The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-03 00:00:00

two rather curious letters illustrative of the statement
made by the hen. member for Galway, which I invite him
and the committee to appreciate. The right hon. gentle-
man then read extracts from two letters received by him,
the one from Mr. Banks, of the firm of Banks sod Barry,
architects. Mr. Banks said, "In reply to your (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer's) question as to Mr. Mallett's con-
nection with the new Palace at Westminster, I most con-
fidently assert that that gentleman has in no way, directly
or indirectly, been engaged upon the works. I can speak
with confidence upon the subject, as I was chief assistant
of Sir Charles Barry. Mr. Mallett was simply a visitor to
the works for bis own gratification.'' And then Mr. Meason
writes, " In reply to your communication, I have to say that
my connection with the Palace at Westminster commenced
in 1844, when I was engaged by Sir Charles Barry as his
principal assistant, and it lasted till 1856, and during all
this time Mr. Richard Mallett had no connection with the
building." Well, so much for Mr. Mallett's employment
upon the construction of the magnificent Palace at West-
minster. It certainly does appear that at one time Mr.
Mallett had as a partner Mr. Frederick Barry, an engineer,
and I think that through that circumstance my hon. friend
may have been led into an error, and probably also he may
have confounded Mr. Mallett with Mr. Meason. At any
rate, what I claim is that the authority of Mr. Mallett shall
be wholly and absolutely withdrawn from this matter. (No,
no.) I have not one word of retractation to utter with re-
spect to the estimates and figures prepared by Mr. Hunt;
for upon examination by competent persons they have been
entirely confirmed. Our object was to guide members to a
right conclusion, and to that end we employed a most com-
petent gentleman to inquire what sum would be necessary
to bring the building into a state of substantial repair with
a view to permanent uses, and with a minimum of decora-
tion. The estimate of Mr. Hunt I believe to be perfectly
trustworthy, but it would be an idle dream to suppose that
these figures could be accepted as anything wore than a
basis for ascertaining the sum for which the building might
be made complete for practical purposes. However, a peti-
tion has been presented from the Society of Architects against
the adaptation of the building for the purposes proposed.
(Cheers.) Well, I shall not attempt to follow the allega-
tions of the petition, for by far the greater portion of them
are beside the vote now before the committee, though the
time may arrive when they will require to be taken into
consideration. (Hear.) At the same time I demur alto-
gether to the opinion formed by these six or eight gentle-
men, even if they could be accounted at the head of their
profession. I believe their opinion was formed upon a sin-
gle visit to the building. But the truth is, this petition is
vary far from containing the names of the heads of the pro-
fession of architects. I admit that Professor Donaldson is
a man of eminence, that Mr. Fergussen has written a very
ingenious book, and is a very clever man; but lam not
aware that Mr. Fergusson has ever erected a public build-
ing, or that he is a practical architect in that sense. At any
rate this I may be permitted to observe, that the proceedings
of the Society of Architects were not founded upon any re-
port from such men as Mr. Hardwicke, Mr. Cockerel!, Mr.
Smirke, Messrs. Banks and Barry, Mr. Scott ; and although
I have not thought it to be my duty to go about canvassing
architects, I say that those gentlemen who are in the main
the heads of their profession are not in any sense parties to
this proposal, and that I have in my possession letters from
two of them, namely a letter from Mr. Smirke and a letter
from Mr. Scott, referring certainly to that which is one of
the smallest parts of the whole question—the exterior de-
coration of the building—and giving it as their deliberate
opinion that it is capable of being so treated, in respect of
its exterior surface, as to be made a very handsome build-
ing. (Loud and prolonged laughter.) Gentlemen may be
assured I do not intend to indulge in any enthusiasm about
the building—(Laughter, and ironical cries of " Hear,
hear")—but, of course, I use this expression in
its general terms, at the same time that the language
of these two gentlemen amounts to that. (Cries of "Read,
read.") Well, to take the first sentence of Mr. Smirke's
letter. He says, " I am not prepared to say that the outside
of the building is not susceptible—(laughter)—of being
made extremely ornamental. (Renewed laughter, and cries
of " Read, read.") I certainly am not going to enter into
the question between cement and stone, and the various
bricks and terracotta. No Chancellor of the Exchequer can
pretend to taste—he cannot have any—it is the last thing
ho dreams of, to put himself in competition with any of
those great lights and luminaries upon matters of taste,
whom we are so fortunate as to have in
.such numbers
amongst us. (Laughter.) But I would direct the serious
attention of the committee to the situation of difficulty in
which we shall be placed if, after taking the important step
of agreeing to the purchase of seventeen acres of ground—
(ironical cheers)—se should stop short, and say that we
shall do nothing more. Now, my desire is not to say one
word injurious to the public interest ; but this I must affirm,
that there is no obligation whatever of a written or specific
character upon the contractors to remove the building within
any given time at all. (Murmurs of dissent.) Of course
there are obligations incumbent upon them by the general
law. As possessors of the freehold we should have a right
to go into courts of justice and eject the contractors; and
then, having entered, we might remove the building, sub-
ject to making no unnecessary waste of the property, and to
an accountability to the contractors for the net proceeds.
