees, and they cattle to a distinct resolution in favour of the removal of the National Gallery from its present position, which they embodied in these words,—" That the site of the present National Gallery is not well adapted for the construction of a new gallery." Now, these words are perfectly unam biguous. They apply not only to the present gallery, but to any possible gallery that might be erected on the same site. I find, on referring, to the account of the division, that 10 members of the committee voted for the resolution which was moved by Lord Seymour, and the only mem ber who voted against it was Mr. B. Wall. There is no thing more distinct than the finding of the committee on the removal of the gallery from Trafalgar-square. The grounds of that resolution are, I think, quite satisfac tory, and are borne out by the great preponderance of the testimony of competent witnesses. Almost all the wit nesses examined before the committee gave it as their opinion that the impurities of the atmosphere and otter influences render that site very unfavourable to the pre servation of pictures in a perfect state. I quite concur in the remarks of my hon. friend the member for Ponte fract, that it shows the desperateness of the remedy my noble friend proposes when he recommends the use of glass in front of the pictures. I can only say that if my noble friend is reduced to the necessity of recommend ing that the pictures should be covered with glass, that is a practical admission th a t T ra f a l gar - square is unfitted for the site of a National Gallery. My noble friend re sorts to a somewhat desperate answer to this argument. He asks whether there are not many great collections of pictures in private houses in this metropolis, the circum stances of which in regard to situation are no better than Trafalgar-square. But it is to be observed that private gentlemen, whatever their income may be, have no op - tion but to keep their pictures in their own houses. A private gentleman cannot afford to bui:d a picture gal lery at Kensington-gore. Where his house is there must be his picture gallery, and if his house is not distant from the centre of the metropolis his picture gallery must labour under the same disadvantage. If the nation had no other alternative my noble friend's argument would be conclusive, but as it is, this argument appears to me to be wholly irrelevant. Well, Sir, that being the case, tho house will, I think, come to the conclusion that the weight of reasoning and authority is in favour of removing the National Gallery from Trafalgar-square. I am quite aware of the fondness of this house fer inquiry. But there is some limit 'to inquiry. We cannot be always delegating our judgment to commit tees and commissions, and if henouraile members viii refer to reports and documents which they will find upon their tables, and if they will go through the neces sary process of examining the evidence they already pee seas, they will be as capable to judge for themselves upon this question as they ever can be if the house appoint a series of committees and commissions for ten years to come. I think the house may conic to a conclusion without further delegation or inquiry in favour of re moving the pictures from Trafalgar -square. Supposieg that question decided, the next question—and what I admit to be the chief difficulty—is whether the site of Kensington -gore is preferable to any other. If I satisfy the house that that site is decidedly preferable to any other site that has been suggested by my noble friend —and I cannot complain that he has not suggested suf ficient —the house will, I trust, not hesitate to vote in favour of a second reading of the bill which stands upon the orders for to-night. Let me state the priocipal rea sons for selecting the site at Kensington-gore. Now, the first consideration, which my noble friend passed over lightly, and which I fear, from some portions of his speech, is but a slight consideration with him, but which, looking particularly to, the office I hold, is of some importance—is the consideration of expense. The site which is offered to the country is a site of which half the expense has already been defrayed by funds not paid out of the Exchequer, but offered and ten dered by the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851. The estate at Kensington-gore consists of 86 ac- s. These 86 acres cost 342,000/. Of that sum 177,000/, was paid by the Government, but the remaining 165,0001., or nearly one-half, was paid by the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 out of the residue of the receipts of that great