Well, that is net a remedy of very summary operation. I
see opposite to me gentlemen of great authority, who know
full well at what time, by a series of hostile measures, we
should succeed in ejecting the contractors, removing the
building, and restoring the surface, which is not within the
contract at all. At the end of two years we would find our-
selves in possession of a "tabula rasa" of 16 acres, and then
we should have to Mee a greater architectural question
than this house has ever yet entertained, namely, how to
dispose of the site, unprecedently large, what building to
place upon it, what architect to employ, what style to adopt,
and lastly, what money would be required for the purpose.
(Hear, hear.) Well, that is one of the alternatives before
us if you determine to refuse this vote. I come now to the
question of price. There is an opinion upon the part of the
minority that we are going to offer the contractors an extra
vagant price for the building. Now we want to cover this
17 acres of land with a building suited for public purposes,
and it is obvious that there is an immense advantage in
having the materials upon the spot. On that account also
it is obvious that the materials now there are worth more
to us than to one who seeks to realise their value when re-
moved. The first price announced by the contractors—the
minimum price—was £120,000 ; and we were informed that
we might take the building at that price, or leave it there,
Well, all things considered, Isannot think that the contrac-
tors were making any very extravagant demand. The sum
they received for erecting the building was £230,000, and
its cost, when reduced by Mr. Fowler to an absolute mini-
mum, as £300,000. We refused that demand, and de-
clined to pay £lOO,OOO. Subsequently, Messrs. Belk and
Lucas made a communication to nay hon. friend the mem •
ber for Finsbury (Sir S. M. Peto), and having been in-
formed by him that he was in a condition to negotiate with
me on their behalf, the first thing we agreed which should
be done was to ascertain the net removable value. Mr.
Hunt was employed, and told to devote his time, without
reserve, to ascertaining the net removable value, which
was always liable to variation in estimate. Mr. Hunt
went to work for several weeks, and he reported to me that
move would t nethe
int owtiht
he
nc osni txr
nc toonrtsh, f
atnhdeymwa
ke ree
fcoormcepdesllaeldestoof
there
net removable value of the buildings, the sum they
materials, was £48,000. I then asked Mr. Hunt this ques-
tion, whether, if we were to submit the matter to an impar-
tially chosen umpire, that such a person would give us a
sum not much below £48,000, or not mutt above it? Mr.
Hunt said he could give us no assurance whatever. This
estimate of the removable value was taken upon conditions
totally different from the conditions that exist. It was taken
upon the supposition that the contractors were obliged to
pull down the building at once. I believe I command the
assent of the committee when I say that the contractors are
not under any specific obligation to remove the building
within a certain time. (No, no.) lam really sorry to find
expressions of dissent ; but the fact is this, that the com-
missioners of 1862 have no contract whatever with the con-
tractors with respect to the time within which they are to
remove the building.
(No, no.) lam sorry to hear gen-
tlewen express dissent, but I am endeavouring to give a
true statement of facts. (Hear, hear.) There is no con-
tract. Mr. Hunt having made the proposal to me, and the
naked figures having been stated, I said to him, " You
have now discharged your official duty, but what do you
think would be a fair offer to make the contractors ?" lie
replied that,
if we were to make an offer for the building,
we should offer from £90,000 to £lOO,OOO for it. I said we
co
uld not do anything of the kind, but subsequently,
through my
hon. friend the member for Finsbury, an un-
derstanding was Caine to that £BO,OOO should be the price of
the building, and
e assured me that the contractors could
have realised a larger
b.
ellta• The committee would see that
there was very little difference between the estimate
of Mr. Hunt and the estimate of the eminent engineer,
Mr. Fowler. Mr. Fowler's estimate was £50,000 if the
contractors wore compelled to remove the building in six

months ; £60,000 if in twelve months ; and between £60,000
and £70,000 if in eighteen months. I have now come to
the last portion of the subject, and will have to entreat the
time of the committee only for a short time further. It is
true, the executive Government, in dealing with the ques-
tion of the acquisition of a great mass of properly, must
have regard not only to the private convictions of the House
of Commons, but also the prepossessions of the House ;
feeling confident that lapse of time will considerably modify
them. Now this is our position : we have got to provide
for three urgent public wants ; the want of a national por-
trait gallery is urgent. (Laughter.) I admit it is not a
want upon which the existence of the State depends. (Re-
newed laughter.) But if you have a national portrait gal-
lery, it ought to he where people can go and see it. They
cannot do this at present, for in the house in Great George-
street ten persons could not be accommodated at one time
in any of the rooms, and not five if they were ladies. An-
other great want is the Patent Museum. The Commission-
ers of Patents have been pressing the Treasury for ac-
commodation, and if we are unable to find a place for
them at Kensington, we shall have to provide a sum of
£220,000 to enable them to build a musetim for them-
selves. The third want was to provide a suitable place
for the natural history collection at the British Museum.
We desire to satisfy these three urgent wants, and we
have no means of sat sfying them within a definite time,
except by appropriating some portion of the site at Ken-
sington. We wish to satisfy these wants, and we also
wish to consult the inclinations and prepossessions, and,
I will go so far as to add, the prejudices entertained in the
House of Commons ; and before we pledge ourselves incon-
veniently to any public expenditure, in all probability
the matter will be settled. We have considered in what
way these urgent public wants could be satisfied, and I hold
in my hand ocular demonstration of the means—that is to
say, I have a plan which will explain distinctly and intel-
ligibly to the committee the mode by which we propose to
apply the vote we now ask them to give. This portion of
the plan shows that part of the building looking towards
the north. It has appeared to the Government that public
opinion is totally adverse to the destruction of the picture
galleries. (Cries of No, no, and Hear, hear.) This pro•
posal involves the maintenance of the picture galleries, but
I don't want the committee to come to any conclusion with
regard to the exterior. We propose that this branch of the
question should stand over for fuller discussion upon the
miscellaneous estimates. (Ironical cheers.) The ground
floor of the galleries will afford not superfluous, but ample
accommodation for patents; the other part of the plan or
drawing has relation to the northern part of the building, and
for which it will be necessary to make another proposal.
We propose a sum of £120,000 for seventeen acres of land,
which land includes the site of a building looking towards
the Horticultural Gardens, and forming a large portion of
the north front of the structure ; the cost price of which
may be taken at £30,000. It is so difficult for persons
who have no taste to approach a matter of this kind,
that I bow with entire humility. (A laugh.) This
façade being considered convenient and unobjectionable,
and being connected with the Horticultural Gardens, we
propose to preserve; but we do not propose to deal with
the exterior of any part of the building; only adapting
the galleries for the patents, and a space of about 21 acres
adjacent to the Horticultural Gardens—but not at all in-
terfering with the dome—(laughter)—in order to take pre-
liminary measures for preparing it for the reception of the
natural history collection at the British Museum. The
exterior of the building will remain as it is, pending the de-
claration of the pleasure of Parliament, and the public will
have time to consider what Government, or what a com-
mittee or a commission may recommend.
Lord R. CECIL—Does the right hon. gentleman begin
by buying the building ? (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—We take
the land and building as they stand ; but we do not pro.
poselo make any arrangement with regard to the land or
the building beyond the adaptation of the picture galleries
and about 21 acres for the purpose of the British Museum.