undertaking. The value of the site is certainly greater now than it was when the purchase was made, and from the progress of building westward it must re ceive an annually increasing value. (Hear.) The nation may therefore consider that it has made an advantageous bargain with the commissioners in accepting that site to be applied to public purposes. The bill enables the Go vernment to take from the commissioners of 1551 so much land from that estate as shall be required for the purposes of the site of a National Gallery. The bill does not go beyond the acceptance of half their share of the estate, which it vests absolutely in the Commissioners of Woods ; but it does not pledge the house to a specific sum of money or a specific plan. It accepts a portion of that land for a site of the National Gallery, and it vests that site absolutely in the Government. Well, sir, that being the state of the case as to the cost of the site, I cannot understand what doubt hon. gentlemen can have, or what ground there can be for the opinion that this site is not admirably adapted for a National Gallery, provided we come to the conclusion that it ought to be taken out of the centre of the streets and placed on the edge and outskirts of the town. With re gard to distance, ft inclose to the Exhibition of 1851, and we know from the crowds that flocked to that Exhibi tion that the distance is not so great as to prevent per sons who are desirous of seeing the pictures from accom plishing the distance. Then the number of acres upon this estate offers ample room for the construction of a building of the size required for a National Gallery. It also admits of additions in future years if it should be the pleasure of Parliament to make additions hereafter to such a gallery for other purposes, and, although the frontage of the estate in the Kensington-read is nar rower than the width of the estate behind, yet the front age will be sufficient for the purposes of a National Gal lery, and there is in the breadth of the site ample space for the construction of a splendid and ornamental build ing. (Hear) My noble friend indulged in a remark that, I admit, astonished me. My noble friend talked of the Brompton marshes, and said that the lower part of the estate' ssa.s a swamp and a march. Now, I hate hsd some local acquaintance with this part of the town, and I should as so in expect to hear the sands of Arabia do scribed as a marsh or a swamp as the district in ques tion. (Hear.) I think my noble friend must be aware that Brompton has been long celebrated for its salubrity. Before the town had spread to its present extent our an cestors used to send their sick relations to Brompton for their health. My noble friend no doubt remembers that at no great distance from the s:te of the proposed Na tional Gallery stands the hospital for consumptive patients, which was chosen by medical men for its re markable healthiness. Another class of persons reside there who are considered to be very nice in their choice of a situation. It is said that wherever you see a con vent you may be sure that the founders have selected an advantageous site. Now, the Oratorians belonging to the Church of Rome have built a large establishment on the very edge of my noble friend's swamp, and any per son who visits that site will see the building of the Ora torians occupying a very conspicio us situation. Th e more the subj comes to be exert ined the more it will be found that this large estate at Kensirgton-gore, whe her we regard it on the score of expense, extent, or ituation, offers the mot eligible site for the new Na ional Gallery. Ide not ask the house to take that on my ate' ernent. I will follow my noble friend through the long lie'_ of alternatives that he proposes. He has said that there are not less than three- —I believe he said four— different sites in ICeneingten-garden F . First and foremost, my noble friend proposes to pull down Kensington Palace, and to build a National Gallery on its site. Now, considering that there is a Lroat deal of vacant land in the neighbourhood of the metro polis which is admirably situated for such a pur pose, it doss seem to me to be an odd and wanton choice that my noble friend should select the site of an , al existing buildi ng i n or d er to cons t ruc t a ne w oire, al that he should insist upon pulling down a b uilding which may not indeed be remarkably beautiful, but which is stili an imposing ant extensive pile —(a laugh) —and to replace whi c h, if i t wcra dernoli-heal, would invo ve the outlay of a consid era bl e sum o f mone y. My noble f ri e nd deals with s uc h a b u i l di ng, w hi c h h as s tood for centu ries, and which was cre at e d at a grea t co st, a s if it wer e a mere cottage or a hut t o h e swe pt away at will. One word with regard to the very summary way in which , 7 , 1 noble friend deals w ith th e p ro p e rty of the Crown. 