So that we give up the dome, and only ask authority to deal
with 41- acres, instead of 8 acres originally mentioned. Now,
with respect to the financial aspect of the question, I think
I shall be able to s ate the finances with perfect precision.
We have got to pay £120,000 for the land, and for the build-
ing upon a portion of that land a further sum of £30,000,
We have also to pay the contractors 4:80,000; and I have
ascertained that the cost of adapting the building to the
purposes I have already described will cast another sum of
£90,000. The total sum I have to ask the committee to
pledge itself for is £290,000. According to one estimate the
cost of the picture galleries was put at £90,000, and in an-
other at £BO,OOO. Well, then, we have the land, which is
worth £250,000 ; commissioners' buildings, £30,000 ; the
picture galleries, £BO,OOO. Or, to put it in another point
of view, we will have 41 acres or 5 acres adapted in the
manner I have stated, and/ besides, we will have 12e
acres of a site and the removable value of the building.
We recommend you a plan that is not discreditable to the
national taste, while at the same time it will serve highly
useful and important national objects, and by adopting
which we •avoid long delays, infinite vexations, endless
disputes, public discredit, and even an expendi-
ture of public money two, three, or four times greater
than the sum now asked. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentle-
man concluded by proposing a vote for £:05,000. In an-
swer to Lord Elcho, the right hon. gentleman said that
Messrs. Kelk and Lucas had offered to keep the building in
proper repair for three years, for a payment of £2,000 down,
and £1,500 a year for the three years. In answer to Mr.
Coningham, he also stated that Professor Owen most em-
phatically and warmly approved of the interior of the build-
ing towards the north for the natural history collection of
the British Museum, that being the point where the Govern-
ment proposed to place it.
Lord ELCHO rose to move the rejection of the vote for
the purchase of the International building at Kensington
Gore. In doing so, he said he was not surprised that the
noble lord the member for Stamford had asked across the
floor whether the Government intended or not to purchase
the whole of this building, for there had been so many
changes on the part of the Government to this vote, that
he should like to know how the question stood. It now
appeared that the Government did intend to purchase the
whole of the building, and they asked for a sum of :xBO,OOO
for that purpose. They now proposed to keep the picture
gallery and the part of the building in the rear towards the
Horticultural Gardens. The Government, to use a military
phrase, had changed their front. They had modified their
vote, and now asked the house to treat the question simply
as a matter of detail, and to sweep away from consideration
the report of Mr. Hunt on the state and condition .of the
building. He objected to take the advice of hie right hon.
friend without the estimate of Mr. Hunt. He asked the
house to refuse the proposal on the ground that, whether
the whole or part of the building was taken, it was objec-
tionable on the score of sound sense, sound economy, and
good taste. He wished to guard himself from being sup-
posed to be opposed to the promotion of science and art. He
had voted for the purchase of the land, because he thought
it a good bargain; but the observations which had fallen
from the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a totally
different colouring even to that vote. That lad at £5,000
an acre might be dearer than at £50,000 per acrne, if i ts title
obliged them to purchase this building, or to run the chance
of an action to get rid of it legally. He believed, however,
both public opinion and common law would force the con-
tractors to clear away the building, and that it by no means
followed, because they purchased the land, therefore they
were to purchase the building upon it, or that it would be
economical or wise to do so. On what grounds were they
recommended to purchase it. Was it on account of beauty ?
So far trim that, it was only by a liberal use of the trowel
and cement that it could be made tolerably pleasing to the
eye. As regarded its fitness, it was to be turned to a pur-
pose for which it was not originally designed; and, as re-
garded its solidity, they had reports of surveyors by which
it appeared that the building required to be wholly renewed
from skylight to floors, and even beneath, for it was proposed
to lay beneath the floors 12 inches of concrete. He did not
think it could possibly be economy to maintain such a build-
ing as that. The hon. member quoted at some length from
the report of Mr. Hunt, to show the nature of the renewals
which would be required; said that the report of Mr. Mal-
lett, which had been referred to on a previous occasion by
the hon. member for Galway, was not so condemnatory of
the building as that of Mr. Hunt ; and then, referring to
the petition of the Institute of British Architects, vindi-
cated the claim of the opinion of that body to be considered
in connection with this matter. Quoting the opinion of a
committee of that body which had condemned this Exhibi-
tion as unfit to be rendered permanent, he proceeded to read
other portions condemning sepecifically the plan proposed
by the Government for rendering the picture galleries avail-
able. After the report of Mr. Hunt and the opinion of the
Institute of British Architects, he did not know whether the
house would be still of opinion that the building was so great
a bargain. Had ever a case been heard of a private individual
who had invested £BO in an old tumble-down house, with
the intention of spending on that house, not to improve and
beautify it, but simply to make it waterproof and habitable,
a sum in the proportion of £2 80 ? Yet that, multiplying
the sums by one thousand, was what the right hon. gentle-
man the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposed. He
could not held thinking that there was something more be-
hind the proposal than the public had yet heard of. (Hear.)
The truth was, the whole thing was a " plant"—(laughter)
and the real object was to remove the National Gallery to
Brompton. (Hear, hear.) He was sure the public would not
approve of such a design, and he hoped the house would
likewise refuse to sanction it. There was, however, another
question which they had to consider, and it was the 'more
important that it ;involved a principle—he meant what
should guide them in the matter of decoration. He objected
to all sham decoration, and he was supported by one of the
first authorities in architecture, Mr. Ruskin, who described
it as an "imposition, a vulgarity, an impertinence, and a
sin." (Hear, hear.) Despite of that, the Government pro-
posed to roughcoat the walls of the building with falsehood,
and to imitate the process which a well-known lady, Madame
Rachel, applied to the human face. (Laughter.) She covered
the cheeks of dilapidated and questionable beauties with a
substance which was said to make them beautiful for ever.
The noble lord at the head of the Government and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer now stood before the country
as the Madame Rachels of architecture--(laughter)—for
they proposed to cover the building with a composition
which was to have a similar effect. There was, however,
this difference between them. Madame Rachel's price was,
he believed, £l,OOO, lie had never been called upon to pay

it hienself—(laughter)—but he hoped if there were anyhon,
member in the house who had paid ft, he would rise and
state to the house the exact sum. (Laughter.) He hello cd,
however, that Madame Rachel's price was as ho bad stated,
but there was this difference between her system and that
of the noble lord and his right hon, friend : her composi-
tion wet £l,OOO, but lasted for ever ; theirs would cost
45,000, and would last, not for ever, but only for a season.
(Hear, hear.) The argument of the noble lord was that it
would be in company with other stucco buildings. (Laugh-
ter.) But would it ? On the contrary, he was aware that it
was the intention of the Marquis of Westminster, when
his leases fell in, to sweep away the whole of Grosvenor-
place, and to rebuild it with stone and marble. (Hear.)
lion, members need not be alarmed at the intelligence.
The rette would not be much increased— (laughter)—for
he believed diet the difference between the cost of brick and
more durable materials in such structures was not more
then 5 per cent. Every influence had been brought to bear
to thrust the vote down the throat f the house. Balls,
concerts, and bazaars had be en held in the building to make
it popular. He did not object to the bazaar for the benefit
of Incurables, because it was germane to the place—(laugh•
ter)—hat it was a remarkable fact that, in the case of the
old Exhibition building of 1851, the contractors were posi-
tively restrained by legal injunction from allowing anything
of the kind to take place within its walls. In conclusion,
the noble lord maintained that the rejection of the vote in
no way involved disrespect to the memory of the Prince
Consort, whose published speeches constituted a monument
more enduring and remarkable than any which could be
raised to his name by the country or the house, and called
on the committee to reject the proposition for the purchase
of a building which was condemned alike by private, by
public, and b) professional opinion. (Hear, hear,)
Mr TITE explained that Mr. Mallett had been employed
in connection with the iron wcrk, and repudiated the idea
that there was any dirty jealousy in the minds of the gene-
ral body of architects against Capt. Fowke. The Council
of Architects had, however, almost unanimously condemned
the building, and there was a unanimous feeling in the ar-
tistic world against its remaining.