3 L seems to assume that the property of the Crow n is 41e property of the 'publi c , whereas ho must know that it is only ceded for the life of the present Sovereign, and that when the nation takes for any purpose Crown property, it must purchase it in the same manner as if it were the property of a privet individual. That occ urred last , year with respect to a portion of the vacant g round near Downing-street ; and, if in noble friend take P0_ 8 ; session in a summary manner of Kensington Palace, 11_ must purchase it from the Crown. The cost at which that purchase could be effected is not a matteraltoget heer free from doubt, but it is quite clear that before my noble friend would be in possession oftbesite on which his new Na . ienal Geller) is to be erected he would have a very largevam to adx a ce to the Crown. That I consider 10 be a moat formidable ohjectien to one of the plans of ole noble friend. Then, he h a s other p'ans cutting ou t p of Kensington-ordatit , , and making roads and al ) " prom!! es through the gardens to his National Gallery, and for no purpose that I can see which would not be answered by adopting the site propose l by the GoveFr went, which is on y on the other side of the road, and. i! close at hand. Really, after a ll that we have heard pita : sanctity of the parks, and remembering how much was said upon the erection of the Geeat Exhibition building of 1851 for a temporary purpose, I am lost in ast onish" went at the very quiet manner in which my noble friend . proposes to appropriate a large portion of Kens in g toa x gardens in order to erect a new National Geller'''. of think that the same objections apply to his plan building a National Gallery in different parts of Hyde: park; for my firm conviction is, that if the Government had acted upon the advi ce o f my noble friend, and proposed a plan for building the National Gallery int?: centre of Hyde Park, th e y, wo u ld have gone into th division lobby with scarcely a single man to follow the s in t : (Hear.) My noble fri en d th en says , " Sweep away d James's Palace ; sweep away Marlborough•house, a° _ erect a row of buildings which shall combine under the same roof a National Gall e ry an' reception room s for levees and drawing-rooms." I am a t a loss to know' what reason there can be for combining two such this di3 similar objects under one roof. I must say that _ plan, including as it does a proposition to shut up the road which the house a few nights ago determined to open, appears to me to be m ore ex t rav agant even. a° less likely to be acceptable to the house, than the other; plans which my noble friend has proposed. At pr esent the National Gallery stands at o ne end o f Pall-mall, a nd we are told that the smoke and d us t wholly unfit the site i for the purpose of a Nation a l Gallery. Well, my ll°/3 a friend says—" Go to an e n o rmous -expense and bui ld the National Gallery at the other end of Pall mall, at the bottom of St. James's-street." What object can b ; e t gained 1)3 that small change of position, and bo w ' t remedies the objection to the present gallery on aecoul, of the preservation of the pictures, it surpasses my corn• prehension to pe}eive. Indeed I agree with the con; elusion at which my noble f r i en d arr i ve d towards tb end of his speech, that if we are to have no other alter native than the transfer of the National Gallery from Trafalgar-square to St. James's Palace, it. would be rine: finitely preferabl e t o l eave it w h ere it if's again, me noble friend teals not only w ith the re; perty of the Crown, b u t w ith t h e property of .. Prince of Wales, i n a somew h at unceremon i o us row As far as I understand, Marlborough-house was POT' chased for the Prince of \Vales, and was to be priated, with the assent of Parliament, to his use wh en he came of age. Probably, th ere f ore, it is at preset,' vested in trustees for Li s b ene fit . N ow , without thic l smallest conversation with an erson, my n oble frie r ' proposes to take th a t prop er t y and to transfer the Fri" of Wales, as if he were a picture or a statue in a from Marlborou g h-hou se t o B ur li ngton -h ous e, witb u r his having any reaso n t o k now t h a t suc h trap s' et would be acceptable. l am at a loss to canceive w" benefit could, under any circumstances, be derived frogs such a change of position, of