Itir. BENTINCK said there was one peculiarity about
the House of Commone—they were very regular in their
meals. (About 200 members had just retired in a body to
dinner.) He condemned the building generally as a vast
monument of extravagance and ugliness, and supported Mr.
Mallett's opinion of it entirely. It had been thrown out
as a reproach against Mr. Mallett that ho had had nothing
to do with the erection of the Houses of Parliament;
but if there was one thing more than another that ought
to commend Mr. Mallett's judgment as an architect, it
was that he had no connection with the greatest mass of
extravagance, bad taste, and inconvenience that ever was
put together. (Hear, hear.) If they once sanctioned the
purchase of the building, no one could say what would be
the expense they would ultimately be called upon to incur
to carry out the proposed scheme. It was one of the most
extravagant and one of the most unjustifiable proposals that
was ever made to the house, and he hoped it would be re-
jected. What, he asked, would the operatives in the North
say to this expenditur, when such small assistance was
offered to them, but that it was a wasteful expenditure of
money, and that the sympathy that had been expressed for
their distress was simulated ?
Fir J. SHELLEY opposed the vote. He dreaded the
expense they would be put to if they purchased the build-
ing, by men of taste who would be called in to ornament
the structure. With the best wish to support the institu-
tion at South Kensington, he believed that he should best
be doing his duty to the public by giving his vote to raze
the building to the ground.
Mr. COWPER said that what the right hon. gentleman
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said about the con-
tract did not appear to be thoroughly understood. The
commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851, who were the pro-
prietors of the land, had covenanted with the conatriesioners
of the Exhibition of 1862 that the land should be cleared
within six months after the conclusion of the Exhibition,
and they naturally assumed that some legal document had
been signed by the contractors in their engagements with
the committee of the Exhibition of 1862, to give force to
that covenant; and it was oily recently that it was dis-
covered that the commissioners of 1862 had failed to
obtain any covenant to bind the contractors as to time. If
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been aware of
that fact at the time of proposing the vote, he would have
mentioned it. The noble lord (Lord Elcho) had made an
able speech in moving the rejection of the vote ; but he had
failed to grapple with the question put before the committee
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That proposal only in-
volved an expenditure of £290,000, and the retention of those
portions of the building which were permanent, as distill.,
guished from those which were of a temporary character,
for the purposes of the British and Patent Museums, leav-
ing for future consideration the question how the remaining
portion of the land should be disposed of. The estimate of
Mr. Hunt had only been put before the house to afford the
information of what would be the maximum expense if the
whole building were made permanent and substantial. Mr.
Hunt had based his estimate on the cost of covering the
front with stucco, but that would not preclude the use, if
the house should think fit, of bricks, terracotta tiles, or
earthenware. If the house should resolve to use Portland
stone, no one would be better pleased than he should ; but
that was a question in no way involved in the present vote.
He denied there was any intention to transfer the pictures
from the National Gallery to the new building at Kensing-
ton-gore, and went into details to show that in point of eco-
nomy the proposition of the Government was the best which
could be proposed for giving the accommodation required
for the British and Patent Museums.
Mr. C. BENTINCK said that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer and the right hon. gentleman who had just sat
' down, had told the committee that Government wished to
treat this matter as one of business ; but of all unbusinesslike
proceedings this was the most so. They had just heard from
the First Commissioner of Works that the House of Commons
had bought a property with a bad title. (Mr. Cowper dis-
sented.) It was clear to him that there was a flaw in the title.
The purchase had been made by the house in ignorance of
that, or it certainly would not have bought the property.
That opened the question as to the impression on the minds of
the commissioners of 1862 with regard to the ultimate desti-
nation of the building. It was a matter of surprise to him
that this important question had been delayed to so late a
period of the session. There appeared to be an intention on
the part of the commissioners that the building should be-
come the property of the nation ; but ho trusted that was
not the intention of the House of Commons. The. hon gen-
tleman then complained of the silence of the Treasury
bench, but he was not surprised at it, for, whenever they had
a bad case, they always declined to speak. It was only by
driblets that the house got any information at all on the
subject. He had no doubt that Captain Fowke at all events
knew that the building was to be permanent—hear, hear)
- and, if so, they were entitled to ask for what purpose
it was intended. To what use were hey going to apply
the buil.iing ? for it was evident the Patent Museum
scheme was only put forward to hoodwink the public. The
British Museum only required five acres—the miserable por-
trait gallery was now contained in three or four small rooms
and everyone knew that the national collection of pictures
could never be removed to Kensington. He gave his most
cordial support to the amendment of his noble friend.
Mr. F. DOULTON said it appeared to him that the oon•
duct of the Government in this matter had been, to say the
least, very disingenuous. (Hear.) It was a very significant
fact that they had not as yet been favoured with the opinions
of any of the gentlemen on the front Opposition bench.
(Hear.) Outride the house, however, it was rumoured that
they were in complete accord with the Government. Well,
if that were so, it was not the first time, for whenever a
great abuse was to be perpetrated the front benches were
usually in agreement.
Lord H, LENNOX said he should vote for the proposi-
tion of the Government, because he believed if they did not
arrange the matter now they would continue, so far as re-
garded their art and scientific institutions, in a state of
chronic confusion and congestion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GREGORY opposed the vote, and in doing so com-
plained of the attack whichthe Chancellor of the Exchequer
had made on Mr. Mellott. It was true that Mr. Mellott
had written a work on earthquakes—(laughter)—but it was
as illiberal to decry his engineering ability on that ground
as it would be to object to the right hon. gentleman's finan-
cial ability because he had written a book on theology—
(laughter)—or published profound theories about Homer.
(Hear, and laughter ) He believed that the spirit of stucco
was one of the characteristic credos of the Kensington
School, and if they were to assent to the proposal of Govern-
ment they would bo inaugurating a reign of stucco.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said the discussion had gone
beyond the limits of a business-like debate, owing to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer having been the first to depart
from the question at issue. He charged the Government
with not having brought forward a clear, distinct, and defi-
nite proposition in reference to this matter ; and after re-
ferring to the defeat of the Government proposition last
year for the re-arrangement of the British Museum, he
condemned the course pursued by the Government this
session in dividing the vote, which prevented the subject
from being then properly sifted, or discussed in such a
manner as its importance demanded. Great fault was also
to be found with the Government for withholding from the
knowledge of the House the fact that, though they
bad purchased the land, they were at the mercy
of the contractors when they would give it up to
the country ; and the want of information on what was to
be the future proceedings of the Government rendered it
impossible for hon. members to come to a satisfactory divi-
sion on the matter. He observed that the opposition to the
vote was based on different objections, and some of those
who did se did it, not on the grounds of true economy, but
on the ground of beauty and ornamentation, which in
reality meant greater expense, rather than not being in ac-
cordance with national taste. (Hear, hear, and No, no.)
He cautioned true economists how they allied themselves
on this occasion with those who would lead them in future
years into great and extravagant expense. (Hear, hear.)
A great injustice had been done to Captain Fowke by the
noble lord (Elcho) in comparing the stuccoing of the
building to the painting by Mdme. Rachel, and
thereby impute to him what he disclaimed—viz.,
that he was an advocate for stucco. (Cricea of Divide,
divide.) He would not weary the house much longer, but
his object was to move an amendment—(cries of Move,
move)—but it was necessary to give some explanation before
doing so. (Cries of Oh, oh, Divide, and Move.) The site

progress.
Mr. D I SRAE LI said—Mr. Massey, I desired, with hu •
mility, to offer the house advice, because I thought they
were pursuing a course which they would afterwards
regret. I was not present on a previous occasion, and
therefore I was not responsible for the course which the
house then adopted, and for the precipitation with which it
may have acted. What I wish to point out to the committee
at this moment is the remarkable position in which they
may unwittingly place themselves, The Government have
brought forward a motion of considerable importance ; no
member on this bench has spoken, though we have been
challenged to do so; the hon. member for Stamford was
explaining his views, and was about to offer an amendment
of considerable moment—he was about to propose that the
question should be sent before a select committee, before
which the question might be fully discussed. (Cries of
"No, no," and " Divide, divide.")