the expense involved ill. which my noble friend s e e ms t o t a k e suc h little accee n ! I must warn the house that persons who make proposli tione upon these subjects without the wholesome fea r the " estimatea " bolero their eyes, and who are not the position of responsible members of the Govern; went, deal with them with an exceedingly light arj easy hand ; and I would C au ti on th e h ouse against acc e p t' ie ing too readily such pr o p os iti ons as th ose o f my other friend. My noble fri en d men ti one d one or two o sites, the exact situation of which I was not able t?. catch. Oee I tbiuk that h e p ropose d was a t Whitehal l Lord ELCHO —I did not propose those sites. I re ' ferred to them to show how many sites bad been PI posed, in order to prove the difference of opinion which prevailed, acd the necessity that there was for further consideration. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER continued' —lf my noble friend did no t consider them worthy of the serious consideration of the house I don't see what adol l :, tags there was in his mentioning them. -He called 1111°' the house to a gree t o an address to her Majesty fora cool' mission to determine whether those sites were not prefer' able to that which had deliberate) be en propose d by th: Government ; and I s a y th a t he ha y s been trifling with th house, and merely wasting its time, if he did not prepcsl those questions seriously to its consideration. (I - le" ,P " n r a , oh.) However, with reg a rd t o th e s it e o f Whitehall, E t at a loss to know where he would place the Nationa l G "` ' lery ; and I think we may consider ourselves extremely fortunate that ray noble friend did not ro ose to eject til@ Houses of Lords and C ommons f rom ip their presen t buil): in; in order to appropri a t e it t o th e purpose of Nati° °3 t Gallery. (A laugh.) Let us look now for a moment at the terms of the motion. My noble friend proposes thl a f a commission should be app o i n t e d t o d e t erm i n e the sit e the new National G a llery, an d t o report on the desi rable ; ness of combining with it th e fi ne art and archxologlea' collections of the British Museum, in acccordance with Of recommendation of the S e l ec t Committee on the atione N Gallery in 18 - i3. Now, sir, I wish to call the atteut/1. ° f the house to the recommendation of the committee of 1 0 . 3 ; With respect to the appoint men t o f a comm ission, th et a recommendation was confi ne d exc l us i ve l y t o the clu e , 9t „ i e i. of combining the various arti st i c an d arc h mo logic , " leetions of the British Mus e u m w ith th ose of the tional Gallery. The com m itt ee c l ear l y recouircenqs s that the National G a llery s h ou ld b e remo ved from 1 ' committee present site, and on the whole they suggested the 1 1,1°13 ; tin of Kensiugtou-gme for the site, although 1 .: 33 ,; 11 ,, 5 e add that they did not do so without some heslo,"4 and qualification. They said nothing, however, cti; c i any commission upon the question of the site, 3 clearly they did not consider that any advantage was t ° be gained from a further inquiry into that question ; becau se having recommended one subject for the considerati ou l a commission, they did not include that of the site, a n expressio stains, alterius cat cxclusto. They did exp ress their opinion that it would be desirable to have en 11 . 1 ,, quiry into the question of removi ng th e co llections fr o ' . the British Museum, but in making a epecific recoil:O W dation to that effect, they excluded the idea that they wished to make a similar recomm en d a ti on w ith respect o o f a site. Ido not charge my n o bl e frie n d w ith any w en "..- candour ; I merely regret his inatt en ti on to granitue ,. (a laugh)—for anybody who reads his resolution would pose that the recommendation o f th e comm ittee app, to to both those objects. (Hear, hea r .) My noble fri e 'a, said a great deal about the B r iti s h M useum . I quite 5 mit that it is a question well worthy the consideration ° the House at some future ti me , when perhaps the 11'. chequer may be more overflom ing than it is at pres ent i ! 9 g . is likely to be next year, wheth er it wou ld not be ad able to take so t ne steps f or releving a part of the 13 1. ', Museum. Let me call the attentio n o f th e house to t." state of that institution. The British Museum at preser.t with the addition which has recently been made, cont a e in ample accommodatiion for the library and the reading; room, and for any extension of those departments W i h t ic h e are likely to take place during the next century. 