After a few words from Sir H. WILLOUGHBY, which
were wholly inaudible in the gallery,
Mr. DIsRAELI said he did not intend to give the
amendment of his right hon. friend accurately. It was,
however, in perfect unison with the forms of the house.
Sir R. CLIFTON said sufficient time had been devoted
to the discussion, and suggested that the committee should
at once come to a conclusion on the vote.
The motion to report progress was then negatived with-
out a division.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said the amendment he now wished
to propose was that the vote be reduced by the sum of
£25,000. That would give an opportunity for a select com-
mittee to decide on the question of the site:
Mr. HENLEY objected to both the proposition of the
Government and the amendment, as both pledged the
house to an indefinite expenditure to which he could see
neither limit nor end. By rejecting both it would give
time to the Government to consider the whole question
maturely, and bring forward well-digested plans and esti-
mates for the employment of all the land. At present
it had been put before the house in so unsatisfactory a man-
lier, that they were not in a position to come to a fair judg-
ment. The hon. member complained, too, that the Gtvern-
ment had appeared to have practised some concealment on
the house in regard to purchasing the land.
Sir S. M. PEI 0 next, amid loud cries of "Divide," ad-
dressed a few words to the committee, which did not reach
the gallery.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then rose
to say a few words in reply. He first suggested, as a matter
of general convenience, that the amendment should be with-
drawn, and then proceeded to deny that any concealment
had been practised in regard to the purchase of she land
He had himself stated that it was not likt•ly that possession
of the land would be obtained in less than two years. What
he said was that, even with a contract, it would be v• ry
difficult to get possession of the land in 1861. He never
meant to say that Messrs. Kelk and Lucas would make a
vexatious exercise of their power; what he said was that,
like men of business, those gentlemen would simply endea-
vour to obtain the best market for their materials. The
right hon. gentleman opposite said the Government had no
proposal of a clear and distinct character to offer. He main-
tained, however, that their proposal was perfectly plain and
distinct. They proposed to deal with four and a half acres
of this land, and to apply the money asked for to that
land, reserving all question as so the remaining 121
acres for future consideration. That would invi lve no pledge
whatever, and if it was determined that the building on the
121 acres should be removed, it could be removed, and a
considerable sum would be received for the value of the
land.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE then announced that he with-
drew his amendment, reserving to himself, however, power
to renew it at a future stage in case the vote were now
carried.
The committee then divided, and when, after the usual
interval, the tellers approached the table, and the assist-
ant clerk was seen to hand the paper on which the num-
bers were inscribed to Lord Elcho, who, with Mr. Gre-
gory, acted as teller for the opponents of the vote, there
was a general burst of cheering, which was renewed with
redoubled vigour when the result was proclaimed as follows:
Ayes
Noes
Majority against the vote .. —166
The house then resumed.
ELECTION PETITIONS BILL.
On the order for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. HODGSON moved that the bill be committed that
day six months ; and after a long discussion the amend-
ment was accepted without a division, and so the bill was
lost.
The amendments to the Vaccination (Scotland) Bill
were considered and agreed to.
The Lords' Amendments to the Salmon Fisheries (Scot-
land) Act Continuance Bill were considered and agreed to.
The Public Works and Fisheries Acts Amendment Bill
was read a second time.
The Poor Law Board Continuance Bill and the Loan
Societies Bill were read a third time and passed.
The Militia Ballots Suspension Bill passed through corn-

mittee.
The Lords' amendments to the Security from Violence
Bill were considered and agreed to.
The Stipendiary Magistrates Bill, as amended, was con-
sidered
REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
Colonel FRENCH called attention to the report of the
Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms committee, and moved
that the enlargement of the dining rooms should be carried
into effect.
Mr. AYRTON moved that the debate be adjourned.
The house divided. The numbers were—

Ayes
Noes
Majority
The debate was then adiaitned.
WESTMINSTER NEW PALACE APPROACHES.
On Mr. Tite's proceeding to nominate the select com-
mittee on this subject,
An HoN. MEMBER moved that the house be counted,
and there not being forty merub-rs present, the house ad
journed at ten minutes to two o'clock,