136 ,f e ",,' Museum consists of two other departments, one of anw, , ,, -- :; ties, the other of natural history—for which I cannot that there is quite adequate space. Nevertheless, there l e very considerable space, and if either department we e removed a large portion of the Mu seum would be uneectv pied. At present, therefore, there is no very stroeg son for making the change referred t o i n th e r eport of 1" : cornidttee. But it has been proposed to divide the elL;e lection of antiquities on this principle—to leave in t Museum that portion of the collection which is inter esting only on a-climelogical grounds, and to combine with the National Gallery that portion wdich is interesting ,as works of art. My noble friend, who is evidently farniber with the arguments upon that question, has referred to arl able paper whi c h a pp ears as an appen di x t o th e report 01 the committee—a pape r wr itt en t o M r . Ch ar les Newto n, of the British Museum, and which I would strongly a, ( find, every member of this h ouse t o rea d f or himself hear.) Whoever p e r uses th a t d ocumen t will t y if ho is not altogether _convinced by it—whi ch confess myself to hove been—that very serious objecti on : exist to the project for lividi ng th e co ll ec tion of antiquitiee upon the principles which I have mentioned; and for th, present, at all events, her M a j es ty' s G overn ment are no t l ' prepared to entertain any such pr o p os iti on . I admit, 11°° over, that the plan for removing some Portions of t h e collection of the British Museum to other buildings is ! ri n t which may reasonably be considered, a lthough I do - a . approve the scheme proposed by my noble friend for se° Mg the zoological collection to the Zoological Gard en % which would be taking it out of the custody of the 10' 69 and handing it over to a private society. (Hear, bear,e; The same objection applies to the proposal to transfer geological collection to the Geological Society. I altogether adverse to any such arrangement. (Hear, 13 04 ' I would wish to keep the collections of natural history, now under the able superintendence of Professor Owen' not separately, but, if possible, in com bi na tion. (Il ea !' hear.) Again, I must remind the house that all proposi: tions of this sort involve a large expenditure of move se and, unless the house is prepared to go to great expen? for the purpose of p rov idi ng b u il d i ngs, I think I ' . will scarcely be disp, sec!to assume as a foregollee conclusion that it h as d ec id e d upon that step , and i'sji)o a commission to decide by what means it ought to carried into eff ec t . M y no bl e fr i end quote d, in supper', of his recow mend atious, letter from the Earl t f Ellesmere, which deservedly carried with it great weight, and 3332 1, take this opportunity of mentioning that, since the diee!,. sion which took place some time ago on the subject of e to lery of histol ice! poi traits, the noble earl has presente d tO the Gov. ninaent,for the use of the nation, the picture knovlL as the Chaudos portrait of Shakspere. (Cheers.), That roll nificent donation, hope, may be regarded as a good evel. for the coniniencement of a national historical portrait 14 3 4 lery. (Hear.) I fully admit the weight to which the Ear! El!esnlere's opinion is entitled, nor do lat all say that het Mejesty'A Government would not be prepared at the propeet season to lace a commission to inquire into the eXP_I 'honey of making some alteration in the distribut ion the collections now in the British Museum. They t h e however, that no advantage would arise at this rontoebe from the issue of such a commission, though they rol l it prepared at the proper time to issue one ;• and they de time desirable that a plain proposition should in the ines°%,„ he laid before the house, of which the:fi rs t part is '.4 bodied in the bill that now stands for s second re* ling. the different portions of which I will now submit for consideration. What the Government propose is , that tbllr he tse should decide to iemove the National Gallery o° o the present building in Trafalgar - square. They P roP &I that the whole of that building should be assigned to ot Royal Academy. It would be used during the *Mon for wt no dou .ahich of liar in Hy( teat lu latter But ar inhabi wposs any bu outdo of Kau extens able p( ated t 4 felt pe than enclos , first IN buildii positic had be soon a puryoE and m, gifted any ci these from N that ci that u obtain thougl was si the m gravel purpn tint i sent s, now a the c under ample that q menat point to con that al at th site iv Mr. the m remo' metre not se site f advoc Pictui